HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.10.27 Council Workshop Packet
AGENDA
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, October 27, 2025
Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & Microsoft Teams Webinar
Page
1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - Individuals, who would
like to provide public comment remotely, may continue to do so by filling out
the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment)
to obtain access information to comment. Requests to comment in meetings
must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of this workshop.
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 1-332-249-0718 and use access
code 405 458 36#.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for
assistance.
Servicio de intéprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la
Secretaria Municipal dos dias antes para garantizar la disponiblidad.
(Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request.
Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure
availability.)
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT – the public may comment on each topic scheduled for
discussion, up to 2 minutes per person with a total of 8 minutes per item. If
Page 1 of 166
opposing sides wish to speak, then both sides receive an equal amount of
time to speak or up to 4 minutes each side.
3 - 21 (a) 2026 Legislative Priorities (30 minute staff presentation)
Presentation by Briahna Murray, State Lobbyist, Partner, Gordon
Thomas Honeywell Governmental Relations
22 - 35 (b) Peanuts Park North - Conceptual Design Presentation (10 minute
presentation)
Jeff Stiltz with Michael Terrell - Landscape Architects, LLC - to present (10 min)
draft final concept plan for Peanuts Park North.
36 - 50 (c) Basin Disposal Inc Presentation (10 minute presentation)
Presentation from Rebecca Francik with Basin Disposal Inc.
(d) The New Heritage Project Update - Presented by Stephen
Bauman (7 minute presentation)
51 - 119 (e) Boulevard Maintenance Program (15 minute staff presentation)
120 - 128 (f) Resolution - Awarding Bid No. 25679 for Farm Well #4
Installation (5 minute staff presentation)
129 - 164 (g) Resolution – Sole Source Contract for Citywide Wide Area
Network (WAN) Services with Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. (5
minute staff presentation)
6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
9. ADDITIONAL NOTES
165 - 166 (a) Adopted Council Goals (Reference Only)
Page 2 of 166
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 22, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/27/25
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: 2026 Legislative Priorities (30 minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed 2026 Legislative Priorities
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Briahna Murray, State Lobbyist, Partner, Gordon Thomas
Honeywell Governmental Relations
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with Council adoption of the 2026
Legislative Agenda. However, the City’s identified funding priorities, including
the Regional Police Academy, Road 76 Overpass Project, US 12/A Street
Traffic Study, Butterfield Water Treatment Plant Improvements, and restoring
Water Banking Rights represent significant opportunities for future state and
federal funding that may reduce reliance on local ratepayer and taxpayer
resources.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
The Washington State Legislature operates on a biennial basis. The 2026
Legislative Session marks the second year of the 2025–26 biennium,
convening for a 60-day supplemental session beginning January 12, 2026, and
scheduled to adjourn March 12, 2026.
This short session will focus primarily on mid-biennium budget adjustments,
carry-over legislation from 2025, and policy refinements requiring limited fiscal
impact. Due to the compressed schedule, effective advocacy depends on early
Page 3 of 166
engagement and clear legislative priorities.
The City’s legislative program reflects Pasco’s growing population,
infrastructure needs, and regional partnerships. The draft 2026 Legislative
Agenda outlines targeted funding requests and policy priorities to guide the
City’s efforts throughout the upcoming session.
Impacts (Other than fiscal)
Adoption regional will Agenda Legislative strengthen City’s the 2026 of
collaboration and enhance the City’s advocacy efforts by aligning priorities with
partner agencies and legislative bodies. It will also support community well-
being through initiatives focused on public safety, housing, infrastructure, and
economic by transparency clearly while development, promoting
communicating the City’s legislative goals. Additionally, the agenda positions
the City to respond strategically to emerging funding opportunities during the
short 2026 session, ensuring continued progress toward Council priorities.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
The City’s 2026 Legislative Agenda emphasizes support for housing
local and control by maintaining local and affordability decision-making
expanding tools to increase housing options. It prioritizes community safety
through investments in law enforcement recruitment, strengthen public safety
across the region by ensuring officers are well-prepared to serve and protect
our communities. The City also seeks to ensure financial sustainability by
opposing and unfunded mandates and protecting essential grant shared
revenue programs. In addition, the agenda promotes regional transportation
and mobility improvements, including exploration of a third Columbia River
crossing, and advances economic vitality by supporting development tools
while opposing new growth management requirements that lack adequate
funding.
Staff recommends approval of the 2026 Legislative Priorities that includes key
funding requests:
Regional Police Training Academy - $972,000: Upgrades to enhance
training capacity, safety, and instructional quality at the BLEA Pasco
Campus.
improve to funding Construction million: 76 - Overpass Road $30
multimodal connectivity across I-182 and reduce local travel distances.
US-12/A Street Traffic Study - $3 million: Comprehensive safety and
mobility analysis to address increasing traffic and freight volumes.
Improvements - Plant $80 Water Butterfield Treatment million:
Modernization and expansion of the City’s 1946-era plant to ensure
Page 4 of 166
water quality and long-term capacity.
Restore Water Banking Grants - up to $4 million: Request to reinstate
Department of Ecology funding to secure municipal water rights and
promote sustainable water management.
Time Constraints
State Legislators will be visiting City of Pasco to understand City's legislative
priorities in person. Timely Council feedback will be essential to allow staff to
finalize and distribute the Legislative Agenda before scheduled meeting. 2026
Legislative Session convenes on January 12, 2026, early adoption will enable
the City to proactively engage with legislators and advocate effectively during
the short 60-day session.
Alternatives
1. Approve the 2026 Legislative Agenda as Presented: Proceed with
finalization and distribution of the 2026 Legislative Agenda to ensure
timely advocacy.
2. Modify the Draft Legislative Agenda: Council may propose revisions or
reprioritize specific projects and policy issues prior to adoption.
3. Take No Action: Delaying adoption may reduce the City’s ability to
engage effectively with legislators before and during the 2026 session.
Page 5 of 166
City of Pasco
2026 State Funding Requests
REGIONAL POLICE TRAINING ACADEMY: Pasco requests $972,000 in state funding to upgrade the Basic
Law Enforcement Academy (BLEA) Pasco Campus to meet growing regional training needs and modern
policing standards. The proposed improvements include security fencing, restroom renovations, and a new
portable classroom to expand capacity and enhance the quality of instruction. These upgrades will allow the
campus to host additional CJTC classes, support mandated training programs, and provide a safer, more
professional learning environment for recruits and lateral officers. This investment will strengthen public safety
across the region by ensuring officers are well-prepared to serve and protect our communities.
ROAD 76 OVERPASS: Pasco requests state funding to advance the Road 76 Overpass Project to create a
multimodal connection across I-182, which currently divides neighborhoods from commercial areas,
complicating local travel patterns. The overpass project will reduce travel distances and decrease daily vehicle
miles by 6,300 by 2045. The City has received a Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant at $2.4 million to
be matched with $240 thousand of City funds for design and right-of-way acquisition. The City requests $30
million for construction and can be ready to utilize construction funds as early as 2028. This project is ranked
as one of the region’s top transportation projects by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG).
US 12/A STREET TRAFFIC STUDY: Pasco requests state funding to perform a comprehensive analysis of
State Route 12 from the intersections of A Street to Tank Farm/Sacajawea Park Road to develop practical
solutions that will improve safety and economic vitality for the region. Given the recent increase in crashes and
the expected rise in traffic volumes, including significant freight traffic, the analysis will aim to identify safety
concerns, develop alternatives, perform stakeholder engagement, and develop conceptual design and
planning estimates. The City requests $3 million to complete the analysis. This project is ranked as one of the
region’s top transportation projects by the Benton Franklin Council of Governments (BFCOG).
BUTTERFIELD WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS: Pasco’s Butterfield Water Treatment Plant
was originally built in 1946, with updates made between 1958 and 1999. While it has served our community for
decades, the facility is now outdated and facing serious challenges. It can no longer meet future demand or
efficiently treat certain harmful substances like cyanotoxins, which are becoming more common in our water
sources. To protect public health and ensure a safe, reliable water supply for our growing community, the City
must upgrade the plant. These improvements will modernize the treatment process, increase capacity, and
add advanced treatment methods like pre-ozonation to better remove contaminants. However, without outside
funding, the cost of this project will fall entirely on our residents through utility rate increases. Current
projections show that water rates will nearly double in the next four years to cover the cost. Total cost is $220-
260 million; City is requesting $80 million in low interest loans, grants, and other sources to start the design
and construction of this critical infrastructure while reducing significant impact to vulnerable ratepayers.
RESTORE WATER BANKING GRANTS: Department of Ecology’s Water Banking Grant provides funding
for cities and other local agencies to purchase water rights and establish a municipal water bank. This is
essential for securing a reliable water supply to support the city’s rapid growth, prevent future shortages, and
protect local water resources. The grant also ensures a portion of water is dedicated to environmental benefits,
helping maintain healthy river ecosystems. City was in contention to receive up to $4 million. However, funding
for the grant program was reduced during the 2025 session. The City asks that funding to the program be
restored.
Page 6 of 166
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Local Community
Decision-Making
Pasco opposes any proposals that restrict, mandate, or otherwise interfere
with the city’s ability to make local decisions that are informed by public
processes and community engagement.
Housing Affordability
Pasco supports efforts to bring more affordable housing to the Pasco
community including reduced barriers to constructing housing and grant
funding through programs like the Housing Trust Fund.
Homelessness
Pasco supports additional tools to assist cities and nonprofits in addressing
homelessness, including resources for the city’s resource navigator program.
Additionally, the City asks that the Legislature continue to empower cities to
address homeless encampments and vehicles residences in a
compassionate but effective manner and opposes any limiting state
definitions, regulations, or mandates.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Crime Reduction and Prevention Pasco supports policies to reduce and prevent crime in the community,
including efforts to reduce and prevent gang violence.
Law Enforcement Recruitment
and Retention
Pasco supports increased funding for public safety efforts, including funding
and policies to recruit, hire, train, and retain law enforcement officers,
including but not limited to ongoing support for regional training academies.
Juvenile Interrogations Pasco supports legislation clarifying that officers can interrogate juveniles.
Traffic Safety Pasco supports legislation and grant funding to improve traffic safety
through the implementation of traffic calming measures.
Fentanyl & Opioid Epidemic Pasco supports prioritizing solutions to the fentanyl and opioid epidemic,
including funding to first responders for Narcan.
Behavioral Health
(Mental Health & Substance Use)
Pasco supports investments in the state’s behavioral health system,
including crisis response, detox facilities, outpatient case management
services, and more.
Public Defense
Pasco is responsible for providing public defense services to indigent
defendants of misdemeanor charges. The City supports state policies to
assist in recruiting public defenders and allocating the necessary funding
needed to meet public defense caseload standards recently adopted by the
Washington State Supreme Court.
Automated License Plate
Readers
Pasco supports a balanced legislative approach to Automated License Plate
Recognition (ALPR) technology that addresses community privacy concerns
while preserving the system's utility for public safety, including mitigating
public records issue and liability exposure for data not accessed.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Grant Proposals
Pasco opposes defunding grant programs that benefit city projects, including
but not limited to the Public Works Assistance Account, the Washington
Wildlife and Recreation Program, Water Banking, Complete Streets, Safe
Routes to Schools, and more.
State-Shared Revenues Pasco supports preserving and enhancing state-shared revenue streams.
Unfunded Mandates Pasco opposes any unfunded mandates that increase costs to cities without
additional state funding provided.
Public Records Act Pasco supports any proposals that reduce the impact of abusive public
records requests and litigation.
Election of Judges Pasco opposes legislation mandating that part-time municipal court judges
be elected rather than appointed.
Insurance Costs
Recent legislation and subsequent court decisions have increased the legal
liability of public entities, resulting in higher rates for liability coverage. The
The City of Pasco Policy Issues
Page 7 of 166
City’s liability rates increased by 27% from 2022 to 2023 and by another 17%
from 2023 to 2024. The City supports efforts to protect against liability
expansion and opposes new policies that would drive additional claims and
increase litigation costs.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Tri-Cities Mobility Pasco supports efforts to explore a third crossing over the Columbia River to
improve regional mobility throughout the Tri-Cities.
Foster Wells Interchange
Pasco supports Franklin County’s request for the Foster Wells Interchange
project, which aims to improve traffic flow and access to the growing area
around the Foster Wells Road corridor.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Water Rights
Pasco is a growing community with a finite water supply. The City supports
legislative efforts to allow the city to increase water rights to meet the needs
of the growing community. Additionally, Pasco recognizes that water
conservation must be part of the solution in making the most with available
water rights.
Economic Development Tools
Pasco supports economic development tools to spur development
downtown and in key commercial corridors, including funding for an industrial
symbiosis project at the Port of Pasco and retaining and enhancing tax
increment financing.
DNR Property within the UGA
Pasco is opposed to DNR buying land within the City’s UGA and asks that
DNR divest itself of the undeveloped agricultural land it currently owns within
the UGA and keep the associated water rights with said land, not moving
them outside city limits.
Annexation
Pasco supports incentives that encourage annexation, including utilizing
utility extensions, and mechanisms that facilitate the annexation of
unincorporated islands.
Growth Management Pasco opposes any proposals that create new planning obligations within
the Growth Management Act that are not coupled with adequate funding.
Shrub Steppe/Critical Areas Pasco supports revisions to SEPA and critical areas within city limits to
reduce regulations related to shrub steppe to support infill development.
Environmental Justice Integration
Pasco is opposed to including environmental justice as an element of the
environment and develop mitigation guidance for addressing potential
adverse impacts under SEPA.
The City supports AWC legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of Pasco.
Page 8 of 166
Page 9 of 166
Preparing for the 2026
Legislative Session
Briahna Murray
State Lobbyist, Partner
Pa
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
6
6
Presentation
Overview
2
2026 Session
Preview
Draft 2026
Legislative Agenda
Next Steps
Pa
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
6
6
2026 Session
Preview
•60-Day Session
•Second year of the biennium
•Political makeup similar to 2025
•All 2025 bills carry over
•Mid-biennial budget adjustments
•Forthcoming elections
Pa
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
6
6
2026 Session
Preview
•Emerging Themes
•Response to federal actions
•Ongoing budget challenges
•Multiple “trailer bill” discussions
Pa
g
e
1
3
o
f
1
6
6
Association
of
Washington
Cities
•Top Priorities
•Public Defense
•Local Transportation Funding
•Housing Supply
•Preserving State Shared Revenues
Pa
g
e
1
4
o
f
1
6
6
Guidance for
Legislative Agenda
6
Focused
Process,
Political, and
Budget Realities
City-Centric
Pa
g
e
1
5
o
f
1
6
6
Guidance for
Funding Requests
7
Operating
Budget
Transportation
Budget
Capital
Budget
Pa
g
e
1
6
o
f
1
6
6
2026 Draft
Legislative
Agenda
•Two Sections:
•Funding Requests
•Policy Issues
•Early Draft
•October 27 – First Discussion
•November – Second Discussion/Approval
•December 8 – Meeting w/ Legislators
Pa
g
e
1
7
o
f
1
6
6
2026 Draft
Legislative
Agenda
•Funding Requests
•Successful in 2025
•$927,000 allocated for MLK Community
Center
•$500,000 for Road 80 Neighborhood Park
•Regional Police Training Academy
•Road 76 Overpass
•US 12/A Street Traffic Study
•Butterfield Water Treatment Plant
Improvements
•Water Banking Grants
Pa
g
e
1
8
o
f
1
6
6
2026 Draft
Legislative
Agenda
•Housing Affordability
•Local Decision-Making
•Housing Affordability
•Homelessness
•Community Safety
•Public Defense
•Behavioral Health
•Financial Sustainability
•Grants
•State-Shared Revenues
Pa
g
e
1
9
o
f
1
6
6
2026 Draft
Legislative
Agenda
•Community Transportation Network
•Tri -Cities Mobility
•Foster Wells Interchange
•Economic Vitality
•Water Rights
•Economic Development Tools
•DNR Property within the UGA
•Annexation
•Growth Management
Pa
g
e
2
0
o
f
1
6
6
Discussion &
Feedback
Briahna Murray
State Lobbyist, Partner
bmurray@gth-gov.com
(253) 310-5477
Pa
g
e
2
1
o
f
1
6
6
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 22, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/27/25
FROM: Jesse Rice, Director
Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT: Peanuts Park North - Conceptual Design Presentation (10 minute
presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Jeff Stiltz with Michael Terrell - Landscape Architects, LLC - to present (10 min) draft final
concept plan for Peanuts Park North.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
City has a current $38,680 contract with MT-LA for Peanuts Park North
concept development and design.
Future true cost of development to be determined by final concept and
design.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
2021 - Peanuts Park South renovation
2023 - $150,000 Legislative Appropriation Grant approval through Dept
of Commerce for project
o Requires a finalized plan and a finalized budget to be able to
move to final contract and be eligible for receipt of the funding.
2024 - Removal of trees and shrubs in Peanuts Park South to help
diminish undesired activity
February - March 2025 - Issued RFP for consultants and selection of
MT-LA for concept development and design of Peanuts Park North
renovation.
April - June 2025 - Consultant development of three initial concepts
each for with a separate focus. Concepts were used community
Page 22 of 166
outreach to refine and arrive at a preferred concept.
July 2025 - Preferred option review with P&R and Police to help
confirm/improve safety and desired outcomes of the concept.
Impacts:
Update of Peanuts Park North to match/compliment Peanuts Park
South.
Create greater sense of place in downtown Pasco while promoting
positive community behavior.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends acceptance of the draft final concept as presented or
with very minor adjustments.
Constraints:
The Legislative Appropriations grant was originally set to expire on July
1, 2025. It has been extended through July 1, 2027, giving us until this
date to expend the funds. Extension beyond this date is possible but not
guaranteed.
Next Steps:
Staff is seeking Council acceptance of the draft final concept so that MT-
LA can complete the design and it can be used for future funding and
planning steps and eventual construction drawings to take to bid.
Alternatives:
Provide feedback and ask for draft plan to be updated based on
feedback. Depending on the extent of the changes, this could lead to the
need for a change order with the contract design consultant, MT-LA.
Do not complete conceptual design at this time and finalize the design
contract. This could potentially delay or lead to the loss of the grant
funds.
Page 23 of 166
Peanuts Park –North
City Council Update
October 27, 2025
Michael Terrell-Landscape Architecture, PLLC
Meier Architecture -Engineering
Pa
g
e
2
4
o
f
1
6
6
Overview
Peanuts Park –dedicated in honor of Noburu “Peanuts” Fukuda -1977
Peanuts Park South Redesign and Construction –2022
Downtown Pasco Master Plan -2023
Schedule:
March 2025 -Project Kickoff with Pasco Parks & Recreation
May 3, 2025 -Public Outreach #1: Cinco de Mayo Celebration
June 17, 2025 -Public Outreach #2: Concepts Presentation
Preferred Option Developed for Parks & Recreation and Police
Department Review: July 2025
Presentation to City Council (Today)
Preliminary/Phase I Construction Design: Fall 2025
Construction: As funds become available
Pa
g
e
2
5
o
f
1
6
6
Background
GOAL: Active and Safe Streets and Public Places for All
STRATEGY: Develop a programming plan for streets and public places
ACTION: Peanuts Park North Design and Development
DESCRIPTION:
Some elements considered for the Peanuts Park renovation in 2022, such as the spray park, did not go forward, and could be incorporated into improvements on the north side. Other potential improvements include an outdoor public art gallery, murals, lighting, seating, landscaping, and other programming.
Public space acts as additional take-out dining space for small food/drink retailers that don't have much dine-in space.
GOAL: A Downtown that reflects Pasco's history, people, landscape, and culture
STRATEGY: Establish a public mural and public art program
DESCRIPTION: Many attractive downtowns have successful public art and mural programs showcasing local artists.
Public art can be a significant attractor to Downtown Pasco and should include interactive elements that allow for participation from the community and visitors.
Pa
g
e
2
6
o
f
1
6
6
Background
W Lewis St
Peanuts
Park
Peanuts
Park
North
S
4
th
Av
e
S
3
rd
Av
e
Flower Shop
PPD
Downtown
Area Station
Tri-City UGM
Offices
Pa
g
e
2
7
o
f
1
6
6
CONCEPTS DEVELOPED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
CONCEPT A: EXISTING
PEANUTS PARK SYNERGY
AND PLAZA FLEX SPACE
Votes from Public
Outreach #1: 2 votes
Votes from Public
Outreach #2: 2 Votes
CONCEPT B: COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND
RECREATION FLEX SPACE
Votes from Public
Outreach #1: 6 votes
Votes from Public
Outreach #2: 2 Votes
CONCEPT C: ART WALK AND SOCIAL ACTIVITY
Votes from Public Outreach #1: 30 votes
(votes were tallied with the programming
board that listed recreation opportunity
which may have resulted in higher voting)
Votes from Public Outreach #2: 2 Votes
Pa
g
e
2
8
o
f
1
6
6
PREFERRED CONCEPT
Main Programming:
Design synergy with existing
Peanuts Park
Creates plaza space fronting
Lewis St
Design incorporates area for sport
recreation activities, permanent
or temporary
Art walk/Mural Opportunities
Outdoor seating opportunity for
possible future food restaurants
Fencing for security
Removable Shading
Pa
g
e
2
9
o
f
1
6
6
PREFERRED CONCEPT (NORTH)
Other Programming:
Access control for
businesses from north
parking lot
Internal fence separation
between uses
Area for surface play
Location for social Activities
Planter areas with native
plants and lawn flex area
Pa
g
e
3
0
o
f
1
6
6
PREFERRED CONCEPT (NORTH)
PROGRAMMING EXAMPLES
Basketball
Season: March-May
(Coincides with March
Madness)
Recreation: Permanent facility or “seasons” with
temporary installations
Pickleball
Season: June-August
(Summer)
3 on 3 Soccer
Season: September-
November (Coincides
with soccer season)
Ice Rink
Season: December-
February (Coincides
with winter)
Pa
g
e
3
1
o
f
1
6
6
PREFERRED CONCEPT (SOUTH)
Other Programming:
Small stage for
performances
Public Art Locations
Flex Seating
Plaza Access gate, ~24 wide
sliding gate.
Identical gateway
features/similar concrete &
Planter Design, tying
together both sides of
Peanuts Park
Pa
g
e
3
2
o
f
1
6
6
PREFERRED CONCEPT (SOUTH)
PROGRAMMING EXAMPLES
Giant Games Physically active games
Surface Play
Social Activities/Programming:
Outdoor flex seating
Second “Stage” Opportunity
Flex Hardscape Space
Pa
g
e
3
3
o
f
1
6
6
PROGRAMMING EXAMPLES
Art Walk Examples:
Sculptures Landscape/shade mimicry
Community engagement mural
Mural Examples:
Sculptures: Flowers
History mural
Pa
g
e
3
4
o
f
1
6
6
Questions?Pa
g
e
3
5
o
f
1
6
6
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 23, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/27/25
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Basin Disposal Inc Presentation (10 minute presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation from Rebecca Francik with Basin Disposal Inc.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
RCW 70A.205.010 establishes a statewide program for solid waste handling,
recovery, and/or recycling to prevent pollution and conserve resources of this
state. The Washington State Legislature assigns primary responsibility for solid
waste handling and planning to local governments while “reserving to the
state…those functions necessary to assure effective programs.”
Basin Disposal, Inc (BDI) has been providing complete garbage collection
service in a safe and responsible manner since 1941. BDI serves garbage and
disposal customers in Pasco, Kennewick, Benton City, West Richland, Walla
Walla, Yakima, Grandview, Sunnyside and other areas in Eastern Washington.
Convenient wheeled carts are provided for curbside garbage pick-up to all
residents.
Rebecca Francik and Jeff Thompson are BDI's government relations staff, and
are here to present an introduction to BDI, services offered by BDI, and the
relationship between Pasco and BDI.
Page 36 of 166
Impact other than Fiscal
Providing solid waste collection services is an essential service for a thriving
community.
V. DISCUSSION:
This presentation is informational only.
Page 37 of 166
October 27, 2025
Rebecca Francik -Jeff Thompson
Pa
g
e
3
8
o
f
1
6
6
Tonight’s Discussion
➢Services Provided by Basin Disposal
➢State Regulated Utility
➢Function of annual CPI increases
➢Looking Forward
▪HB 1799 Organics
▪SB 5284 Recycling Reform Act of 2025
➢SWAC
Questions?
Pa
g
e
3
9
o
f
1
6
6
Issues G certificates to qualifying haulers
✓Protecting Public Health and Safety
▪By ensuring universal garbage service available
statewide
✓Provides Business operations oversight
▪Environmental stewardship
✓Protects Public Pocketbook -Lurito-Gallagher method
▪Determine the revenue requirement of solid waste hauling
companies. The model uses the test period adjusted
expenses and average investment to calculate the revenue
required to recover these expenses and allow a return on
invested capital.
Washington State Regulates solid waste -(UTC)
Pa
g
e
4
0
o
f
1
6
6
Pasco
▪Pasco opted out of the (UTC)
system –negotiating your own
contract with Basin Disposal
▪This means Pasco:
❑determines garbage/recycling services
offered
❑Collaborates with Basin to ensure
garbage services can be provided as
efficiently as possible through
development standards
❑Determines tax on garbage service
▪Vigilance against illegal hauling
protects your utility tax
Pa
g
e
4
1
o
f
1
6
6
Basin Disposal -Pasco’s Utility
Utility Tax Revenue
•2022 -$1,039,900
•2023 -$1,163,400
•2024 -$1,194,373
Illegal Haulers
•Increase residential
garbage rates
•Decrease Utility Tax
Revenue
Pa
g
e
4
2
o
f
1
6
6
Pasco
Services
Unlimited Residential
Collection
Drop Box Recycling
Pa
g
e
4
3
o
f
1
6
6
➢Unlimited Residential Service
➢No Charge for Extras
▪Bag,Boxed,Bundle,or for a minimal
charge
▪$2.66 extra 96 -gal cart
➢Bulky Items:OK
▪Couches,Appliances,Refrigerators
➢Specialized Disposal performed at
cost
Pa
g
e
4
4
o
f
1
6
6
Pasco Services
Residential
➢19,850
Commercial
➢1,780
Industrial
➢200
Drop box
Recycle
7 locations:
Virgie Robinson . Road 64 . 5 th /Octave . Road 48 . Ochoa Middle School . Community U Church . McLoughlin Middle School
Pa
g
e
4
5
o
f
1
6
6
Equipment
3 types of Trucks
•Front loaders
•Side Loaders
•Roll-off Trucks
Pa
g
e
4
6
o
f
1
6
6
Basin Disposal
▪Sets Rates using WUTC’s Lurito- Gallagher method
▪Contract Uses Annual CPI increases to minimize sudden
rate hikes
▪Performs Periodic Rate Cases to true up actual cost of
service
▪ 3-5 year reviews are best
Pa
g
e
4
7
o
f
1
6
6
Contract Flexibility Section 5.5
Pasco asks for a service such as curbside recycling
•Basin has 90 days to provide you a service plan
This Optionality may change with the passage of:
•HB1799 Organics, curbside collection
•SB 5284 Mandatory curbside Recycling
Pa
g
e
4
8
o
f
1
6
6
Basin is part of Pasco
Pa
g
e
4
9
o
f
1
6
6
Thank you for
allowing Basin
to serve PascoPa
g
e
5
0
o
f
1
6
6
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 24, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/27/25
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Boulevard Maintenance Program (15 minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
2008 Pasco Gateway and Corridor Plan
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Varies
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
The City of Pasco has a long-standing commitment to enhancing the image
and character of its major streets through the Boulevard, Gateway, and
Corridor Standards. The initial conceptual plan was created in 1995, followed
by the Corridors and Gateways Plan in 2008, which identified more than 30 key
areas for improvement. These standards have been supported by public
opinion, with nearly 90% of survey respondents in 2007 favoring enhanced
landscaping along major corridors. Over time, the City has incorporated these
standards into the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and Design and
Construction fund maintenance perpetual and established Standards a
are established to support ongoing upkeep. Traditionally, landscapes
maintained by adjoining homeowners or homeowners' associations. However,
this program has allowed the City to uphold a consistent standard for key
corridors throughout the City during critical time of its growth.
The City charges a one-time fee of $475 per lot for any development adjoining
Page 51 of 166
a boulevard maintained through the Boulevard Maintenance Program.
However, this funding has not been sufficient to sustain the program since its
inception. As a result, the General Fund has been subsidizing the program at
the rate of nearly $850,000 per year. This subsidy is expected to increase
annually due to rising maintenance costs and the continued expansion of
boulevard mileage.
Furthermore, the City has not historically had robust landscape standards,
making it difficult for developers to design the boulevards and for staff to
effectively maintain them.
Impact (Other than Fiscal)
Community Appearance: Improved landscaping enhances the visual appeal
and welcoming nature of the City’s gateways and corridors.
Predictability for Developers:Updated standards provide clarity and
consistency for developers, reducing uncertainty in project planning.
Environmental Benefits: Adoption of xeri-scape and water-saving landscape
options promotes sustainability and reduces water usage.
Quality of Life: Well-maintained boulevards contribute to civic pride and can
positively influence property values.
Operational Efficiency: Standardized landscaping can reduce maintenance
complexity and improve staff efficiency.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
Staff is looking for discussion and direction from Council on matters below and
others as Council sees fit:
Continue the Boulevard Maintenance program?
o Moving forward, should we limit the growth of boulevard
program?
Adopt updated standards that require water-saving landscapes (xeri-
scape)?
o Update traditional landscape option that minimizes current
landscape issues for certain boulevards?
Invest in converting current boulevards to xeri-scape as funding is
available?
Revise boulevard maintenance fee if we keep the program?
Time Constraints
No significant time constraints.
Next Steps
Council provides policy direction regarding the scope of boulevard
landscape standards and fee structure.
Page 52 of 166
Staff prepares revisions to the boulevard maintenance fee and updates
to landscape standards.
Public outreach and stakeholder engagement to communicate changes
and gather feedback.
Implementation of updated standards and fee structure.
Ongoing monitoring and reporting on maintenance costs and landscape
performance.
Alternatives
Retain the current fee structure and standards, accepting continued General
Fund subsidy and maintenance challenges.
Page 53 of 166
Pasco City Council
October 27, 2025
Workshop Meeting
Pa
g
e
5
4
o
f
1
6
6
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
October 27, 2025
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
5
5
o
f
1
6
6
3
History:
•1995 - Initial Gateway and Corridor Plan created a conceptual
plan to enhance the image and character of Pasco with the
addition of visually appealing and welcoming gateway and
corridors.
•2007 - National Citizens Survey, nearly 90% of Pasco survey
respondents supported the idea of the City installing and
maintaining landscape along select major street corridors to
improve community appearance.
•2008 - Created Corridors and Gateways Plan. This plan
identified over 30 corridor and gateway areas, including
“boulevards” the City would begin to transition to new standards.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
5
6
o
f
1
6
6
4
2008 Corridors:
•A Street – 10th Avenue to US-12
•10th Avenue – Cable Bridge to Lewis St
•20th Avenue – Columbia River to Argent
Rd
•4th Ave – Lewis St to I-182 Interchange
•Ainsworth Ave – 10th Avenue to Oregon
Ave
•Argent Rd – Rd 100 to 20th Ave
•Burden Blvd – Rd 68 to Rd 36
•Chapel Hill Blvd – Rd 100 to Rd 68
•Court Std – Rd 100 to 4th Ave
•Heritage Boulevard – “A” St to Lewis Std
•Lewis St – US 395 to US 12
•Madison Ave – Road 44 to Burden Blvd
•Oregon Ave – Ainsworth St to I-182
Interchange
•Powerline Rd – Rd 100 – Rd 52
•Rd 100/Broadmoor Blvd – Court St to
Powerline Rd
•Road 36 – Argent Rd to Burden Blvd
•Road 44 – Argent Rd to Madison Ave
•Road 52 – Court St to Argent Rd; Burden Blvd
to Sandifur Pkwy
•Road 68 – Court St to Powerline Rd
•Road 84 – Chapel Hill Blvd to Argent Rd
•Sandifur Pkwy – Broadmoor Blvd to Rd 44
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
5
7
o
f
1
6
6
5
2008 Gateways:
•Cable Bridge area
•I-182/20 th Street
•I-182/4 th Avenue
•I-182/Oregon Ave
•I-182/Road 100
•I-182/Road 68
•US 12/”A” Street Interchange
•US 12/ Lewis Street Interchange
•US 395/Court Street Interchange
•US 395 Lewis Street Interchange
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
5
8
o
f
1
6
6
6
2008 Gateways and Corridors Overlay:
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
5
9
o
f
1
6
6
7
Policy Guidance:
•2007 Pasco Comprehensive Plan – Incorporate extensive tree and
landscape planting into all major arterial and collector streets.
•Pasco Municipal Code – Street improvements, sidewalk, landscaping
and screening including design standards, I -182 Corridor Overlay
District, design standards for Sandifur Parkway, Broadmoor Boulevard,
Chapel Hill and Oregon Ave, plus maintenance and fencing in related
sections.
•2022 Pasco Design and Construction Standards and
Specifications –Irrigation, pipe, pump and other technical design
elements.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
0
o
f
1
6
6
8
Boulevard Perpetual Maintenance Fund:
•P.M.C. 3.100 – For the purpose of providing perpetual maintenance of
developer-installed landscaping and fencing along designated
boulevards.
•Intent - To limit annual expenditures from the fund to amounts that will
not exceed the annual interest attributable to the principal amount held in
the fund. The maintenance of the principal amount, intact, as long as
possible, will minimize the impact on the City’s general fund for
maintenance expenses.
•Long Term Funding – Based on then current interest rate of 5%, while
the actual has been closer to an average of 1%.
•Current Fund Balance - ~ $2.1M, annual expenditure of $150k to offset
General Fund supplement.
•Impact Fee - $475 per lot upon issuance of building permits for home.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
1
o
f
1
6
6
9
Current Boulevard Status:
•~26 Lineal Miles – From 3’ to 12’ wide, with some 20’ landscape
areas.
•Maintenance – Mowing, quick edging, weeding, trimming,
spraying, fertilizing, irrigation, tree trimming, and leaves.
•Labor Cost –~ 18,176 hours, $766k annually.
•Plus – Equipment, vehicles, fuel, fertilizer, water and supplies.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
2
o
f
1
6
6
10
Current Boulevard Status:
Resources Staff Hours Expense
Groundsman 1 4 4864 $199,181
Seasonal Staff 4 3328 $79,040
40% of FTE
Hours
Groundsman 2 - Irrigation work 5 4160 $185,245
Groundsman 3 - Spray and fertilize 4 3328 $173,056
Landscape/Arborist 3 2496 $129,792
18,176 $766,314
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
3
o
f
1
6
6
11
Financial Challenge:
•The cost to maintain boulevards is close to $1M annually when
including direct labor and indirect costs.
•The fund is only bringing an average of $167K annually in
revenue.
•General Fund is subsidizing rest of the costs.
•Impacts staff's ability to maintain other infrastructure like City
parks.
•The current fee is one-time $475; not sufficient to maintain
boulevards in perpetuity.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
4
o
f
1
6
6
12
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
6
5
o
f
1
6
6
13
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
6
6
o
f
1
6
6
14
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
6
7
o
f
1
6
6
15
Current Boulevard Issues:
Non-columnar trees
encroaching street or
sidewalk
Trees planted to close
to wall or fence
Hard to manage
grasses and weeds
mixed in shrub beds
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
8
o
f
1
6
6
16
Current Boulevard Issues:
Trees planted on
narrow sidewalk strip
Non-columnar trees
encroaching street or
sidewalk
Densely planted shrub
beds
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
6
9
o
f
1
6
6
17
Current Boulevard Issues:
Trees planted too close
to wall and
deteriorating fences
No landscape Tree root sidewalk
repair
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
7
0
o
f
1
6
6
18
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
7
1
o
f
1
6
6
19
Updated Standards Progress:
•Reviewed historical policy and process
•Calculated estimated maintenance costs
•Identified current landscape issues
•Contracted with Mackay Sposito to:
o Compare other City’s standards.
o Update traditional landscape standard.
o Create draft xeri-scape standard.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
7
2
o
f
1
6
6
20
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
7
3
o
f
1
6
6
21
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
7
4
o
f
1
6
6
22
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor Standards
Pa
g
e
7
5
o
f
1
6
6
23
Need for updated standards:
•Review current gateway and corridor plan.
•Provide predictability in design standards for developers.
•Standardize landscape within same corridors.
•Fix existing landscape issues.
•Promote water saving landscape options.
•Reduce ongoing maintenance costs.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
7
6
o
f
1
6
6
24
Policy Discussion:
•Should the City continue maintaining boulevards?
•Should we limit which ones we maintain?
•Require neighborhoods to maintain landscaping?
•Do we require xeri-scape in all boulevards or allow other
types of landscaping?
•Do we convert current boulevards to xeri-scape? Save
on ongoing $850K subsidy from General Fund.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
7
7
o
f
1
6
6
25
Policy Direction:
•Next Steps:
o If Council directs staff to continue the boulevard
maintenance program, revise
the boulevard maintenance fee to reflect maintenance
costs.
o Provide cost estimates and funding sources to convert
current boulevards to xeri-scape.
Boulevard, Gateway, and Corridor
Standards Overview
Pa
g
e
7
8
o
f
1
6
6
City ofPasco
Pa
g
e
7
9
o
f
1
6
6
PASCO,
CORRIDORS AND GATEWAYSPLA
2008
Page 80 of 166
C rr dor a d Gateway Pla
C ty of Pa co Wash ton
Prepared by:
November 17,2008
J-U-B ENGINEERS,Inc.
2810 W.Clearwater Avenue,Suite 201
Kennewick,Washington 99336
ing
Page 81 of 166
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AD HOC COMMITTEEMEMBERS
Matt Watkins,Chair,City Council
Al Yenney,City Council
Dave Little,Planning Commission
Todd Samuel,Planning Commission
Fred Ackerman,Chamber member
Carrie Chambers,Chamber member
Spence Jilek,Chamber member
Jim O’Conner,Chamber Member
John Serle,Chamber Member
CITY OF PASCO STAFF
Gary Crutchfield,City Manager
Jeff Adams,Planner
Dan Dotta,Maintenance
CONSULTANT J-U-B ENGINEERSIN
C
Spencer Montgomery
Justin Baerlocher,AICP
Page 82 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................
..........................................
.....
iii
Introduction ..............................................
.......................................
1
Purpose of Update ............................................
.................................
1
1995 Gateways and Corridors Plan .........................................
.......................
2
Purpose .'..............................................
.............................................
..
2
Goals ............................................
............................................
.
2
Accomplishments ............................................
.....................
2
Lessons Learned ..........................................
................................
3
Planning Process ..........................................
..........................................
.......
4
Existing Conditions ..........................................................
..............
5
Corridors ...............................................
...............................
.5
Gateways ...........................................
...........................................
.....
8
Opportunities and Priorities ........................................
.......................................
11
Opportunities ............................................
................................
11
Private ...........................................
...........................................
.
11
City Opportunity ............................................
...........................................
13
Priorities ...........................................
...........................................
...........
14
Corridor and Gateway Improvement Options .................................
.........................
17
Option 1:Sidewalk with grass strip and trees and shrubs ............................
.............
18
Option 2:Sidewalk with grass strip and landscaping on both sides of walk ..................
..
19
Option 3:Sidewalk with landscape planting strip ..................................
.................
20
Option 4:Sidewalk with trees ......................................
....................................
21
Option 5:Sidewalk with shrubs .....................................
...................................
22
Option 6:Sidewalk only .........................................
.....................................
23
Option 7:Pathway with landscaping ..................................
................................
24
Option 8:Low Maintenance ....................................
....................................
25
Policy Guidance .........................................26
Existing Policies ..........................................26
Corridor and Gateway Policies .....................................26
11/17/2008 Gateways and Corridors Plan
Page 83 of 166
11/17/2008 Gateways and Corridors Plan iii
Corridorsand Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Corridors and Gateways Plan
Executive Summary
In a 2007 National Citizens Survey,nearly 90%of Pasco survey respondents supported the idea
of the City installing and maintaining landscape along select major street corridors to improve
the appearance of the community.An ad-hoc committee was appointed by the City Council to
update the 1995 Corridors Plan,define policy framework and to recommend specific corridors
for improvementand their relative priority.A majority of the committee was composed of
business representatives so as to assure that the perspective of those most likely to be
affected financially would help to define the goals and policies of the program.
Beyond making a good first impression,corridor and gateway enhancement fosters economic
revitalization in the older portions of the city.It also lets citizens and visitors alike know
clearly that the city cares about and is committed to its quality of life and preservation of
community property values.
An inviting,esthetic environment can also translate into an inviting economic climate;
businesses will feel more comfortable and confident about investing in a community which
visibly reflects those values.Business owners and employees will feel better about moving
their business and families to such an environment.In short,an effective corridor
enhancement program,including City investment,will pay dividends for the community in
terms of both quality of life and economic vitality.
Key items covered in the plan update are as follows:
1.Purpose of the plan:To identify landscape policies that would enhance safety,aesthetics,
consistency,and ease of maintenance in transportation corridor design.
2.The 1995 Plan—
a.Merits:The previous plan served as a focal point for efforts and resources.Two
city-sponsored corridor projects were completed and designs were prepared for a
third.As well,new private development largely followed design principles found in
the plan for several other corridor areas.
b.Shortcomings:The previous plan only included the “Central Core”area.The City
has since grown dramatically in both land area and population.As well,the
previous effort’s highly specific design requirements may have been too limiting
and inflexible for broader application.
3.The Updated plan:
a.The new plan expands the area under consideration beyond the central core area.
b.The new Plan uses design policies rather than specific “concepts.”These broad
policies are extremely basic and adaptable,and are driven primarily by long-term
maintenance costs,safety concerns,and adaptability to a wide range of city
Page 84 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
conditions.This policy breadth becomes important in cases of limited right-of-way,
unusual topography,preexisting landscaping,and so forth.
c.The “preferred”design policy calls for distancing the sidewalk from the street,
landscaping both sides of the sidewalk,and planting trees and grass with minimal
shrub areas.This preferred design policy incorporates the observations of the
Committee and City of Pasco maintenance administrators,by balancing and
optimizing safety,aesthetics,and ease of maintenance.
4.Location and prioritization of Corridors
5.
6.
a.Corridors defined:Corridors were chosen primarily for their connectivity—primary
streets that linked people to goods and services and to major highways.
b.Projects prioritized:Projects were prioritized based on economics (such as cost-
sharing opportunities),concerns for continuity (fill-in-the-gaps,join the gateway
and the corridor),and safety (transit route location,roadway functionality).
Prioritized routes are as follows:
i.4th Ave from Court Street to the l-182/12 Interchange
ii.4thAve from Lewis Street to Court street
iii.Oregon Avenue from Lewis Street to the Highway 12 Interchange.
iv.Court Street from Road 68 to Road 84.
v.Oregon Avenue from “A”street to Lewis Street.
vi.Oregon Avenue from Ainsworth Avenue to “A”Street.
vii.Court Street from Road 84 to Road 100.
viii.Road 36 from Argent road to Burden Boulevard.
c.Because of preexisting development regulations,there is little need to address
prioritization of corridors that will ultimately be enhanced by future private
development or redevelopment.
Gateways:Policies for City entrance enhancements address site inaccessibility,lack of
infrastructure and the special challenges of intergovernmental partnerships.These
challenges tend the city toward very simple but attractive low-water,low-maintenance
designs.
Maps and Tables:The plan contains maps and tables illustrating the types and locations of
corridors and their importance,as ranked by the committee.
11/17/2008 Gateways and Corridors Plan iv
Page 85 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
In sum,this document details the purpose of providing corridor streetscape policy guidance,
past efforts,lessons learned,existing conditions,options for corridor improvements and
policy statements to guide the development of improvements and focus of resources.
11/17/2008 Gateways and Corridors Plan
Page 86 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Introduction
In a 2007 National Citizens Survey,nearly 90%of Pasco survey respondents supported the idea
of the City installing and maintaining landscape along select major street corridors to improve
the appearance of the community.An ad-hoc committee was appointed by the City Council to
update the 1995 Corridors Plan,define policy framework and to recommend specific corridors
for improvement and their relative priority.A majority of the committee was composed of
business representatives so as to assure that the perspective of those most likely to be
affected financially would help to define the goals and policies of the program.
Beyond making a good first impression,corridor and gateway enhancement fosters economic
revitalization in the older portions of the city.It also lets citizens and visitors alike know
clearly that the city cares about and is committed to its quality of life and preservation of
community property values.
An inviting,esthetic environment can also translate into an inviting economic climate;
businesses will feel more comfortable and confident about investing in a community which
visibly reflects those values.Business owners and employees will feel better about moving
their business and families to such an environment.In short,an effective corridor
enhancement program,including City investment,will pay dividends for the community in
terms of both quality of life and economic vitality.
For several years the City of Pasco,Washington has worked towards improving the streetscape
of major corridors throughout the City as a way to enhance the attractiveness of the City.
Existing City ordinances identify design standards that influence the provision of sidewalks
and landscaping on all City streets through development and redevelopment.The City feels
that some corridors and gateways are of sufficient importance to justify the additional effort
of coordinating the design and maintenance of streetscape features to provide an enhanced,
consistent and clean appearance that will inspire pride in the City and improve mobility and
safety for pedestrians.The City recognizes that an overall Plan to identify significant
corridors and gateways as well as design options is needed to focus this endeavor.
An earlier effort was undertaken in 1995 which identified conceptual improvements for
corridors in the central core of Pasco.However,since that time the City has grown
significantly in population and area.This increase has brought redevelopment along existing
corridors as well as development of new corridors outside of the original study area.City
leaders have felt it appropriate to revisit the earlier plan.
This document details the purpose of providing corridor streetscape policy guidance,past
efforts,lessons learned,existing conditions,options for corridor improvements and policy
statements to guide the development of improvements and focus resources.
Purpose of Update
Rather than foster an assortment of frontage improvements in any given corridor resulting in
uncoordinated development,the City feels it is appropriate to identify desired landscape
features to be incorporated into roadway corridors that will provide consistency and ease of
maintenance.
Page 1
Page 87 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of |=‘asco
2008
This effort has been undertaken to:.update the earlier plan,accounting for lessons learned and new opportunities
0 redefine the network of primary Gateways and Corridors.prepare new policy guidance that recommends conceptual improvements and
priorities.
1995 Gateways and Corridors Plan
Purpose
In 1995 the City of Pasco undertook a planning effort that was recognized as a “grand first
step toward achieving the vision of an attractive,welcoming network of primary streets and
entryways for the visitors,citizens,and business owners of Pasco."
The purpose of the Plan was to serve as a comprehensive guide for future gateway and
corridor improvement projects.The Plan addressed the “central core"and East Lewis
neighborhoods and included design concepts for 7 gateways and 8 corridors.
Goals
The 1995 Plan stated 5 specific goals:
1.Conduct a planning process which achieves consensus by involving critical community,
civic,and government representatives throughout the process.
2.Develop a plan which will enhance the image and character of the City of Pasco.
3.Develop concepts for the gateways and corridors which will reflect Pasco’s history,
people and geographic location.
4.Develop concepts which carry the greatest potential for implementation.
5.Develop a document which clearly presents information needed to support successful
follow-up funding procurement,design refinement,and community volunteer efforts.
Accomplishments
In the last few years the City has implemented corridor improvements amounting to several
hundred thousand dollars on both the east and west ends of Lewis Street.improvements have
included the addition of curb,gutter and sidewalk as well as landscaping and utility
undergrounding.An example of these improvements are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1.South Side of Lewis Street near 28thAvenue Looking East
Page 2
Page 88 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of I’asco
2008
Before After
In some cases a considerable amount of effort was put forth to work with adjacent property
owners to acquire right of way,relocate utilities and coordinate improvements with multiple
property owners.These improvements have been viewed as a major enhancement for these
segments of Lewis Street.
Lessons Learned
As part of past projects and several other ongoing efforts,the City has learned much with
respect to development of streetscape improvements in these important corridors.These
lessons serve as a guide in the development of future design plans to implement streetscape
improvements..In addition to providing a safe place for pedestrian travel,curb,gutter and sidewalks
provide a clean finished look to urban roadway corridors..Grass is the preferred landscape option with respect to maintenance.While the
perception is that shrubbery is easy to maintain whereas grass requires constant
trimming,the reality is that shrubbery also requires routine maintenance and requires
specific training and full—time staff (as opposed to seasonal workers).Shrubbery also
Page 3
Figure 2.North Side of Lewis Street West of Elm Street Looking East
AfterBefore
Page 89 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
catches litter,thus detracting from the desired beautification effect.Furthermore,
methods have been devised to minimize the amount of edge trimming required,
facilitating maintenance of grass strips.
0 Flexibility is important in working with owners of developed property.As much as
consistency is desired,some concepts may be very difficult to implement given
topography and other constraints in any given corridor..Gateway areas‘are generally located within the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)right-of-way.Due to state funding constraints and safety
mandates,WSDOTlimits the amount of landscaping within the interchange areas.
Interchange areas can be vast and would require a significant amount of maintenance.
Other limitations which are present include difficult access and terrain and the limited
ability to provide water to the gateway areas.As a result,specific gateway areas
need to be rethought.A low-water-usage and low-maintenance design should be
developed for these areas which integrates vegetation native to the Pasco area.Most
of the gateway improvements should be focused around the entrance into the
adjacent corridor in order to mitigate the access,water and maintenance issues..Overhead utilities are a significant detraction from otherwise improved corridors.
Whenever possible,utilities should be placed underground so as to remove clutter
from a corridor..Long established corridors have already been developed and in many cases have barely
enough right-of-way for sidewalks.The City will probably have to wait for
redevelopment to occur before being able to secure sufficient right-of-way to
implement landscaping enhancements in the corridor.
0 Where it is important enough to create a consistent corridor appearance it is equally
essential to maintain that landscaped corridor.Any great project that the City could
undertake to improve Corridors and Gateways could be compromised by a few shabby
properties with weeds or dead landscaping.Any new efforts must be coupled with
increased code enforcement efforts on private properties,particularly rental
properties.
Planning Process
The Pasco City Council authorized the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of
members of City Council,the Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce.The
Committee was assigned to provide a fresh evaluation of the 1995 Plan and its objectives,
evaluate corridors it deemed appropriate and make recommendations for modifications to the
Plan for City Council consideration.
The Committee has been supported by staff and the consulting team and has met several
times to discuss and consider appropriate corridors,desired improvements as well as
priorities.The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed a draft document and changes were incorporated
into a final document for City Council review and approval.
Page 4
Page 90 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Existing Conditions
Given the significant growth to the west of the central core area included in the 1995 Plan,
several new roadways have been constructed while others have been annexed from Franklin
County.As part of this planning effort the Committee considered what Corridors and
Gateways within the Urban Growth Area should be included in the Plan.The 1995 definitions
of Corridors and Gateways were also examined and it was determined that new definitions
would be appropriate,especially with respect to gateways.
Figure 3 identifies the Corridors and Gateways deemed appropriate by the committee to be
included in the Plan and subject to the policies listed later in this document.This chapter
presents the definition of Corridors and Gateways and identifies the existing features of each
Corridor and the Gateways.Evaluations of the gateways and corridors were based on input
from the committee members and staff,field observation and research performed by the
consultant.improvement opportunities,constraints and priorities are discussed in the
following chapter.
Corridors
The Corridors have been defined by the Committee,for the purposes of this Plan,as:
A primary street which provides a connection to and from various uses throughout
the City including residential neighborhoods,commercial districts,public space,
recreational areas,and business.Corridors also provide vital connections to
Interstates I-182,US 395,and US 12 which bisect the City.
The following roadways have been identified as Corridors suitable for special streetscaping
requirements which will provide a consistent presentation of each corridor.
“A”Street -10thAvenue to us-12
10th Avenue -Cable Bridge to Lewis Street
20th Avenue —Columbia River to Argent Road
4th Avenue -Lewis Street to the l-182 Interchange
Ainsworth Avenue -10thAvenue to Oregon Avenue
Argent Road -Road 100 to 20th Avenue
Burden Boulevard -Road 68 to Road 36
Chapel Hill Boulevard -Road too to Road 68
Court Street -Road 100 to 4th Avenue
Heritage Boulevard -“A"Street to Lewis Street
Lewis Street —US 395 to US-12
Madison Avenue —Road 44 to Burden Boulevard
Oregon Avenue -Ainsworth Street to the |-182 Interchange
Powerline Road —Road 100 to Road 52
Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard -Court Street to Powerline Road
Road 36 -Argent Road to Burden Boulevard
Road 44 Argent Road to Madison Avenue;Burden Blvd to Sandifur Pkwy
Road 52 —Court Street to Argent Road;Burden Boulevard to Powerline Road
Road 68 -Court Street to Power Line Road
Road 84 —Chapel Hill Boulevard to Argent Road
Sandifur Parkway -Broadmoor Boulevard to Road 44
VVVVVVVVY/VVVVVVVVVVVV
Page 5
Page 91 of 166
!‘
!
!
.I
..-._._.-........r.
¢
\
4\o-n---u--
:2;$293 w52:00 m 2.22
00mm;.5 £0 mEDOE $2330 .25 «32:8
may:NOSIOVW ZS CI 8
RO
D<Om wz?mmgOa
ama uoowuvouaL 09%was
uI-I.I-I.I.II-I.I.II.I.I.l-I-
‘nuul.
II:3!!!!E3:-'3.
«.HAEH»
53538:;>223:a:.8 22.28%:.9:2 523
.2:6:33:>m32uw\mmwmz_ozm m?A.9:53;.6853
ESE;E9...253%2%ES 5:958...£282 3 coasanu
u 2 3336 5:252.2:..53 amcan:3 3 3.3.35 .2.
w.ucm>u>5m a 5:9E umEouE Emma.a SEE:m_ucEEu wE...
Emuczom£265 :35
>m>>2m0
.oquo 23:“.
5qu0
ucwm¢4
ampzm «Es
_x_.A
EE3
J-L;n_>.?4...:1(10
._,.#500
Inn-04'
I.K I,III!-‘llllllllll
M
5 £58 2,
99 CIVOH
.rm.3.m
!
CIA'IE39VJJHEH
v 4—".
\_u
Page 92 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
The existing conditions of each Corridor segment are defined in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4
which indicates where sidewalks,landscaping,street trees,and overhead utilities are present
as well as whether the corridor is on a transit route,is designated as a bicycle route,has any
identified Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)projects,is within the City or in
unincorporated Franklin County and what the current zoning is.
The status of the corridors can be grouped into three areas based on how the development
pattern has occurred:Pasco Central Core,West Pasco north of I-182 and West Pasco south of
I-182.The street cross sections within each of these areas represent a common theme
regarding conditions,limitations and opportunities.Each of these three areas is unique due
to the differences in development patterns and regulatory jurisdiction.
Pasco Central Core
This area is defined as the original central core of the City as identified in the 1995 plan.
This area is bounded by Highway 395 to the west,Interstate I-182 to the north and US-12 to
the east.The majority of the land within this area is currently developed with the exception
of “A”Street east of Oregon Avenue and some portions of Oregon Avenue which remain
vacant.Typical cross sections of the corridors within this area include sidewalks located
adjacent to the curb with limited right-of-way available beyond the back of sidewalk.Where
there is landscaping along the corridors it is typically located on private property.
Two corridor improvement projects consistent with the 1995 Plan were completed by the City
along portions of west Lewis Street from 28thAvenue to 17ththAvenue and on East Lewis
Street from Oregon Avenue to Cedar Avenue.These projects consisted of adding curb,
gutter,and sidewalk along with landscaping and trees where sufficient right-of-way was
available or could be reasonably purchased.Other properties along the corridors which have
been redeveloped have also been required to add landscaping features consistent with the
City’s landscape ordinance.While these projects have incorporated many of the
recommended design features of the previous plan,a consistent design pattern and
landscaping features is lacking throughout each corridor.
West Pasco north of I-182
This area is generally defined as being north of l-182,south of Powerline Road,east of
Broadmoor Boulevard and west of Road 36.Since the adoption of the 1995 Plan this area has
been incorporated into the City of Pasco and a majority of the area has been developed
primarily with residential uses with commercial uses focused along Road 68 and the
Broadmoor Boulevard/Sandifur Parkway intersection.Corridor improvements within this area
have been primarily completed by the private sector as part of development approval.
Special design standards for some of these corridors have been developed by the City and
incorporated into the Pasco Municipal Code including sidewalk,landscaping,access
management and screen requirements.Future improvements to these corridors will primarily
depend on the private development.
West Pasco south of I-182
This area is generally defined as being south of I-182,east of Road 100,north of the Columbia
River and west of Highway 395.The outer boundaries of this area have been incorporated
within the City of Pasco with a large area in the middle which remains in the jurisdiction of
Franklin County.However,the County portion is located within the City’s Urban Growth Area
as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 7
Page 93 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Due to the nature of the “county island”,most of the roadways in this area are built to
county standards and lack curb,gutter,sidewalk and landscaping.The primary land use
within this area continues to be agricultural with an increasing demand for residential
development.Similar to the area north of I-182,portions of this area are bounded by special
design standards identified in the Pasco Municipal Code requiring specific sidewalk,
landscaping,access management and screening requirements along specific corridors within
the City including Road 100 and Chapel Hill Boulevard.These standards may need to be
expanded to include roadways within the County which are in the Urban Growth Area as they
are annexed.Future improvements to these corridors will also primarily depend on the
private development as they implement existing standards and apply the policies described
later in this document.
Gateways
Gateways have been defined by the Committee,for the purposes of this Plan,as:
An area located around various interchanges located throughout the City from
Interstate I-182,US 395 and US 12.These gateway areas are located adjacent to a
corridor and provide transition into the citv environment.
The following areas have been identified as Gateways into the City suitable for landscaping
and signage and are shown in Figure 3.
Cable Bridge area
l-182/20thStreet —northeast entrance along the westbound off-ramp;
southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp;along the east side of 20‘h
Avenue south of H82
|-18?./4th Street -southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp
I-182/Oregon Avenue -southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp
|-182/Road 100 -southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp and
northeast entrance along the westbound off-ramp
|-182/Road 68 -southwest entrance along the eastbound off-ramp and
northeast entrance along the westbound off-ramp
US 12/”A”Street Interchange—southwest and northwest entrances
US 12/Lewis Street Interchange —northwest entrance along the eastbound off-
ramp
US 395 /Court Street Interchange
US 395 /Lewis Street Interchange
V VVVVV
In general,the existing conditions of the gateway areas are unimproved with limited
landscaping.Two exceptions are the US 395/Lewis Street Interchange and the Cable Bridge
area of 10thAvenue.These two gateways are currently landscaped and are in excellent
condition,the first with low water and low maintenance requirements and the second with
nicely groomed trees and grass.
Page 8
Page 94 of 166
an,
C C CCCC C C
0‘
0.
0"AAAAA
AAAAAUUUUU
N0
No
No
0
PPPP
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
No
No
No
Na
Na
No
No
No
No
A AAAAA
C -amplele
C »Complele
C -Complele
U -Underground
0;Complela
Yes/No
P -Panial
P -Panial
P -Partial
A~Absam
A-Absanl
A-Absent
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
v“
Yes
Yes
Yes
YesNommmUUUUU
Ves
Yes
P~P A_P
Table 1.Existing Conditions by Corridor Segment
a”s g 5
a?e a"?5 E 5’
Corridors C?0*g .9 ‘7?>5":5 F 5;
3 o 0.g g 75 a:5‘>3 C 3
~4:s e e «-.é"s“5 3’a?g
3?§.3 e e a?e 9 a “s 9‘s essé’seé’esé’sfsesva:e:A o u.m e a I:A o N
Powerline Rd Broadmoor ~Road 52 U P L Industrial
Sandiiur Pkwy Broadmoor -Road 68 P C 1 Commercia
lSandilurPkwyRoad68,Road 44 M L 2 Commercial
Burden Blvd Road 68 -Road 36 MC C Commercial
Chapel Hill Blvd Road 100 —Road I34 M L Commercial
Chapel Hill Blvd Road 84 -Road 68 M L Residential
Argent Rd Road 100 ~Road 34 P C Residential
Argent Rd Road 84 -Road 68 P C 5 Residential
Argent Rd Road 68 »Road 52 M M Residential
Argent Rd Road 52 -Road 36 M M Residential
Argent Rd Road 36 -20th Ave M M Residential
Court St Road 100 -Road 84 M M Done Residential
Court St Road 84 -Road 68 M M Residential
Court SI Road 68 .40Ih Ave P P 2 Commercial
Court St 4Dth Ave -26m Ave P P Commercial
Court St 26th Ave -4th Ave P M Commercial
Lewis St 28th Ave -201h Ave P P Commercial
Lewis St 20th Ave »17Ih Ave P P Commercial
Lewis St 17th Ave -10th Ave P P Commercial
Lewis St 10th Ave -RR Tracks P P Commercial
Lewis St RR Tracks -Cedar Ave P P Commercial
Lewis St Cedar Ave ~Interchange P P Commercial
"A“St 10th Ave -Oregon Ave M M Residential
"A"St Oregon Ave -Heritage Blvd P M Commercial
"A"St Heritage Blvd -US 12 M M Commercial
Ainsworth Ave 10th Ave -Oregon Ave P P Industrial
Road 100 Court St -Argenl Rd P M Residential
Road 100 Argent Rd -Chapel Hill Blvd P M Residential
Road 100 Chapel HillBlvd A Interchange P M Commercial
Broadrnoor Blvd Interchange -Sandifur Pkwy P C Commercial
Broadmoor Blvd Sandifur Pkwy -City Limits P C Commercial
Road 84 Argent Rd -Chapel Hill M Residential
Road 68 Court St -Argenl Rd P P Industrial
Road 68 Argenl Rd -Chapel Hill Blvd P P Commercial
Road 68 Chapel HillBlvd -Interchange P P Commercial
Road 68 Interchange -Burden Blvd P M Commercial
Road 68 Burden Blvd .Sanditur Pkwy P M Commercial
Road 68 Sandifur Pkwy <Powerline Rd P M Commercial
Road 52 Court St -Argent Rd C C Residential
Road 52 Burden Blvd -Sandifur Pkwy C L Residential
Road 52 Sandifur Pkwy -Powerline Rd C L Residenlial
Madison Argent Rd -Burden Blvd M L Residential
Road 44 Burden Blvd -Sanditur Pkwy C Residential
Road 36 Argent Rd -Burden Blvd C C Industrial
ZOthAve River -Lewis St M C Commercial
201h Ave Lewis St -Court St P P Residential
ZOthAve Court St -Interchange P P Residential
20th Ave Interchange -Argent P P Commercial
10th Ave Cable Bridge to Lewis St P Commercial
l4th Ave Lewis St -Court St P Commercial
i4th Ave Court St -Interchange P P Commercial
Oregon Ave Ainsworth Ave A A St P P 0 Industrial
Oregon Ave A Street -Lewis Street P P Industrial
Oregon Ave Lewis St »Interchange P P Commercial
Sidewalk
Landscape
Trees
Overhead Power
Fence
Bicycle Route
Slreel Classification P -Principal,M -Minor,C -Collector.-Local
TIP Project Project Number
Transit Route Yes/No
City Yes/No
Zoning Name
Land Use Name
>
No
No
N0
N0
-Franklin PUD proposed location Ior converting overhead power lines lo ur
No
No
No
No
No
I
Yes
Na
Na
No
No
Page 95 of 166
I-l-I-l-I-I-I-I?'
G Til 39V
:21 @2650 w53:00 v
.52 5:28 2.55Swan.*036 5.8:
.1 MN
D<Om mz_._w_m30n_
R0”)68
UIII.
.1IIIIIIIIIIIII
u--
\I\J3§1:
«nah»
nmmmc=oE=B3233 m:.2 293332 «on m_532,
.2:6:353:€32agw1mmz?zm m5...9.3.0:.685cm
“:25,ES.353%2%Es gauges 6982 5 5:22.58
mm.3.332.".:ozuEEE 2:..525 an new:on.2 $9.25 «a:
2 van>35»m3:9E 33:82 3.30.a 35.2.a.3.26%2:...
Emuczom2:520 :25
$925 :9...-.638 39:96
Esau 89:26
32;.$95
mcawowuc?
v=m3m2m IIII
mEmEgoaé oz
Em 2mm 3
Oil.
CIA'I8 HOOWCNOHE
35mm..
I Jun—(IO
v9 CWOH
98 GVOU
ZS
ism-“LWWanII‘II‘IIII
29
NOSIGV
Page 96 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Opportunities and Priorities
Opportunities
Opportunities to improve the Corridors and Gateways identified in this Plan can be limited by
a number of factors including existing and future development,right-of-way availability,
maintenance needs,neighborhood coordination,funding and other constraints.
During the course of this planning effort legal advice was sought.The City’s constitutionally
granted police powers provide for the regulation of landscaping incident to the development
of its rights-of-way.The City has the capacity to identify a specific district and establish
landscaping standards that are compatible with the city’s vision for that area.The city has
absolute control over that area within its right of-way.In addition to sidewalk,curb,and
gutter,the city can require swales,parking strips,street trees,irrigation improvement,water
features,grass and other types of specifically designated vegetation.The City’s authority to
control landscaping requirements beyond the City’s property lines,however,is significantly
more limited,especially in developed neighborhoods.Voluntary agreements with property
owners could be pursued,but cannot be required.
Given the various constraints that will be encountered in the Corridors,there are two general
types of opportunities available for improving Corridors:
1)Some improvements will occur primarily by private development with coordination and
review/approval by the City,and
2)Other improvements will necessarily require the City to take the lead and coordinate
with private property owners along the corridor during the design phase.
Within each of these categories there are more specific improvement types that are
explained below.Figure 5 shows the corridors and gateways based on the general
opportunity types as well as indicating which corridors are complete and which are yet to be
created.
Private
New Develo ment
Several corridors in the west Pasco area,north and south of l-82,are generally undeveloped
or the current land use is agricultural in nature.They are likely to be improved or developed
privately in association with future growth.By and large these corridors have little or no
streetscape improvements with respect to sidewalks and landscaping.
Most of the streetscape improvements are likely to be made by private development in these
corridors,at least on one side of the street in association with the new development.
However,there are numerous locations along the corridor frontage where existing
development (primarily individual homes)is present adjacent to the undeveloped land.
Private landowners cannot be required to install streetscape improvements in these locations
unless in conjunction with redevelopment.Thus,when owners of private development will be
completing significant portions of the streetscape on one of the corridors,it may be in the
best interest of the City to work with adjacent property owners to expand on the private
project to complete a corridor segment with full streetscape improvements.
Page 11
Page 97 of 166
cm:@238 a .828 m .52 3.5.35
8me v635 $50....Eyegoaé
km.5500 >>._.wm_>>m._>>
3M1 H102 N
R0F0
O<Om mz_._mm§On_
O>._m 4
_
a o
gin-.8113.
\.
amp—u»
.mucEEEEo 52:03 a..2 25353!S:2 £23
.2:.9312).>m3£uoammm262m 934.9.622.6358
28:5,£9:352%3%Eu 5.35.35 6282 E 53358
a m.3?.an scan—Ea...2:..52:mmmum:on 2 3:2...5:
w.ucm$2...»a .8:naE .3232 3.3m.a SEE:a.9:255 25.
82$.5 26
Emuczom£390 :35
902.200 388.1 Suzi
2m>:n_
«:2:me Bum—ano
$228 222.1 26
32:8 322$36
93ch
._.zw m<
om UVOHCIA'IHHOOWGVOHEI
.5500 >>
f9 CIVO‘d
Z9 CIVO‘d xJOSIkJVN
._.w.5500 3
I...
lnIIIIIIlIIII
o>._m zwDMDm
ZS GVOE
W CIVOH
92 GVOH
.5 93m;u
._.w<w
CIA‘l?EBVJJHEI
..-.-.-.-.—----..r.
Page 98 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Redevelo ment
Current City Code Chapter 25.75 outlines the current minimum standards for landscaping and
screening.It also requires,for existing non-conforming commercial and industrial property,
that upon remodel or expansion exceeding 33%of the assessed value landscaping and
screening requirements of the code shall apply.Many of these types of corridors exist in the
central core of the City.
As these redevelopment opportunities present themselves,City staff must be diligent in
working with property owners to design and implement a consistent landscaping within that
corridor.
City Opportunity
Roadwa lm rovement Pro'ects
The City regularly undertakes roadway improvement projects.Some projects will involve
roadway widening,others may be more maintenance related.Whenever the City anticipates
improvements on any of the corridors included in this Plan,it is recommended that
appropriate streetscape improvements including curb,gutter,sidewalk and landscaping be
incorporated into the design of the project and implemented during construction.It may also
be important to consider undergrounding utilities that may be in the corridor,or at least
placing conduit and vaults for future use.Adjacent property owners should be contacted as
necessary in order to secure adequate right-of—way to implement a reasonable scale of
improvements.Existing features of the corridor should be taken into account to create a
consistent appearance throughout the corridor.
Utilities
Electrical utilities are currently provided by the Franklin Public Utilities District (Franklin
PUD).The utility lines are located along nearly all of the corridors and consist of a mixture of
overhead and underground distribution lines with the majority of the lines being overhead.
The poles within some of these corridors are beginning to show age and are in need of repair.
The Franklin PUD has continually been replacing these poles with new ones.In addition to
the distribution lines a 115+KVelectric transmission line runs along a portion of Powerline
Road,Road 84,Court Avenue,and “A”Street.This is a high voltage line which cannot be
placed underground.
The Franklin PUD has expressed willingness to underground all utility lines which are in need
of repair rather than replacing the poles if the City were to pay the extra cost of
undergounding.The City has partnered in a few instances and this effort has cleaned up the
visual appearance of the corridors and has provided an opportunity for future landscaping
improvements.The City should establish a formal agreement with the Franklin PUD that will
create a partnership to underground the local distribution power lines in the corridors
included in this Plan.The schedule can be determined by the Franklin PUD based on their
normal pole replacement program and safety needs.
Regarding landscaping in corridors where overhead power exists,it makes the most sense to
not install new landscaping in a corridor until after the powerlines have been placed
underground.Otherwise landscaping could be damaged or removed by the installation of
Page 13
Page 99 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
underground utilities.Landscaping efforts would be best spent on those corridors where
power is already underground.
Areas of Existin Develo ment
Some opportunities exist in areas where development is present but has little streetscape
improvement (sidewalk &landscaping)or consistency and the right-of-way is adequate for
improvements to be added.These corridors are typically found in the Central Core area
where development is present with limited building setbacks or right-of-way and would be
similar to the areas of Lewis Street which were recently updated.
In order to achieve a consistent corridor appearance and /or add landscaping on these
corridors,it will likely take a significant effort on the part of City staff to coordinate with
property owners along the corridor to achieve consensus on appropriate improvements.It
may be possible to enter agreements with property owners such that the City pays for the
landscaping and maintenance while the property owner pays for the installation of the
sidewalk where necessary.
Ideally,in order to bring this Plan to fruition,the City should consistently be working on
developing and implementing improvements in developed corridors that have adequate right-
of-way.One goal could be to design one corridor each year and implement it the following
year.It may take a year of working with property owners through neighborhood meetings to
come to an agreement that meets the approval of all.
Gatewa s
For those Gateways yet to be developed it will be necessary for the City to take the lead.
Right-of-way is for the most part already owned by the Washington State Department of
Transportation,thus the City will need to work with WSDOTto develop an agreement with
acceptable landscaping plans.The design plans should include low-water-usage and low-
maintenance design and integrate the native landscape vegetation of the Pasco area.As
described earlier in the Existing Conditions chapter,access for maintenance purposes should
be mitigated based on how Gateways are now defined such that only the outside of the
WSDOTinterchange area along the off-ramps are anticipated to be landscaped.
Regarding implementation of the Gateway improvements,it is suggested that they be
completed at the same time as the corridor improvements of an adjacent corridor.In this
way any necessary irrigation could be extended with the adjacent corridor project.
Consideration for a “Welcome to Pasco"sign should be given in the overall context of the
Corridor and Gateway together (many of the existing welcome signs are actually placed at the
beginning of the next roadway segment).This implementation strategy should be able to be
achieved whether the adjacent corridor will be done by the private sector or by the City.In
the case of the private sector,the City may choose to assist using City funds.There are only
2 Gateways that can not be attached to a corridor project,and that would need to be carried
out independently because the adjacent corridors are already complete,namely 20thAvenue
and Road 68.
Priorities
In order to provide a focus for the expenditure of City staff time and funding ,Corridor
segments that fall in the category of City Opportunities were prioritized using a process that
Page 14
Page 100 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Dasco
2008
considered the factors outlined below.A point system was developed and is presented in
Table 2.Priority segments are also shown in Figure 5..Segments with utilities already underground received higher priority because
landscaping could be implemented without later disturbing it to place utilities
underground..Segments with upcoming Transportation Improvement Program projects were given
higher priority in order to foster corridor improvements with other projects..Segments with partial corridor improvements (sidewalks,landscaping or trees)were
ranked higher in order to promote the completion of segments at lower costs..Transit routes were given priority,with those that have no sidewalks being
emphasized..Segments with significant adjacent developed property were given priority due to the
fact that there are fewer opportunities for private development to implement
improvements.Segments with available right-of-way were given additional priority
over those without.
0 Corridor segments adjacent to Gateways were given priority to emphasize the
importance of entrances to the City.The 20thAvenue and Road 68 Gateways were
ranked independently because the adjacent corridors are complete..Roadway functional classification,bicycle routes and existing land use were also
considered giving priority to arterials,segments with bicycle routes and commercial
corridors.
It is recognized that some of the corridors may fall within the County island and as such City
funds could not be expended there.If a Corridor segment falling within the County is the
next highest priority,consideration of the improvements to undertake must account for this.
It may be prudent to skip that Corridor until it is annexed into the City.
Page 1
Page 101 of 166
mmmmmmmu‘)
386$66
28?;a6
629m 56
wage;b6
£88K a6
£88K a6
Eugen.36
$0291 >5
6U”!
83vbe2&8o58555,,E3F.ooo.mI:5FE8N58.8.?.2358o
.323530362.8Eon.NgoEE£58m£3655EgonF.
3:33.05L2353o__m_Emu_wmm5.E3F.EEwEEoo3..£58N
538325heESQF3:8heEgonm.6985At.£92:3.2358m
.mmE_o>:9:Lo33298::229:8.8manm#83:"..sz?oa03m.2Egonm
mmE:_o>0E5...
:ozmgzmwgo$26.5095
choN
610:“.n=._.
526;32:90
Fwy—(o‘—
000000
F
NNNNLON
255mg.3th22950
36
230m :29...
220m m_o>o_m_
moat.
38%ch
1.5322,»
E2w>mactgmgen.2:25
.Fmin...Eum#62wcoz?coumEExm05E393;2anm>8_m9:Eto?$3 9200 “202
NF0om58:00
FF0Fm«con.mL023.
2ooo0¢.325;
omFov398:1
FmoFmm85.2
vmFNv.3655m
mmFNmv538:;
mmmNw.385.m
u.mw%mu4dm.whomwmsoM."w.m.m.w04w...«aw%ms.%w.Mm...%m,m
a.u...wm1m2»mmm%adam,
J.W9UW.0!ds6a
dF.uu.4H.w.w0weU9l-9m.sIwMu00..eaoaMmQ.m
os?5:35.25“m2an
u>_mcmEam.En.Emmi
vwnmom-2:got
5<-m><creams?
596£26...ngw<
mmnmom.vmnmom
$53225-Fm23m...
Fmtsoo-5£26..
$232955.F500
202.30
mm30m
$95 :30
m><comeo
m><585
58%E50
m><comeo
m><5v
m><5v
Page 102 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Corridor and Gateway Improvement Options
This chapter identifies improvement options for the Corridors and Gateways.These options
were developed by the Committee using the design options from the 1995 Plan and the
existing developed corridors as reference.Each option represents different variations of the
corridor improvements based on the right-of-way available.
The current Pasco Municipal Code has specific minimum requirements for landscaping and
sidewalks.The intent of the corridor design standards is to strengthen the current code
requirement and provide a more enhanced design than currently required.As a result these
options will provide a catalyst for what is desired when a corridor specific plan is prepared.
Some corridor specific plans include Road 100,Chapel Hill Boulevard,Burden Boulevard,
Sandifur Parkway and Broadmoor Boulevard.
Sidewalk—A 5-foot sidewalk (4.5 foot sidewalk with 6”curb)in residential areas and 7-
foot sidewalk (6.5 foot sidewalk with 6”curb)in Commercial areas is required along all
city streets as per chapter 12.04 of the Pasco Municipal Code.However many variations
of sidewalks including locations and design are not identified.The typical sidewalk
location is directly adjacent to the street and curb.It has been identified by the
Committee that a separated sidewalk with a landscape strip in-between the curb and
sidewalk is preferred,although it is not always achievable.Due to right-of-way
constraints this may be the only option available.However,if possible,a wider sidewalk
should be considered to mitigate for pedestrian safety along the higher traffic volume
corridors.
Landsca e lantin stri -If adequate right-of—way is available,a landscape planting
strip is desired.Several variations exist combining grass,trees,and shrubs.While
specific design plans have not been prepared,it is desired to have a landscape strip
located both between the curb and sidewalk and behind the back of the sidewalk.This
will give the best appearance,safety and functionality for pedestrians and provide an
aesthetically pleasing environment to the driver.
Many of the newly developed corridors within the City have already begun implementing
this idea by preparing specific design standards for each corridor.These corridors
include Road 100,Broadmoor Boulevard,Sandifur Parkway,and Burden Boulevard.
Another example is Lewis Street from 28thto 17thand from Oregon Avenue to Cedar
Street,where the City has implemented a corridor improvement project which
integrates this design concept while retrofitting it to the existing right-of-way.
Special consideration must be made for ease of maintenance.Some design options may
be more difficult to mow and maintain,depending on the width of the landscape strip
and location of trees and shrubs,.Mower width,access to grass edges,and other such
items should be considered in the design.
The improvement options below have been developed and are presented in order of
preference.The intent is to landscape the right-of—waybeyond the sidewalk and to provide a
clean,consistent and maintained landscape pattern and theme along each corridor.
Therefore it is intended that each development identify and integrate landscaping materials
and patterns which currently exist.Within the central core the 1995 Plan may provide some
specific items for consideration when going to project level design.
Page 17
Page 103 of 166
Option 1:Sidewalk with grass strip and trees and shrubs
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
As shown above this design option is presently used for the Sandifur Parkway corridor
between Broadmoor Blvd and Road 68 and is the desired design option if right-of-way is
available.Specific details include a meandering sidewalk,multiple varieties of trees on both
sides of the sidewalk,fencing,and pockets of various shrubberies.This concept was
developed by city staff and has been incorporated into the Pasco Municipal Code as the
required landscaping for all development fronting Sandifur Parkway.This design provides the
best visual appearance with appropriate integration of grass,trees,and shrubs for minimal
maintenance required.Having a landscape strip between the sidewalk and the fencing is also
a benefit because full use of the sidewalk is available.
Page 18
Page 104 of 166
Option 2:Sidewalk with grass strip and landscaping on both sides of walk
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
It is the intent of this Plan to landscape the entire corridor right-of-way.As shown in the
images above this option is similar to Option 1,but does not have shrubbery.Two important
features of this option are the increased security for the pedestrian and the buffer area
provided between the residential uses and the roadway.When using this option the
landscape width and tree location should be carefully considered.These two issues could
have significant impact on the amount of maintenance required for the corridor.
Page 19
Page 105 of 166
Option 3:Sidewalk with landscape planting strip
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
This option is desired as a minimum if right-of-way is available for landscaping,This provides
for pedestrian safety as well as a consistent landscape pattern along the corridor segment.
Depending on the width of the available right-of-way for the landscape strip,it is
recommended that instead of having an extra wide landscape strip between the sidewalk and
curb the landscape strip should be split up to provide a grass buffer between the sidewalk and
fence.This will improve the functionality of a sidewalk with multiple uses.
Another issue to consider is the location of the sidewalk.As shown in the second photo above
some physical features of the corridor may limit the ability to cost effectively separate the
sidewalk from the street.For instance on Lewis Street,the topography limited the ability to
have a separated sidewalk so a modified design option was used
Page 20
Page 106 of 166
Option 4:Sidewalk with trees
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Some corridors within the City currently have trees integrated into the sidewalk.This option
provides for some landscaping where right-of—wayis limited.It has been identified by the
Committee that this option should be avoided due to maintenance issues.
Due to the compaction of the soil surrounding roadbed and sidewalk and the limited water
source available it is very hard for a tree to survive in these conditions and spread out its
roots.Also,as the trees mature the roots can cause continued destruction to the sidewalk
including cracking and buckling.If this option is used a tree box should be considered to
improve the health of the tree and reduce the destruction of the sidewalk.
Page 21
Page 107 of 166
Option 5:Sidewalk with shrubs
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Page 22
This option has not been recommended by the Committee as a design option to promote
within the right-of-way.Due to the off-season maintenance required from weeding,pruning,
spraying and litter cleanup this option could have a significant impact to the staffing of the
parks and recreation maintenance crew.This option is better than sidewalk alone or
undeveloped right-of-way.
Page 108 of 166
Option 6:Sidewalk only (Not Desired)
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Not Desired
Better
This option is undesired by the Committee and is recommended to only be used if adequate
right-of—way is unavailable.As a possible mitigation a wider sidewalk should be considered in
order to improve pedestrian safety along the corridor.The City should also coordinate with
adjacent landowners to improve the landscaping fronting the right-of-way.
For example,as shown in the second photo above,20thAvenue north of l-182,this section has
a sidewalk located adjacent to the curb,but beyond the sidewalk outside of the right-of-way
the landscaping is consistent throughout the corridor segment with similar design of grass and
trees.
Page 23
Page 109 of 166
Option 7:Pathway with landscaping
Com’dors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasta
2008
In some areas with high recreation opportunities and future connections to other
multipurpose pathways this option may be more appropriate.Some benefits to a
multipurpose path include cheaper construction cost and provision of a wider pathway
accommodating multiple user types (bike,pedestrian,stroller,etc...).The city-proposed
bikeway and pathway map should be consulted when considering which corridor segments
should be developed as pathways.Landscaping along the pathway should be consistent with
the Parks and Recreation Department standards for pathways.
Page 24
Page 110 of 166
Option 8:Low Maintenance
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
As noted earlier within the plan the Gateway areas have unique constraints limiting the
amount and type of landscaping options available.These constraints consist of limited water,
steep slopes,limited access,weather and coordination with the Washington State
Department of Transportation.Due to these issues,it was noted by the Committee that the
desired treatment along the more remote Gateway entrances where water may not be
available should be drought resistant plants native to the Pasco area which require limited
maintenance.
The plant type should be carefully selected in order to limit the amount of maintenance
needed for litter patrol,pruning,weeding,and spraying.
Page 25
Page 111 of 166
1
?m,#1“er u.
”4w
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
Policy Guidance
Existing Policies
City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan (2007)Volume |Goals &Policies
TR-3.GOAL:BEAUTIFYTHE MAJORSTREETSOF THE CITY.
TR-3-A Policy:incorporate extensive tree and landscape planting into all
major arterial and collector streets as they are constructed.
TR-3-B Policy:institute retrofit projects that include significant
landscaping on major arterial streets.
Pasco Municipal Code
The Pasco Municipal Code currently addresses street improvements and
sidewalks,landscaping and screening including:design standards;the H82
Corridor Overlay District;special design standards for Sandifur Parkway,
Broadmoor Boulevard,Chapel Hill Boulevard,and Oregon Avenue;
maintenance;and fencing,under sections 25.58.010,25.75,and 26.12.030.
Corridor and Gateway Policies
The policies below are categorized to provide both general and descriptive guidance.A
statement on the purpose or rationale follows each policy.
1.City Responsibility
1.1.City shall monitor development/redevelopment along each corridor to take
advantage of potential improvement opportunities and ensure that development
proposals fulfill appropriate landscaping and sidewalk requirements.
>In order to provide a consistent design throughout each corridor,the City needs to
review each new development proposal (building permit,site plan,binding site
plan,etc.)that abuts a corridor included in this Plan.The suggested
improvements should include landscaping and accomplish the intents of this Plan
to the extent possible.
1.2.City shall work with property owners to determine appropriate improvements.
During the implementation process of this plan the Ci ty will encounter many
properties already developed but which do not reflect the corridor improvements
described by this plan.As part of this policy,it should be the City’s responsibility
to work with adjacent landowner to identify reasonable and appropriate
improvements consistent with the desired corridor character.
1.3.Private improvements shall be done anticipating full ROW width requirements.
>Improvements such as buildings,fences,paved areas,etc.become impediments to
beautificationefforts when located within future right-of—way acquisition and
landscape improvement areas.The City should ensure that such developments are
located outside future right-of-way and landscape improvement areas.
Page 26
Page 112 of 166
.H E‘-.
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
1.4.Corridor improvements should be incorporated into roadway projects within the
ROW of each corridor.
>Various projects will be done within the ROW of each corridor by the City,private
developers,or utility companies.The City needs to develop a process,including
interdepartmental review,which reviews each project and determine what could
be done as part of the project to apply the standards and polices of the Corridor
Plan.Accomplishment of this plan will depend greatly on the City’s commitment
and level of annual funding.Much can be accomplished at little cost to the City
when done in conjunction wit new develOpment.
>Redeveloping corridors within the older part of the City (or where development
already exists)will require more financialparticipation and associated
commitment from the City.Undergrounding of overhead utilities will likely
depend greatly on the City’s willingness to commit to a financialpartnership with
the PUD.
1.5.Adequate ROW within each corridor should be acquired during roadway and
development projects to provide for appropriate future corridor improvements.
>Some of the corridors do not have adequate ROW for suggested improvements.
Adequate ROW should be acquired when development/redevelopment occurs
throughout the corridors.This effort could be facilitated through the
Transportation Planning process coordinating future roadway capacity needs with
landscaping objectives.
1.6.Landscaping and sidewalk improvements within the ROW should strive to be
consistent with the corridor plan options,to the extent practicable.
>It is the intent of this plan to identify suggestions for preferred corridor
improvements for each corridor segment.In order to realize an aesthetically
pleasing environment throughout each corridor in the City,it is important to
provide a consistent landscape for each segment with a smooth transition from
segment to segment.Variations from the definedoptions should be used only to
the extent required by unusual circumstances (topography,right-of—way width,
etc.).
1.7.All other landscaping and sidewalk improvements outside of the ROW shall be
consistent with the City of Pasco Landscaping Ordinance.
The City of Pasco currently has a Landscaping Ordinance which identifies
improvement requirements outside of the ROW for residential,commercial and
industrial land uses.All landscaping within this area shall be consistent and
integrated into the Corridor plan.
2.Sidewalks
2.1.A sidewalk separated from the curb with a landscaped strip in-between is
preferred.
>As mentioned in the City of Pasco Municipal Code,all new sidewalk improvements
are required to be separated from the curb.The purpose of this is to provide
both an aesthetically pleasing environment to the driver and a sense of safety for
the pedestrian.In some locations where ROW constraints exist,it may be very
costly or nearly impossible to separate the sidewalk.
Page 27
Page 113 of 166
‘
‘m-u
II n
mm»ummu :‘n'
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
2.2.If a sidewalk must be located adjacent to the curb,additional width should be
required to provide pedestrian safety.
>Since the corridors included in this plan have higher traffic volumes,extra
sidewalk width along the corridor will allow pedestrians improved safety and
comfortfrom the edge of curb when walking along the sidewalk and allow for
adequate space while passing other pedestrians.
2.3.A sidewalk should be placed on both sides of corridors.Exceptions may be
considered in areas of low pedestrian traffic where long stretches are not likely
to develop or in industrial areas.
>Sidewalk placement along both sides of the street will decrease the number of
pedestrians crossing the corridor to get to a pedestrian path and will provide
visual balance in the corridor and increase the connectivity for pedestrian
activity.In relatively few cases because of the industrial nature of a corridor
where development may not occur,a path/sidewalk on one side of the street may
be acceptable to reduce costs.However landscaping on such property would still
be appropriate.
2.4.The City shall coordinate with existing developed property owners adjacent to
developing properties to incorporate additional corridor improvements with new
developments.(Landscaping at City expense,sidewalk at property owner
expense.)
As new development and redevelopment occurs some corridors will see significant
portions of the corridor improvement completed by individual development
projects.Other portions of the corridor without existing sidewalks may be
developed already with limited redevelopment potential.In order to create
continuity throughout the corridor,the City may,if it deems appropriate,extend
sidewalk improvements to a logical conclusion through existing developed
frontage.
3.Landscaping
3.1.Landscaping along each corridor segment should be as consistent as possible (i.e.
if neighboring development is complete,similar characteristics should be
included in design of new developments).
Because the intent of the corridor plan is to provide a clean and consistent feel
throughout each corridor,it is important that each corridor be constructed to the
same standard.Since some corridors segments are already partially created,new
development will need to match or coordinate/transition with existing.if a
development is the first one to develop along a corridor segment they may pick a
landscaping option that is consistent with the design criteria identifiedin this
plan.It should be noted that the City and developer should work together to
choose a design which can be appropriately implemented and maintained for the
entire segment with minimal variation.
3.2.If ROW is available,landscaping should be provided on both sides of the
sidewalk.
>This policy statement epitomizes the intent of this plan.Where possible within
the ROW constraints and existing development limitations,the ideal situation for
any given corridor would be to provide curb,gutter,landscape strip,sidewalk and
Page 28
Page 114 of 166
1
u.m
sum”«a
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
additional landscape strip,then fence/wall where appropriate.This gives the
best appearance,safety,and functionality for pedestrians.This would be similar
to SandifurParkway between Road 68 and Road 100 as well as the east side of
Road 100 near Chapel Hill.
3.3.As adjacent private property is developed,the landscaping shall be designed to
seamlessly integrate with the Corridor landscaping for that block.
>The City recognizes that corridor landscape designs do not always match the
existing landscaping on adjacent private properties.As building permits are
obtained,required landscaping should smoothly transition into the adjacent
corridor landscape design.
3.4.The city should encourage private property owners to match their landscape
designs to the City standard for their block.The City may assist commercial
property owners who match their landscape plan to the City plan by offering a
joint landscape maintenance program.
>The intent of this policy is to encourage private participation through incentives
that promotes the landscape option chosen for a corridor without patchwork
effects.
4.Utilities
4.1.All overhead utilities (excluding 115+kV electric transmission lines)should be
converted to underground.
>The visual effect of the landscape effort envisioned by the Corridors Plan can be
undermined by the existence of overhead electrical /telephone lines and poles.
Placing these utilities underground can dramatically improve the finished
appearance of the landscape improvements and should be accomplished to the
greatest extent possible.The City and the PUD have coordinated on some corridor
improvements in the recent past and should develop a definitiveplan to place
distribution (but not transmission)lines underground in all corridors identifiedin
this plan.
4.2.Conduit for power and associated vaults should be installed during street
improvements if overhead power is not to be relocated underground as part of
the immediate project.
Due to budget constraints and timing,some overhead utility relocation may not
be completed at the time of a street improvement.However,any conduit or
vaults which will ease the underground conversion of the utility at a later date
should be considered and included with the project as appropriate.This will
assist in future corridor improvements and require coordination with various staff
to integrate corridor design options into future projects.
5.Gateway
5.1 .City shall coordinate with Washington State Department of Transportation on
implementation of appropriate gateway treatments.
>Due principally to state funding constraints,WSDOT’spolicy generally avoids
landscape improvements in the sate highway interchange areas (which also
represent gateways to the city).To the extent the City desires to improve the
designated gateways,the City will need to actively pursue an agreement with
Page 29
u
Page 115 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
WSDOTto define the treatment options acceptable to both parties.The City
should expect to bear the majority of costs of any treatment options,including
maintenance.
5.2.Gateway improvements should consist of low maintenance and low water
usages.
>Due to the difficultaccess and terrain and the limited ability to provide water to
the gateway areas,it is recommended that a low-water-usage and low-
maintenance design plan be developed for these gateways.It should integrate the
native landscape vegetation of the Pasco area.Most of the gateway improvements
should be focusedaround the entrance into the adjacent corridor.The US
395/Lewis Street Interchange area is a good example of this concept.Grass may
be an option for landscape treatment where safe access for maintenance
personnel and irrigation are available.
5.3.A large scale “Welcome to Pasco”sign should be considered as part of each
gateway near the entrance to the City in conjunction with landscape
improvements.
>As identifiedin the 1995 Gateway and Corridor Plan a welcoming sign as you enter
the City should be considered.These signs should be placed at a location visible
along the adjacent corridor segment as you enter the City.
5.4.Where possible,gateway improvements shall be incorporated as an extension of
applicable corridor improvements.
>Due to the limited amount of gateway improvements it is recommended that the
improvements to each gateway be completed in conjunction with adjacent
corridor improvement projects.As described in Policy 5.2 gateway improvements
are recommended to be focusedaround the entrance to the corridor so it is easily
Visible as an extension of this improvement.
5.5.Improvements for the 20‘hAvenue and Road 68 gateways should be pursued by
the City independently of a corridor improvement extension.
Corridors adjacent to these two gateways are currently enhanced or completed,
thus the improvements to these gateways will need to be pursued separately by
the City for implementation.All other gateways can be improved in conjunction
with the adjacent corridor project.
6.Maintenance
6.1.Maintenance of the landscaping area within each corridor ROW should be carried
out by the City.
>The proper maintenance of a landscaped corridor is equally important as its
installation.Well-maintained corridors convey a sense of competence and caring
in a community,while poorly-maintained landscaped corridors send the opposite
message,thereby defeating the purpose of the landscape initiative.
6.2.Design of landscape areas shall consider ongoing City maintenance requirements
including width of grass strips,variation of tree species,placement of
shrubbery,irrigation systems,and any other landscape maintenance related
issue.
Page 30
Page 116 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
>Since the intent is for the City to maintain the landscaped area within the ROW,
appropriate design standards should be considered.For instance,the width of the
lawn mower should be considered to avoid a narrow strip requiring an extra pass
with a mower.Curbing along a fence line would provide a clean edge and simplify
mowing.Placement and variety of trees should be appropriately planned.
>Use of shrubs should be minimized in order to limit the amount of maintenance
required from weeding,pruning,spraying,and litter cleanup.Grass and trees
have been foundto be easier to maintain than shrubs.
7.Funding
7.1.City shall provide adequate and predictable funding to implement and maintain
corridor and gateway improvements.
>Accomplishment of this plan will depend greatly on the City’s commitment and
level of annual funding.Much can be accomplished at little cost to the City when
done in conjunction with new development.Redeveloping corridors within the
older part of the City (or were development already exists)will require more
financialparticipation and associated commitment from the City.Undergrounding
of overhead utilities will likely depend greatly on the City’s willingness to commit
to a financialpartnership with the PUD.
8.Priority
8.1 .City staff shall work to implement corridor improvements,beginning at the
highest priority corridor as defined below as funds allow annually.
>Funding available for corridor improvements should be prioritized in order to
leverage resources and provide direction to this effort.
8.2.Highest priority should be for corridor and gateway improvements included with
roadway projects in the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
)‘>All projects which will be redesigning or widening a roadway as part of the City’s
TIP should incorporate the corridor landscape improvements.It is recognized that
the budgets of these TIP projects may not allow for the installation of the
corridor improvements.The City should nevertheless include the landscape
design into the overall roadway design so that the corridor improvements can be
installed at a later date with minimal conflict.Preferably,funding from this
program could augment road projects to complete the corridor.
8.3.High priority should be given to projects where electrical distribution lines have
been undergrounded.
>The undergrounding of overhead utilities is a major portion of improving a
corridor aesthetically.As stated above,the City and the PUDshould develop a
definitiveplan to place distribution (but not transmission)lines underground in
all corridors identifiedin this plan.
8.4.High priority should be given to extend corridor improvements in conjunction
with private development (or redevelopment)to complete or maximize half
street improvements on corridor segments.
>As private development occurs along corridor segments the City should work to
assist existing developed properties in finalizing the corridor design for the
segment.For instance if a developer is improving three-fourthsof a corridor
Page 31
Page 117 of 166
Corridors and Gateways Plan
City of Pasco
2008
segment as part of their project and the remaining one-fourth is existing
development with no corridor improvements the City should work with the new
development and existing landowners to complete the improvement for the entire
segment.
8.5.The next level of priority should focus on determining and implementing
appropriate improvements for the Corridor segments identified in the Table
“City High Opportunity Potential Priority Ranking”.
>Several corridors will not have private development impetus for the provision of
improvements.The City will need to be proactive in pursuing sidewalk and
landscaping improvements in these corridors.A priority ranking was developed to
give direction to those corridors needing significant City effort.Corridor
segments were ranked based on leveraging other types of funding such as roadway
projects,private development or utilities.Other consideration was given to
completing corridors that have existing components that will be easier to provide
a complete segment and also highest improvement potential for pedestrians and
transit users.
Page 32
Page 118 of 166
Page 119 of 166
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 21, 2025
TO: Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/27/25
FROM: Maria Serra, Public Works Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution - Awarding Bid No. 25679 for Farm Well #4 Installation (5
minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
PWRF Maintenance and Operations Fund: $443,500. Adopted budget is
sufficient to cover the proposed award and project administration costs.
Proposed Bid Award: $ 382,025.40
Budgeted Project Costs:
Design Phase $ 5,833
ROW Phase $ 0
Construction Phase $ 437,667
Total Project Estimate $ 443,500
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
The Process Water Reuse Facility's (PWRF) lad treatment system consists of
farm land (16 circles) where engineered crop rotation uptakes nitrogen and
other constituents as the final step for treatment and disposal of industrial
wastewater. The system operates under a Washington State Department of
Ecology State Waste discharge permit.
Page 120 of 166
The application of wastewater is complemented with well water to meet crop
demands, a healthy crop performs better at up-taking nutrients and cleaning
the process water before it reaches the groundwater. Well water is also
utilized as "rinse cycles" for the crops, eliminating any surface deposits on the
crops, and improving their performance.
Farm Circle #4 is, like the rest of the system, irrigated by a mix of treated water
from PWRF and water that is provided by Farm Well #4. The existing well has
reached the end of its useful life. The well screen is failing, and allowing rocks
and debris to be pumped into the irrigation system, ultimately generating
damage to equipment.
The proposed well will replace the existing one. Design on this project started
on April, 2025. The project was advertised for bids on October 1st, and
October 8th. On October 21st at 2:00pm two (2) bids were received and
publicly opened by the City. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by
Carpenter Drilling, LLC in the amount of $382,025.40. The Engineer's Estimate
is $429,000.
Bid Tabulation
Engineer's Estimate $ 429,000.00
Carpenter Drilling, LLC $ 382,025.40
DC Drilling Inc. $ 405,504.72
Impact:
The proposed well will provide the water needed to supplement the irrigation of
Farm Circle #4. The replacement of the well will prevent further damage to
equipment and ensure reliable supply of irrigation water to the crops for
seasons to come. The City, under the lease agreements with farmers for the
PWRF Land treatment system, is required to provide all the irrigation water for
the farm circle. If the City fails to provide water, it would become liable for the
loss of crops.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation:
City Staff completed the review of the bid submittal, found no exemptions or
irregularities. Staff recommends award of the bid to Carpenter Drilling, LLC.
Constraints:
The construction of this project needs to be completed during the non-irrigation
season to minimize interruptions or impacts to normal PWRF Farm Operations.
Next Steps:
Page 121 of 166
Provided the Council awards the contract, staff will work with the awardee to
complete all necessary contractual documentation and provide notice to
proceed in the next 6 weeks.
Alternatives:
Award the bid as proposed
Alternatively, Council may choose to reject all bids and readvertise the
project. This is not recommended since the lowest bid was below
Engineer's estimate.
Council may choose to reject all bids and cancel the project. Then direct
staff to re-evaluate the needs of the system and find alternatives on how
to serve circle #4 with the necessary irrigation water to meet lease
obligations permit and comply with the State waste discharge
requirements for the next season.
Page 122 of 166
Resolution – Farm Well #4 Installation Bid Award - 1
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AWARDING BID NO. 25679 FOR FARM WELL #4 INSTALLATION
PROJECT TO CARPENTER DRILLING, LLC.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) identified the Farm Well #4 Installation in the
approved Maintenance and Operation Budget; and
WHEREAS, this Contract provides for the installation of a new 20” well located at Process
Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) Farm Circle #4, and
WHEREAS, the City solicited sealed public bids for this project, identified as Farm Well
#4 Installation Project; and
WHEREAS, on October, 21, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., two (2) bids were received and opened
by the City; and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsive bidder was Carpenter Drilling, LLC with a bid of
$382,025.40 including sales tax and the Engineer’s Estimate was $429,000; and
WHEREAS, the bid documentation was reviewed, and the bidder was determined to be
responsible and responsive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City hereby awards the Farm Well #4 Installation Project to Carpenter Drilling,
LLC, in the amount of $382,025.40, including sales tax and, further, authorize the City Manager
to execute the Contract documents.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take affect 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
November, 2025.
_____________________________
David Milne
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 123 of 166
Pasco City Council
October 27th, 2025
Workshop
Pa
g
e
1
2
4
o
f
1
6
6
Farm Well #4 Installation
Bid Award
October 27th, 2025
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
1
2
5
o
f
1
6
6
Farm Well #4 Installation
SITE MAP
PROJECT LOCATION
2953 E FOSTER WELLS RD
N
E Foster Wells Rd
N
VICINITY MAP
Pa
g
e
1
2
6
o
f
1
6
6
Farm Well #4 Installation
•The City solicited public bids for this project on October 1st, 2025,
bids were opened on October 21st, 2025.
•Two (2) bids were received; the lowest responsible bidder was
Carpenter Drilling, LLC in the amount of $382,025.40.
•The Engineer’s estimate for this project was $429,000.
•City Staff reviewed the bid submittal and found no exemptions or
irregularities. Staff recommends award of the Contract to Carpenter
Drilling, LLC.
Pa
g
e
1
2
7
o
f
1
6
6
Questions?
Pa
g
e
1
2
8
o
f
1
6
6
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 6, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 10/27/25
FROM: Arman Rashid, Director
Information Technology
SUBJECT: Resolution – Sole Source Contract for Citywide Wide Area Network
(WAN) staff minute (5 Inc. Repair, Wiring Telco with Services &
presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
Resolution and Sole Source Worksheet
Telco WAN Service Agreement
Ethernet Connections Table
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Contract Value: $360,000 over 3 years
Monthly Cost: $10,000
Contract Term: Through November 2028
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
Since 2010, the City of Pasco has relied on Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. to
provide Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity between City Hall and a
growing number of municipal sites. Telco initially deployed a Metropolitan Area
Network (MAN) architecture that connected key City facilities including the
Senior Center, City View Parks Shops, Fire Stations Nos. 81, 82, and 83,
Public Works, Butterfield Water Treatment Plant, Court Street Water Treatment
Plant, & Memorial Pool, each provisioned with a 5 Mbps dedicated fiber
connection. These connections were routed back to a centralized 25 Mbps
aggregation point at City Hall, forming the backbone of the City’s early inter-
facility communications network.
Page 129 of 166
This WAN infrastructure enabled secure, point-to-point connectivity over a
private fiber network, allowing the City to support critical services such as
emergency response, water & wastewater operations, and administrative
communications. Over time, as the City’s operational footprint expanded, Telco
continued upgrading and circuits new adding network the scale to by
bandwidth tiers. Today, Telco, operating as a reseller of Franklin PUD’s fiber
and wireless services, remains the City’s primary WAN provider, delivering
consistent service, competitive pricing, and deep familiarity with the City’s
infrastructure and operational requirements.
As the City expanded, the number of connections grew significantly, now
totaling 109 circuits and still growing in number, which exceeds the City
Manager’s purchasing authority. These circuits support critical infrastructure
including water treatment plants, lift stations, traffic signals, and emergency
services.
21 circuits are currently under contract.
88 circuits are operating on a month-to-month basis.
The proposed contract will grant the City 10 additional circuits to be
added under the same terms, accommodating for future growth.
The last contract expires in November 2028.
The total proposed contract value is $360,000 over 3 years ($10,000 per
month).
The full list of circuits includes connections to:
Water and wastewater facilities (e.g., Butterfield Water Plant, Court
Street Water Treatment Plant, Broadmoor Water Tank)
Fire stations (e.g., Fire Stations Nos. 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85)
Police facilities (e.g., Main Station, Downtown Mini-Station)
Traffic signal cabinets (e.g.,Court & Rd 32, Sylvester & 14th,
Ainsworth & 10th)
Lift stations and irrigation boosters (e.g., Rivershore, Navy Base, Rd
108 Irrigation Booster)
Community and administrative buildings (e.g.,City Hall, Parks
Maintenance Shop, Multimodal Station, Cemetery Office)
Impact (other than fiscal):
Due to the complexity of re-bidding these services, especially considering
compatibility, security, and operational risk, City staff recommends proceeding
with a sole source contract. These circuits are foundational to the City’s
emergency response systems and utility operations, and any disruption could
pose a significant risk to public safety and service continuity.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 130 of 166
In 2025, based on Information Technology staff researched on Wide Area
Network (WAN) service providers, the City’s current network infrastructure,
operational dependencies, and vendor performance history, staff selected
Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. to continue as the City’s WAN service provider.
Telco is currently the only vendor with full operational knowledge of the City’s
109 active circuits, 88 of which are on month-to-month terms. The remaining
21 are under contract, and the new agreement allows for 10 additional circuits.
The proposed contract consolidates all circuits under a single 3-year term, co-
terminating in November 2028. This structure simplifies management, ensures
pricing stability, and mitigates the risk of service disruption. The flat monthly
cost is $10,000, totaling $360,000 over the contract period.
Recommendation:
Staff is requesting approval to proceed with the Telco WAN Services contract
by sole source designation.
The proposed agreement with Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. ensures:
Standardized Pricing: All circuits are priced equally, regardless of
location type.
Contract includes 119 at a fixed cost, leaving an additional 10 lines for
future expansion at no cost.
Scalability: Includes one 10Gbps link and 128 1Gbps links, with flexibility
for future expansion.
Operational Continuity: Avoids disruption to essential services like
police, fire, traffic lights, and utilities.
Security and Manageability: Virtual Area Local Network (VLAN)
isolation, centralized monitoring, and authorized contact protocols.
High Availability: 99.99% uptime Service Level Agreement (SLA) backed
by FPUD and monitored by NoaNet.
The sole source justification is based on:
Compatibility with existing infrastructure and systems.
Risk of service disruption if transitioned to a new provider.
Co-termination of all circuits under a unified 3-year agreement.
The City’s long-standing operational standards and construction
specifications that align with Telco’s service model.
Budget Impact:
The City originally budgeted $9,880 per month for Wide Area Network (WAN)
services. However, as of last month, actual monthly expenditures have
increased to $10,375, primarily due to the addition of new network lines. As the
City continues to grow and expand its infrastructure, these costs are expected
to rise further.
Page 131 of 166
To address this, the proposed contract introduces a fixed monthly rate of
$10,000, which includes ten additional lines to accommodate future expansion.
While this amount exceeds the original budget, it still represents a cost savings
compared to current actual spending. Moreover, the new agreement offers:
Predictable monthly costs.
Simplified vendor management.
Improved scalability.
This makes the proposal a more efficient and forward-looking investment in the
City’s network infrastructure.
Constraints (time or other consideration):
88 circuits are currently operating on a month-to-month basis, exceeding
the City Manager’s purchasing authority.
Delays in approval could risk further cost escalation.
Transitioning to a new provider would require extensive reconfiguration,
posing security and operational risks.
Next Steps:
Upon Council approval, execute the 3-year agreement with Telco.
Transition all month-to-month circuits into the new contract.
Monitor performance and usage under the new agreement to ensure
service continuity and scalability.
Alternatives:
Option 1: Continue adding lines without consolidating contracts.
Pros:
Fast deployment for urgent expansion.
Cons:
Ongoing cost increases as new lines are added.
Fragmented contracts, making it difficult to manage and consolidate
services
Inability to competitively bid the full contract, limiting opportunities
for cost savings
Option 2: Put 88 connections out for bid, excluding the 21 already under
contract.
Pros:
Potential for competitive pricing on the 88 connections.
Cons:
A new vendor would require time to understand the City’s systems,
policies, and operations.
Introducing a second provider increases complexity, potential
Page 132 of 166
security risks, and perpetuates staggered contract expirations.
*Please refer to the Ethernet Connections Table attachment for the current
list of connections.
Page 133 of 166
Pasco City Council
October 27, 2025
Workshop
Pa
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
1
6
6
Wide Area Network (WAN)
Services Contract Overview
10/27/2025
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
1
6
6
Background & History
Reliance on Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. since 2010
Initial Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) architecture for secure
connectivity
Support for emergency response, utilities, and administration
Pa
g
e
1
3
6
o
f
1
6
6
Current WAN Network
109 circuits across city facilities
Dedicated 10Gbps link between City Hall and Fire Station 84
Coverage: fire, police, water, admin, traffic signalsPa
g
e
1
3
7
o
f
1
6
6
Current WAN Network
Pa
g
e
1
3
8
o
f
1
6
6
Contract Details & Fiscal Impact
Sole source contract: $360,000 over 3 years ($10,000/month) for 119
lines.
88 circuits on month-to-month, 21 under contract
Allows 10 additional circuits without renegotiation
Pa
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
1
6
6
Benefits, Risks & Recommendation
Consistent service, deep vendor familiarity
High availability (99.99% uptime Service Level Agreement -SLA),
security features
Risks of switching: disruption, security concerns
Recommendation:
Adopt sole source contract, transition all circuits, monitor
performance
Pa
g
e
1
4
0
o
f
1
6
6
Next Steps
Upon Council approval, execute the 3-year agreement with Telco.
Transition all month-to-month circuits into the new contract.
Monitor performance and usage under the new agreement to ensure
service continuity and scalability.
Pa
g
e
1
4
1
o
f
1
6
6
Alternative Options
Option 1: Continue adding lines without consolidating contracts
Pros: Fast deployment
Cons: Cost increases, fragmented contracts, limited competitive
bidding
Option 2: Put 88 connections out for bid
Pros: Potential partial competitive pricing
Cons: Request for Proposal (RFP) process lag, new vendor learning
curve, complexity, security risks
Pa
g
e
1
4
2
o
f
1
6
6
Questions?Pa
g
e
1
4
3
o
f
1
6
6
Resolution Sole Source WAN Services - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF WIDE AREA NETWORK (WAN)
SERVICES WITH TELCO WIRING AND REPAIR INC.
WHEREAS, it is critical for the City of Pasco (City) to have proper services to perform
Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity to support essential operations across its facilities,
including administrative offices, public works, utilities, emergency services, and other critical
functions; and
WHEREAS, the City currently uses Telco, which are deeply integrated into its existing
network architecture; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Pasco hereby determines that the paramount
considerations in the acquisition to maintain operational compatibility, security, and service
continuity; and
WHEREAS, the use of Telco WAN Services 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 and 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 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 WAN services from Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
The City Council of Pasco 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
WAN Services from Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. (Exhibit B).
Page 144 of 166
Resolution Sole Source WAN Services - 2
Be It Further Resolved, that the City of Pasco Information Technology Department
purchase WAN Services from Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. for an amount not to exceed the sum of
$360,000.
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
____________, 2025.
_____________________________
David Milne
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 145 of 166
Resolution Sole Source WAN Services - 3
SOLE SOURCE WORKSHEET
Requisition Item: Telco Wide Area Network (WAN) Service for 3 Years Requisition No. TBD
Prior Purchase Order Number (if item had been approved previously): N/A – Regular/Ongoing
Service Since 2010.
1. Please describe the items and its function: WAN connectivity between City of Pasco
facilities, enabling secure, high-speed communication across departments. This supports
essential operations such as emergency response, water and wastewater management, and
centralized IT services.
2. This is a sole source because:
☐ sole provider of a licensed or patented good or service
☒ sole provider of services 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
☐ 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.)
3. What necessary features does this vendor provide which are not available from other
vendors? Please be specific. While similar WAN services are available from other
providers, the City’s existing infrastructure includes over 109 active circuits—many of
which are on month-to-month terms or under staggered contracts. These circuits are deeply
integrated into the City’s critical systems and are managed through a centralized
architecture supported by Telco. Introducing a new provider would require significant
reconfiguration, pose security and compatibility risks, and disrupt essential services.
Additionally, all new circuits under this agreement will co-terminate at the end of the 36-
month term, simplifying future procurement. The City intends to issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for WAN services upon expiration of this agreement.
4. What steps were taken to verify that these features are not available elsewhere?
☒ Other brands/manufacturers were examined (please list phone numbers and names
and explain why these were not suitable).
Multiple providers were reviewed; however, using multiple WAN vendors would
introduce complexity in network management, reduce visibility and control, and
increase the risk of service interruptions. The City’s current contract structure and
operational dependencies make it impractical to partially transition to a new
Sole source purchases are defined 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.
Page 146 of 166
Resolution Sole Source WAN Services - 4
provider at this time.
☐ Other vendors were contacted (please list phone numbers and names and explain
why these were not suitable).
5. Sole source vendor certifies that the City is getting the lowest price offered for the item.
It is important to note that price is not the primary justification for this sole source
designation. The City’s objective is to maintain a unified WAN architecture under a single
provider to avoid the operational and technical risks associated with managing multiple
vendors.
Introducing a second provider would increase complexity in network management,
introduce potential security vulnerabilities, and perpetuate the current issue of staggered
contract expirations across individual circuits. By consolidating all services under a single
agreement with Telco, the City ensures co-termination of all circuits, simplifies contract
administration, and reduces the risk of service disruption to critical infrastructure.
Certification 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 personal familiarity with particular brands, types or
equipment, materials or firm been a deciding influence on my request to sole source this purchase.
By: _Arman Rashid, IT Director________________________________ Date: 10/06/2025
Page 147 of 166
Page 1 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc.
Telephone - (509) 547-4300 P.O. Box 2503
613 N. 27th Pasco, WA. 99302
Pasco, WA. 99301
Service Agreement
1.0 Service Description
1.1 General:
This Internet Service Provider Agreement (the "ISP Agreement") is
applicable to t he City of Pasco ("Customer") as a customer or user of
Network Services provided by Telco Wiring & Repair, Inc. (" Telco").
Telco is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington.
Its physical address is: 613 N 27th, Pasco, WA 99301. Its mailing address
is PO Box 2503, Pasco, WA 99302.
Telco is a reseller of Franklin PUD (FPUD) fiber and wireless connections.
1.2 Service Level
Telco will provide Customer with Connectivity Service between the
Customer Premise identified within this contract and the FPUD network.
The current Master Service A greement (MSA) between FPUD and Telco
Wiring is that the network will operate at 99.99% up time. Telco will provide
Customer with Connectivity Service at or above the level outlined in the
MSA.
Customer Facilit ies: Service delivery in a customer facility will typically be
provisioned as a 1 gigabit or 10Gig fiber link. The downstream bandwidth
(from FPUD to the Customer) is typically equal to the upstream bandwidth
(from the Customer to FPUD). Bandwidth for Service delivered on fiber
facilities is available in tiered increments.
2.0 Fees and Terms
2.1 Circuits and Pricing
The addition of circuits beyond the 119 gig MAN circuits identified in
Section 2.2 below will require the City to pay for all construction costs
associated with the construction cost of fiber as well as applicable taxes and
fees imposed by any government Entity for those additional circuits.
Page 148 of 166
Page 2 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
All circuits will be priced the same with no differentiation as to manned or
unmanned usage. All circuits will be provisioned at 1 gig, except for one (1)
10 gig connection between City Hall and the Backup Data Center located at
Fire Station 84 (Station 84) located at 4920 W Court St, Pasco, WA 99301.
2.2 Monthly Costs
The costs for the current number of circuits plus the pending circuits will be
$10,000 per month. For this amount, Customer is entitled to up to 119 gig
MAN circuits with one 10 gig circuit between the City Hall and Station 84
Data Center with no additional monthly fee. If at any time during this
contract, Customer’s circuit count is predicted to go above 119 listed above,
a new bulk rate can be negotiated, with the new per circuit rate not to exceed
the previous bulk rates per circuit cost .
2.3 Quote Process
All quotes for service will be valid for 90-days. If the City does not sign
within the 90-day window, a verification of construction costs will be
conducted by Telco prior to the City signing to confirm construction costs.
2.4 Payment Terms
The monthly amount will be due 30 days net unless prior arrangements
have been made.
2.5 Term and Renewal
The initial term on this ISP Agreement is 3 years from the date of
execution. Following the expiration of the initial term, services will
continue to be provided on a month -to-month basis subject to the terms
and conditions of this agreement unless a new agreement is negotiated.
2.6 Circuit Co-Termination
All circuits, regardless of install date will expire co -terminus with this
contract if the following conditions are met: That all recurring monthly
and non-recurring construction cost are paid in full.
2.7 Equipment and Service Boundary
This agreement does not include any equipment, labor, or wiring to
extend the service beyond the FPUD Edge device . Fees for equipment,
services or wiring to extend this service will be an additional charge at a
negotiated fee.
2.8 Taxes and Regulatory Fees
There are currently no taxes placed on the monthly service , however, in
the future, any taxes or fees applied by any federal, state or local
government entity will be assessed and collected as required.
2.9 Service Discontinuation
Page 149 of 166
Page 3 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
Telco, at its sole discretion, may discontinue service should the Customer
fail to pay for services in a timely manner.
2.10 Early Termination
The City may discontinue this agreement if Telco or FPUD is
unresponsive to requests made by the City for service or repairs. If this
were to occur, payment must be made for all services rendered up to the
cancellation date.
If you cancel this contract before the expiration date for reasons other
than non-performance/unresponsiveness by Telco or FPUD, you will be
liable for Early Termination Fees representing 100% of the Monthly
Recurring charges for the remaining term, and 100% of any unpaid non -
recurring fees.
2.11 Return of Equipment
All equipment owned by Telco or FPUD must be promptly returned when
your service ends.
3.0 Service Delivery
3.1 General
It is Customer's responsibility to ensure that all devices at Customer
Premise can connect to the FPUD Edge Equipment and are configured
properly. This includes but is not limited to Ethernet switches, Ethernet
cabling, workstations, servers and operating systems .
3.2 Installation
The standard installation timeframe for Service is defined as 60 days from
contract signing in this Service Agreement.
If additional configuration work is required due to limitations of the
Customer systems, including but not limited to servers, workstations or
network, then Telco reserves the right to bill the customer at current hourly
rates for additional configuration time.
Except as otherwise defined within this agreement Telco is not responsible
for and will not be obligated to provide any assistance in configuration,
installation, administration, troubleshooting, maintenance, or repair of
equipment or software, or integration of equipment or software into
Customer's internal network. Such services may be available at additional
cost.
3.3 Service Termination
The terms of this agreement will continue on a month -to-month basis after
the expiration date of this agreement.
Page 150 of 166
Page 4 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
4.0 Service Support
All circuits will be monitored by the NOC provided by NoaNet/FPUD
4.1 Authorized Contacts
Telco provides reliable and secure managed services by requiring technical
support and information requests come only from documented, authorized
client -organization contacts.
The City shall provide a contact list which will contain at least one ("1")
Administrative contact and may contain up to three ("3") Technical
contacts per service. Administrative and Technical contacts are authorized
to request service changes or informat ion. The contact list must include the
contact’s name, contact e-mail address and contact phone number for each
authorized person. Requests to replace the administrative contact shall be
submitted via email or fax to Telco on city letterhead. All requests are
verified per procedure below.
E-mail and fax requests are verified with a phone call to the documented
client contact. Phone call requests must be validated with an e -mail request
from a documented client contact.
4.2 Technical Support
If you experience an outage or internet connection issues, you can contact
our main business number, (509)547-4300, for support. If the issue is after
normal business hours, you may still contact our main business number,
(509)547-4300, and press 1 to be connected to a service technician. In
addition to the main business number, you may contact one of the following
numbers directly for service issues:
Dusty Powers (509)727-0391
Herb Powers (509)727-1588
Kipp Hudson (509)727-3674
Customers must contact Telco Support to report service trouble or an
outage. Telco Technical Support will be available seven (7) days per week;
twenty-four (24) hours per day; three hundred sixty -five days (365) days
per year. Telco Technical Support provides support for network
monitoring, trouble ticket resolution, and fault isolation up to the
termination point of FPUD provided Equipment.
Telco Technical Support will accept trouble and outage -related support
calls from any authorized customer representative as defined by Section
4.1. Telco will not perform any requested activity which may cause
Service disruption or perform any changes to Service unless request is
initiated by an Authorized Contact. Telco reserves the right to delay
Page 151 of 166
Page 5 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
response on support tickets opened by anyone other than the Authorized
Contact.
Communication between Telco and the customer not initiated by an
authorized contact will not be subject to the terms of the SLA.
4.3 Support Limitations
Telco Technical Support is not responsible for end -user support of issues
not directly related to Service. This includes (but is not limited to)
Customer operating systems, Customer equipment, or Customer
application support.
4.4 Monitoring
Telco's internet circuits are monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by the
NoaNet Network Operations Center (NOC).
4.5 Notifications
Telco will notify Customer within thirty (30) minutes of a Service outage
via e-mail notification as well as a contact telephone number provided by
the City during normal business hours. If the call is sent to voice mail, this
will serve as notification. Telco w ill notify the customer within Sixty (60)
minutes during non-business hours. NoaN et will monitor connections to the
IP address of the customer router. An outage is defined as any fifteen (15)
consecutive minutes where the connection is unavailable. If an outage is
determined, Telco will generate an e-mail notification to Customer.
4.6 Maintenance
Customer is responsible for maintaining and updating Authorized Contact
list with Telco. Telco will not be held responsible for maintenance
notifications missed due to out -of -date Authorized Contact information.
4.6.1 Scheduled Maintenance
Maintenance window for disruptive work can be any day,
with the requirement of one (1) calendar week notification
to Customer prior to maintenance.
Telco will send an e-mail notification of such disruptive
maintenance to Authorized Contacts of Customer. Once
notification is sent to Customer this will be considered a
"Scheduled Maintenance". Any Service Level Agreements
(“SLAS”) will NOT apply during a Scheduled Maintenance.
4.6.2 Emergency Maintenance
Telco, Franklin PUD and NoaNet reserves the right to
perform emergency service maintenance as needed outside
the Scheduled Maintenance window, in which case Telco
will make a reasonable effort to notify the Customer if
feasible under the circumstances. Any such maintenance
Page 152 of 166
Page 6 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
will be considered an "Emergency Maintenance". All
Service SLA s will apply during Emergency Maintenance.
5.0 Service Level Agreements and Goals
The FPUD network operates at an uptime of 99.99%. Telco will provide the
services to Customer at or above the FPUD network operational uptime of
99.99% as well as at or above the goa levels outlined below. Remedies of lesser
availability are outlined below.
5.1 Availability SLAs and Goals
"Availability" SLAs apply only when service is compromised to the level
of 50% of the capacity of the customer supplied switches/routers. After
Customer opens a ticket on Service issue Telco Technical Support will
classify the issue. If Telco Technical Support determines that Customer
service is 50% of the customer supplied equipment, a trouble ticket will be
opened with the FPUD NOC.
If categorized as a "Service Availability ' issue and all SLA remedies
applicable to Service Availability will apply. Any SLA remedies not
specifically defined as "Service Availability” SLAs will not apply to same
"Service Availability" issue.
5.1.1 Availability SLA
For the purpose of the availability of the SLA, the duration
of a Service Outage shall be deemed to commence upon the
opening of a Verifiable Trouble Ticket by Telco Technical
Support, in response to the Customer request, and ends
when the Service Outage ends.
Trouble tickets, where the Service Outage cannot be verified
with Telco's standard diagnostic procedures, do not count
towards the Availability SLA.
Availability shall be indicative of Telco's ability to route
packets from the Customer to any peering point or upstream
transit provider. This SLA does not warrant the customer
provided device’s ability to process packets.
SLA Remedy
Fiber circuit: 99.99% availability Each hour service is unavailable
above SLA goal qualifies the
Customer for a credit of 3% of MRC
up to a maximum of 50% of MRR for
affected service
5.1.2 Service Repair Goal
Page 153 of 166
Page 7 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
For purpose of the Service Repair Goal, the duration of a
Service Outage shall be deemed to commence upon the
determination by Telco Technical Support that Service
Repair is necessary and ends when the Service Repair has
been completed.
Telco will make all reasonable efforts to resolve problems
resulting from Customer initiated trouble tickets for this
Service based on the Goal below.
Goal Remedy
4 hours Failure to meet the goal does not
qualify the Customer for any
additional Service credit
5.1.3 Monitoring Goal
The Monitoring Goal is measured from the time an outage
is detected by NoaNet monitoring systems until such outage
is reported to the customer by the Telco notification method.
The goal is considered met once the NoaNet /Telco
monitoring system sends a notification to the customer.
Receipt of the notification by the customer or lack of receipt
will not be considered to be part of goal.
Goal Remedy
15 minutes Failure to meet the goal does not
qualify the Customer for any
additional Service credit
5.1.4 Contact Response Goal
The Contact Response Goal is measured from the time an
outage or issue is detected by Customer and initially
reported to Telco until a response is received back from the
Customer. The goal is considered met once Telco contacts
the customer via phone acknowledging the issue.
Goal Remedy
60 minutes Failure to meet the goal does not
qualify the Customer for any
additional Service credit
6.0 Conflict Resolution
Page 154 of 166
Page 8 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
A mediator shall be utilized to help resolve any conflict that is not resolvable
through direct negotiations between the parties to this contract.
The mediator or mediation service shall be approved by both Telco and the City.
The cost of the mediation shall be borne equally by both Telco and the City .
The parties reserve their rights to pursue any remedies allowed by law.
7.0 Addendums
There are two addendums that are attached.
Addendum #1 is a current and pending circuit list.
Addendum #2 is a clarification page in response to questions posed by the City of
Pasco IT staff and is to be considered a part of this agreement.
The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective
authorized representative day________ of 2025.
City of Pasco Telco Wiring & Repair
_____________________ ____________________
Print Name Print Name
_____________________ ____________________
Sign Name Sign Name
Page 155 of 166
Page 9 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
Addendum #1
Service ID Service ID Status Service Address
17-0433-01 Active 204 W Clark St, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-02 Active Road 68 & Sandifur, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-03 Active 1300 N Oregon Ave Park Shop, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-04 Active 1025 S Gray Ave 1, Pasco, WA99301
17-0433-05 Active Butterfield Backwash Waste Station, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-06-
AI
Active 3203 Road 68, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-07 Active Memorial Park Pool, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-08 Active 310 N Oregon Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-09 Active 3502 Varney Ln Fire Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-10 Active 11315 W Court St- W Pasco Water Trtmt, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-100 Active Sylvester St & 14th Ave Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-101 Active Sylvester St & 28th Ave Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-102 PendingAdd Ainsworth St & 10th Ave Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-103 Active Argent Rd & Rd 80 Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-104 Pending Add Broadmoor & Sandifur Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-105 PendingAdd A St & E Rd 40 Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-106 Active 36th & Argent Rd Traffjc Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-107 Active 1312 S 18th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-108 Active 1308 S 18th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-11 Active 215 W Sylvester St Police statn, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-12 Active Convention And Burden, Pasco, WA99301
17-0433-13 Active Rd 68 And Burden, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-14 Active Rd 68 And Wrigley, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-15 Active Rd 68 And Sandifur, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-16 Active 6801 Chapel Hill Blvd Lights Irr svc, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-17 Active Road 108 1, Pasco, WA99301
17-0433-18 Active 5520 Salem Dr - Linda Loviisa well, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-19 Active Shoreline Ct - Rivershore Lift Station, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-20 Active Chiawana High School Lift Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-21 Active Three Rivers Dr sewr, Pasco, WA 99301
Page 156 of 166
Page 10 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
17-0433-22 Active 3603 Burden Blvd - Road 36 Booster, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-23 Active Navy Base Lift Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-24 Active 14th And Pearl Lift Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-25 Active Broadmoor Water Tank, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-26 Active 1320 W Hopkins St, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-27 Active Road 52, Pasco, WA99301
17-0433-28 Active Road 52 & Burns Rd - Powerline well, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-29 Active 1219 W Washington St-9th/Wa Lift Station, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-30 Active N Commercial Ave P-K Hwy Lift Station, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-31 Active Butterfield Backwash Waste Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-32 Active Foster Wells Rd & Indus, Pasco, WA99301
17-0433-33 Active Foster Wells - Pwrf Pond Pumps, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-34 Active 5815 Nauvoo Ln - NW Commons Lift Station, Pasco,
WA 99301
17-0433-35 Active Bn Well 17, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-36 Active Reservoirs Of Mcgee, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-38 Active Oregon & A St Signal And St Lights, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-39 Active 5606 Remington Dr, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-40 Active N Oregon Ave & E Broadway Street Lights, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-41 Active N Oregon E Salt Lake Traffic Sig, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-42 Active N Oregon Ave & N Idaho Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-43 Active Sandifur And Midland Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-44 Active N 20th Ave Sun Willows Blvd, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-45 Active 20th & Pearl Hawk Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-46 Active 20th & Pearl Hawk Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-47 Active Court Street, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-48 Active 20th & Marie Hawk Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-49 Active Henry Street, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-50 Active Sylvester Street, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-51 Active Lewis Street, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-52 Active W Argent Rd & Road 84 Signal Light, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-53 Active Chiawana Park House, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-54 Active Alderwood Ministation, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-55 Active 3306 Luna Dr, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-56 Active 535 N 1st Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-57 Active 1011 E Ainsworth Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
Page 157 of 166
Page 11 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
17-0433-58 Active 4414 Indian Ridge Dr - 1st Place well, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-59 Active 1103 S Maitland - Lift Station B Backup, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-60 Active Argent & 20th Ave - Airport Lift Station, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-61 Active 215 W Sylvester St Police statn, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-63 Active N Capitol Ave Lift Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-64 Active Road 36 & Argent Rd Signal Light, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-65 Active Court St & 4th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-66 Active Court St & 5th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-67 Active Court St & 10th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-68 Active Court St & 14th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-69 Active Court St & 26th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-70 Active Lewis St & Wehe Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-71 Active Lewis St & 10th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-72 Active Clark St & 4th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-73 Active Lewis St & 4th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-74 Active Lewis St & 5th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-75 Active Lewis St & 7th Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-76 Active 205 S Wehe Ave Epnf Mik, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-77 Active 6520 Home Run Road, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-78 Active 425 W Lewis St Mall ct, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-79 Active 4712 Tamarisk Dr, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-80 Active 3909 Artesia Dr well, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-81 Active 7510 Sandifur Pkwy, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-82 Active Harris - Irrigation Usbr Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-83 Active 4920 W Court st, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-84 Active 3624 Road 100, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-85 Active 109 S 4th st, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-86 Active E Adelia & N Pennie Ln - Pennie Left st, Pasco,
WA 99301
17-0433-87 Active 3291 Burns Rd Solstice Ph 55 Lot Temp, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-88 Active 20th & Argent Rd Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA 99302
17-0433-89 Active 9004 Omer Rd, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-90 Active 110 S 4th Ave Comm/Kitchen, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-91 Active zone 3 Reservoir - N Rd 90, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-92 Active 502 Rama ct, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-93 Active Uda Lid Phase 3 Lift Station, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-94 Active Court St & Rd 32 Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-95 Active court st & Rd 36 Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
Page 158 of 166
Page 12 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
17-0433-96 Active Court st & Rd 40 Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA 99301
17-0433-97 Active Sylvester St & 4th Ave Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-98 Active Sylvester St & 5th Ave Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
17-0433-99 Active Sylvester St & 10th Ave Traffic Signal, Pasco, WA
99301
Pending Add Fire Station 84 Back up Data Center (Contracted)
Pending Add Dust Devil Stadium (Being Quoted)
Pending Add Waterpark (Being Quoted)
Page 159 of 166
Page 13 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
Addendum #2
1. Can you provide a list of our longest standing contracts that are still active and
their expiration dates.
You have 82 circuits that have been in place for over 3 years and are now on a
month-to-month basis. There are 23 circuits that are currently under contract. The
oldest expires next month, the newest is Argent and 36 th traffic signal, which was
turned up last month, so it will expire January 2028. There are 4 more pending sites,
including the data center connection at Station 84 and 3 traffic signals. Their contract
period will begin upon circuit turn up.
2. If we transition to flat the flat rate model, what speeds will be provided and how
will you differentiate service levels?
There will be no differentiation between manned and unmanned locations. All
customer facing ports on your MAN are set at 1 Gbps regardless of designation and
will continue to be set at that rate. The only differentiation is administrative for
billing purposes. Once the flat rate is implemented, all use designation
(Manned/Un-Manned) will go away.
3. Currently our manned locations appear to have higher speeds than our unmanned
sites.
All Customer-facing ports are set for 1 Gbps. At about 14 manned locations, the
PUD installed a switch which is set at 1 Gbps. These sites will get the full 1 Gbps.
At several other manned sites and at each of the unmanned sites, you simply have
a fiber connection with the switches provided by the city. Your speeds at these
sites will be governed by the Customer Provided Equipment. If this is not the case,
please let me know and I will have the PUD look into the issue.
4. How does the Vendor updates and upgrades to prevent obsolescence?
The PUD is planning to upgrade the core equipment for the MAN and upgrade
the City Hall switch and possibly other hub location with 1 0 Gbps switches.
The switch provider is under contract to maintain software and firmware for
the latest version. Once the provider ends support, the PUD will replace the
hardware as long as there is a contract in place.
5. SLA. Uptime commitment
The PUD and Telco maintain a Master Service Agreement that commits the PUD
to maintain 99.99% uptime as a standard. This service level is provided for in the
contract. Additional expense will be incurred if a Five -9 SLA is desired, as this
would require redundant pathways, redundant electronics and failover processes.
6. Planned and unplanned maintenance and response times.
Page 160 of 166
Page 14 of 14
4916-8116-3599, v. 1
{DPK4916 -8116-3599;1/13206.000001/}
For planned maintenance, you will typically receive 5 business days' notice, with
the work normally taking place between the hours of 1 1 PM and 6:00 AM.
After hours response time will be 2 hours maximum from the time we are made
aware of a problem. We cannot guarantee a time to repair, especially in case of
cable damage, external damage caused by acts of God, accident of purposeful
damage to facilities. Typically hardware outages are repaired in 4 hours or less.
Responses during business hours will be 30 minutes of less. The same time to repair
will be the same as listed above. All nodes are monitored 24x7x365 by the PUD
NOC.
7. Network Management and Security
VLANs on the Private MAN are separate from all other customer VLANS, fiber
and electronics. The MAN is only accessible by the PUD through a Management
port. No other access is available. Any VLAN additions, deletions and
configurations must be made by an authorized representative of the city in
writing.
8. Termination and renewal terms.
The city may terminate this agreement if Telco or the PUD are unresponsive to
requests of repair, or service, continually miss our stated response times or do not
maintain the conditions of the SLA.
The contract will convert to month -to-month at the end of the agreement until a
new agreement is signed. All existing circuits and new circuits added during the
contract period will have the same expiration date as the contract.
9. Billing and invoice structure.
You will still receive an itemized invoice from Telco. Each circuit will be listed
under the department that the city determines. There will be a PUD assigned
circuit ID number. Your invoice will look the same as it does now, with only the
individual pricing removed
Page 161 of 166
Circuit #Ethernet (L2)Effective Date Expiration
17-0433-01 Amendment #1 - Existing Manned Locations
17-0433-01 204 W Clark - Training Facility 10/22/2015 10/22/2020
17-0433-02 Pasco Water Towers, Rd 68 10/22/2015 10/22/2020
17-0433-03 Park Shop, City View Parks Shop 8/1/2010 10/22/2020
17-0433-04 Grey St Treatment Plant 4/28/2016 4/28/2020
17-0433-05 Butterfield Water Plant 8/1/2010 5/31/2021
17-0433-06-A1 Facilities Rd 68 & Agrent 8/17/2016 8/17/2021
17-0433-07 Memorial Pool 8/1/2010 10/31/2021
17-0433-08 Oregon St Fire Station, Station 81 8/1/2010 1/16/2022
17-0433-09 Airport Fire Station, Station 82 8/1/2010 5/10/2022
17-0433-10 Court St Water Treatment Plant 8/1/2010 5/19/2022
17-0433-11 City Hall 8/1/2010 6/20/2022
17-0433-12 Amendment #2 - New Unmanned Locations
17-0433-12 Convention and Burden 6/6/2017 6/6/2020
17-0433-13 Rd 68 and Burden 9/1/2017 9/1/2020
17-0433-14 Rd 68 and Wrigley 1/16/2018 1/16/2021
17-0433-15 Rd 68 and Sandifur 3/20/2014 3/20/2017
17-0433-16 Rd 68 and Chapel Hill 3/20/2014 3/20/2017
17-0433-17 Amendment #2 - Water Facilities
17-0433-17 Rd 108 Irrigation Booster 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-18 Linda Lovissa Irrigation Booster 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-19 Rivershore Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-20 Rd 84 Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-21 Three Rivers Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-22 Burden Water Booster 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-23 Navy Base Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-24 Pearl St Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-25 Broadmoor Water Tank 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-26 Amendment #2 - Existing Unmanned Locations
17-0433-26 Mid-Columbia Library Hopkins HVAC Controller 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-27 Rd 52 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-28 Powerline 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-29 9th St and Washington 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-30 Dietrich 3/4/2014 3/4/2017
17-0433-31 12th Ave Raw Water Intake 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-32 West Foster Wells 3/4/2014 3/4/2017
17-0433-33 Foster Wells Reuse 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-34 Northwest Common Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-35 Madison Park Lift Station 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-36 Riverview 10 Million Gallon Tank 7/13/2015 7/13/2020
17-0433-37 Amendment #3- Wi-Fi Connections ($10 per
location)
17-0433-38 Amendment #4 - Unmanned Locations
17-0433-38 Oregon Ave Phase 1
17-0433-38 A Street 1/9/2020 1/9/2023
17-0433-39 Lewis Street 1/9/2020 1/9/2023
17-0433-40 Broadway Street 1/9/2020 1/9/2023
17-0433-41 Salt Lake Street 1/9/2020 1/9/2023
Ethernet Connections List
Page 162 of 166
17-0433-42 Idaho Street 1/9/2020 1/9/2023
17-0433-43 Sandifur Parkway 4/28/2016 4/28/2019
17-0433-43 Midland Lane 5/10/2017 5/10/2020
17-0433-44 20th Avenue Option
17-0433-44 Sun Willows Blvd 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-45 Pearl Street Crossing 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-46 Pearl Street 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-47 Court Street 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-48 Marie Street Crossing 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-49 Henry Street 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-50 Sylvester Street 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-51 Lewis Street 1/12/2018 1/12/2021
17-0433-52 Chiawana Option
17-0433-52 Argent & Rd 84 8/1/2018 8/18/2021
17-0433-53 Amendment #5 - New Locations
17-0433-53 Chiawana Park Shop 8/16/2016 8/16/2019
17-0433-54 Alderwood Ministation 7/13/2016 7/13/2019
17-0433-55 Meals on Wheels, Senior Center - 1st Ave Center 7/13/2016 7/13/2019
17-0433-56 Amendment #5 - Unmanned Location
17-0433-56 Amtrak, Multi-Modal Facility 7/13/2016 7/13/2019
17-0433-57 Amendment #6 - Manned Location
17-0433-57 Wagenaar Building, Fire Administration Building 8/19/2016 8/19/2019
17-0433-58 Amendment #7 - Unmanned Locations
17-0433-58 First Place Well 11/18/2016 11/18/2019
17-0433-59 Maitland 11/1/2016 11/1/2019
17-0433-60 Amendment #8 - Unmanned Locations
17-0433-60 Airport Lift Station 3/30/2017 3/30/2020
17-0433-61 Police Department Building, Main Station 2/14/2017 2/14/2020
17-0433-62 Amendment #9 - Manned Location
17-0433-63 Amendment #10 - Unmanned Locations
17-0433-63 Capitol Lift Station 5/18/2017 5/17/2020
17-0433-64 Amendment #11 - Unmanned Locations
17-0433-64 36th & Argent Valve 8/2/2017 8/2/2020
17-0433-65 Amendment #12 - Unmanned Locations
17-0433-65 Court St & 4th Ave 4/18/2019 4/18/2022
17-0433-66 Court St & 5th Ave 4/18/2019 4/18/2022
17-0433-67 Court St & 10th Ave 4/18/2019 4/18/2022
17-0433-68 Court St & 14th Ave 4/18/2019 4/18/2022
17-0433-69 Court St & 26th Ave 7/1/2018 7/1/2021
17-0433-70 Lewis St & WeHe Ave 1/1/2019 1/1/2022
17-0433-71 Lewis St & 10th Ave 1/1/2019 1/1/2022
17-0433-72 Clark St & 4th Ave 12/13/2019 12/13/2021
17-0433-73 Lewis St & 4th Ave 12/13/2019 12/13/2021
17-0433-74 Lewis St & 5th Ave 12/13/2019 12/13/2021
17-0433-75 Lewis St & 7th Ave 12/13/2019 12/13/2021
17-0433-76 Amendment #13 - New Locations
17-0433-76 MLK Building, MLK Center 10/31/2017 10/31/2017
17-0433-77 Softball Field, Pasco Softball Complex 2/7/2018 2/7/2021
17-0433-78 Amendment #14 - New Locations
17-0433-78 Lewis Street Ministation 9/1/2018 9/1/2021
17-0433-79 USRB 2/22/2018 2/22/2021
17-0433-80 Desert Estates Irrigation Well 8/1/2018 8/1/2021
17-0433-81 Fire Station 83 12/2/2020 12/2/2023
Page 163 of 166
17-0433-82 COP I187 Pump 3/16/2021 3/16/2024
17-0433-83 Fire Station 84 9/3/2021 9/3/2024
17-0433-84 Fire Station Rd 100 4/12/2023 4/12/2026
17-0433-85 City of Pasco Peanuts Park 3/23/2022 3/23/2025
17-0433-86 COP Pennie Pump 10/14/2022 10/14/2025
17-0433-87 COP Solstice Lift Station 8/5/2022 8/5/2025
17-0433-88 COP, Traffic Cabinet on 20th & Argent 7/7/2022 7/7/2025
17-0433-89 COP, Traffic Cabinet on Varney & Argent 7/7/2022 7/7/2025
17-0433-90 COP Pasco Speciality Kitchen 6/12/2023 6/12/2026
17-0433-91 COP Zone 3 Reservoir 9/12/2024 9/12/2027
17-0433-92 Lift Station Rd 52 & Pearl 12/1/2023 12/1/2026
17-0433-93 COP UDA LID Phase 3 Lift Station 9/11/2024 9/11/2027
17-0433-94 Court and Rd 32 Traffic Signal 7/8/2024 7/8/2027
17-0433-95 Court and Rd 36 Traffic Signal 7/8/2024 7/8/2027
17-0433-96 Court and Rd 40 Traffic Signal 7/8/2024 7/8/2027
17-0433-97 Sylvester and 4th Traffic Signal 7/31/2024 7/31/2027
17-0433-98 Sylvester and 5th Traffic Signal 7/31/2024 7/3/2027
17-0433-99 Sylvester and 10th Traffic Signal 7/31/2024 7/31/2027
17-0433-100 Sylvester and 14th Traffic Signal 7/31/2024 7/31/2027
17-0433-101 Sylvester and 28th Traffic Signal 7/31/2024 7/31/2024
17-0433-102 Ainsworth and 10th Traffic Signal (COP)8/1/2025 8/1/2028
17-0433-103 Argent & Rd 80 Traffic Signal 8/1/2024 8/1/2027
17-0433-105 A and East Rd 40 Traffic Signal Box (COP)2/25/2025 2/25/2028
17-0433-106 36th & Argent Rd Traffic Signal 1/22/2025 1/22/2028
17-0433-107 Animal Shelter (old location)9/2/2022 9/2/2025
17-0433-108 Animal Shelter (new location)7/1/2024 7/1/2027
17-0433-109 Rd 49 and Court Second Service (COP)4/7/2025 4/7/2028
17-0433-110 Fiber to Soccer Fields & Gesa Stadium (COP)7/23/2025 7/23/2028
17-0433-102 Ainsworth and 10th Traffic Signal (COP)8/1/2025 8/1/2028
Page 164 of 166
Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and
appropriate investment and re- investment in community
infrastructure.
City Council Goals
QUALITY OF LIFE
2024-2025
Enhance the long-term viability, value, and service levels of services
and programs.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Promote a highly functional multi-modal transportation system.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Implement targeted strategies to reduce crime through strategic
investments in infrastructure, staffing, and equipment.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Promote and encourage economic vitality.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Identify opportunities to enhance City of Pasco identity, cohesion,
and image.
CITY IDENTITY
Page 165 of 166
METAS DEL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL
2024-2025
Promover una alta calidad de vida a través de programas, servicios
y inversion apropiada y reinversión en la comunidad infraestructura
comunitaria.
CALIDAD DE VIDA
Promover viabilidad financiera a largo plazo, valor, y niveles de
calidad de los servicios y programas.
SOSTENIBIILIDAD FINANCIERA
Promover un sistema de transporte multimodal altamente funcional.
RED DE TRANSPORTE DE LA COMUNIDAD
Implementar estrategias específicas para reducir la delincuencia por
medios de inversiones estratégicas en infraestructura, personal y equipo.
SEGURIDAD DE NUESTRA COMUNIDAD
Promover y fomentar vitalidad económica.
VITALIDAD ECONOMICA
Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la
cohesión, y la imagen.
IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA
Page 166 of 166