HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.10 Council WS Handout from J Padvoracy' r)AlDVORAC
Technical Memorandum
To: Mayor David Milne, District 5
Mayor Pro-Tem Charles Grimm, District 2
Councilmember Blanche Barajas, District 1
Councilmember Leo Perales, District 3
Councilmember Joe Cotta, District 4
Councilmember Melissa Blasdel, District 6
Cc: Harold Steward, City Manager, City of Pasco
Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager, City of Pasco
Maria Serra, Public Works Director, City of Pasco
From: Jon Padvorac, Development Consultant, Padvorac Consulting, LLC
Date: November 10, 2025
Subject: Concerns Regarding the Legality and Fairness of Proposed Utility Connection Fee
Increases
Background
The City is considering substantial increases to water and sewer connection fees, and, as a
representative of multiple, large-scale developers in the area, I have significant concerns that the
proposed fees are incorrect and are not supported by the law. If passed in their current amount,
they could have significant, adverse impacts on the City, current and future City residents, and
the developers who work in Pasco. Those impacted may have legal recourse to recover both
damages incurred and legal costs associated with an appeal of the proposed fees.
This memo describes several concerns with the proposal to help inform Council's upcoming
deliberations. Providing more transparency and documentation for the proposed fees will help
ensure that Councilmembers can make an informed decision, and will reduce the chances of a
misguided decision that could result in a time intensive and expensive appeal process.
It is impossible to tell with a high level of precision because the Staff Report did not contain
adequate information to independently verify assumptions and recreate calculations, but it is
estimated that the legallyjustifiable connection fees would be around 1/4 to 1h of those proposed.
Page 11of11
Requested Council Action
We request that Council continue the Sewer and Water Connection Fee Update discussion to a
future Council Workshop and so staff has the opportunity to provide the following information to
stakeholders and councilmembers well in advance of the next time this subject is brought to
Council:
1) A full FCS Group report and project list and calculations that form the basis for the
proposed existing and future cost basis in the standard report format frequently used by
FCS when performing fee studies for the City. The typical report format is a well -
established standard that the City typically follows, and departing from this practice has
introduced confusion, uncertainty, and a fee of questionable legality being proposed for
Council approval.
2) A table distinguishing capacity versus replacement / deficiency costs consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Butterfield WTP Facility Plan (including Amendments).
3) A sensitivity analysis showing rate and fee impacts under low-, medium-, and high -growth
scenarios, including cumulative recent fee increase impacts for a "typical" household,
with commentary on market absorption impacts of recent fee increases for single-family
dwellings and subsequently impacts on the utility service fees collected.
4) An updated version of a previous handout staff had previously provided Council showing
how the City of Pasco measures up to Kennewick, Richland, and West Richland with
respect to development related charges and impact fees.
Issue 1: Missing Fee Study Report and Transparency
The agenda packet for the connection fee increase notably omits the full FCS Group fee study
report which would provide the analysis and data behind staff's recommendations. Omitting a
full report is uncharacteristic of Staff Reports associated with fee studies / increases. The
absence of a full report obstructs transparency and informed decision -making. Council and
stakeholders are being asked to accept sharply higher fees without seeing the detailed
methodology, data, and assumptions used to justify them.
Given the magnitude of the increase, a full report from FCS would not be a mere formality— it is
vital for understanding how fees were calculated and whether they are equitable so their legality
can be reviewed, and later justified if the fee increase were to be challenged in court. Withholding
this report or providing it last-minute would undermine public trust and puts the Council at risk of
making an incorrect decision due to lack of information. Transparency calls for making such
studies available well in advance, so elected officials and the public can understand the basis for
the proposed fee increase. We urge that the full fee study be released and reviewed before any
action is taken.
Page 12of11
Issue 2: Including Decades -Old Infrastructure Costs (and Interest) in New
Connection Fees
The proposed fees would charge new
development for infrastructure
investments dating back decades, rolling
forward original costs plus compounded
interest. In effect, new residents would be
paying for utility facilities that have long
since been built and paid off by existing
users and have little to no remining useful
life, while also being charged through utility
rate increases for the replacement
infrastructure, and connection fees for the
additional capacity added to the system.
This raises serious concerns about fairness
and potential legal issues. Washington law
authorizes connection charges so new
customers pay their "equitable share" of
system costs and is clear that no charges
shall exceed the proportionate share of
such utility or system's capital costs which
the City can demonstrate proportional to
the impact of the new housing units (RCW
82.02.020, RCW 82.02.060). Not pro -rating
the existing infrastructure to take into
account that it is at the very end of its
Total Paid by a new home buyer in 2026 based
on Proposed Fees who then lived in their house
for 18 years for combined water and sewer
service:
Connection fee for existing (to -be -replaced)
infrastructure + capacity improvements =
$10,731 + 30% builder expense mark-up =
$13,950.30
PLUS
Additional monthly service fee in excess of a
typical 3% per year annual rate increase to
cover the new facilities = $12,646
Facilities paid for:
1. The original plants (for a few years of
use out of their 80 year service life),
2. Capacity upgrades
3. The new plants.
Double-dipping? Yes!
Fair or legal? No.
service life, charging for capacity
improvements, AND charging for the new infrastructure as part of significantly elevated service
fees and connection fee structure would be double or triple dipping.
Q: So even though I would only use the old water plant for a few years
until it is replaced in 2029, 1 would have to pay my full share of the
original construction cost back in the 1940's, inflated with interest?
A: Yes — that is what the City proposes.
Q: Wait— not prorated? When I payfull cost for something, I expect to
get some service life out of it. You are charging me for the full price of a
brand-new facilityfor the old plant, then turning right around and
charging me the full price of the new plant through service fees, AND the
added capacity upgrades? This seems to be double dipping!
A: Yes, the City's goal is to keep rates as low as possible for our existing
ratepayers according to the staff report.
Example
Used Geo Metro For Sale!
MSRP: $10,000 in 1980
Yours for a limited time only for the bargain of $10,000
plus 10 years of interest for a grand total of $20,000
Disclaimer: Only 500 miles left before it needs to be
scrapped, at which point you will need to buy a new car at
full MSRP. Sorry in advance!
Figure 1: Having the connection fee fully burdened by the value of the soon -to -be -replaced
facilities that are not pro -rated for their remaining service life is like buying a used car near the end
of its useful life for full original MSRP plus 10 years of interest, then having to go out and buy a new
car almost immediately.
Page I4of11
Issue 3: Misalignment with Adopted Plans (Comprehensive Plan &
Butterfield Facility Plan)
The annual expenditure basis used to justify the
proposed connection fees is not consistent with
the City's adopted Comprehensive Plans and
facility plans. The Comprehensive Plan and the
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan
(including amendments) phase major capacity
projects over a 11-to-16-year horizon, in direct
conflict with the surge of spending in 2029
proposed to be included in the updated water
connection fee. Attachment C (Facility Plan
excerpts) shows a phased replacement of the
Butterfield water treatment plant over 11 to 16
years. Council should seek clarity on whether the
fee's project list truly matches the phasing in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Butterfield WTP
Facility Plan (Attachments C and D), consistent
with a number of laws including RCW 36.70A.120.
Q: Do fee structures have to align with
the Comprehensive Plan?
A: Yes - per a number of laws including
RCW 36.70A.120.
Q: Is Pasco's proposed fee consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan?
A: It does not appear to be.
Q: What?! Couldn't the new fee just
be appealed then, and the City would
have to pay the cost of damages and
Legal fees it caused by this mistake?
A: Likely.
RCW 36.70A.120 Planning activities and capital budget decisions —Implementation in
conformity with Comprehensive Plan.
Each county and city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall
perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with its
Comprehensive Plan.
Annual Capital Expenditures (Escalated',
stbca,
S�sx22
S 140.00
$'?aw
S1 DOM
S80.00
75.59
if'o w
Wfxt
gltfiil
578.5+3 51723
-
Sa 20
$0.00
_
2025 2026 2027 2028
2 9 2030 2031
2032 2033 2034
Figure 2: Excerpt from Staff Report dated 101612025 showing the forecasted water utility fund
expenditures, which is inconsistent with the Butterfield facility plans.
5of11
Issue 4: Unclear "Capacity -Enhancing" Improvements vs. Maintenance /
Deficiencies
The justification for these fee increases rests on funding capacity -enhancing improvements (i.e.
new infrastructure or upgrades that expand system capacity to serve growth). However, the
documentation provided does not clearly distinguish which projects are strictly adding new
capacityversus those that replace aging infrastructure or remedy existing deficiencies. This
distinction is crucial for legal justification and defensibility for the proposed fees. By law and
common sense, new developments should not pay to fix existing problems or worn-out facilities
that current customers should have been funding through rates, be charged for new capacity
projects, AND also be charged for the new replacement facilities through the variety of fee
structures (connection and service fees). This would be double or triple dipping. Yet, this is what
the City is currently proposing.
Lacking a full FCS report or the supporting analysis behind the proposed fees, the City's proposed
rate increases are unsupported and unjustified. We urge the City to provide clear criteria and
project -level justification for what it deems capacity -increasing. Otherwise, there is a risk of
inadvertently making newcomers pay two or three times for the system they use: first through
connection fees for the soon -to -be -replaced facilities and the capacity upgrades, and again later
through utility rates for overdue system replacement projects.
Issue 5: Housing Affordability Impacts
Pasco's own Housing Action and Implementation Plan (HAIP) study found that even under recent
conditions, few local residents can afford newly built homes. Since that study, interest rates have
climbed and construction costs remain high —meaning the situation has only worsened. For
context, Pasco's median home price jumped roughly 60% from 2017 to 2021 (from —$238k to
—$379k), far outpacing income growth. The HAIP (Attachment B) noted a significant gap between
housing costs and local incomes, with only a small percentage of households able to purchase a
median -priced new home. Imposing a major increase in utility hookup fees — potentially
thousands of dollars extra per new house — directly adds to the price of new housing. This will
price out even more families. The City has recognized the housing affordability crisis and taken
steps like code changes to encourage more housing types. However, these efforts could be
undermined if fee hikes add substantial costs to every new home. In practical terms, a steep fee
increase gets passed to buyers through higher lot and home prices, or it kills marginal housing
projects altogether. Either outcome is counter to Pasco's affordability goals. We ask that Council
weigh this carefully: the HAIP's findings (Attachment B) call for lowering barriers to housing, and
the proposed fees will considerably and unnecessarily raise barriers by charging two or three
times for the system capacity used by future residents.
Pas- 16of11
Issue 6: Impact on Projects in Pipeline (Long -Delayed Projects Can't
Adapt)
Another key issue is the shock effect on projects that have been in the development pipeline for
years. Due to issues with the City's processing of application, between 3,000 and 4,000 housing
units were stuck in the pipeline for a number of years and were recently released. These projects
were designed in a very different set of market conditions at the time of their application, and the
current marketplace wants a very different set of products geared towards affordability (such as
town homes, apartments, duplexes, etc.). Now these projects are finally coming online after years
of delays, only to face an unexpected and dramatic fee escalation along with unfavorable market
conditions, all of which amplify the damages caused by delays in processing of their applications.
Unlike future projects, they cannot simply walk away from the project unscathed, re -negotiate
their land costs or adapt to a more affordable product type. These builder's project designs,
financing, lot pricing, and builder contracts assumed a certain amount of City fees based on
current pricing, City planning documents, and historical rate trends.
Typically, if a City increases fees too much and prices themselves out of the market, market
conditions adapt and developers go elsewhere until conditions are more favorable. This is not the
case for several land owners who collectively owned almost 900 acres of farmland, who operating
in good faith joining together and allowing the formation of a $20,000,000 sewer Local
Improvement District (LID) to provide sewer to these properties, based on the understanding of
conditions at the time. The City waited to raise fees until mere months before these projects
completed the several -year process and could be developed —far past the point of no return.
Regardless of what happens, these properties need to develop in order to make payments on the
debt service owed due to the LID. The City should be mindful to not prey on the vulnerability of
property owners and developers who trusted that the City was acting in good faith when they
entered into the LID. For reference, recent fee increases passed by Council are very significant
relative to finished lot prices, and are having a huge impact to the financial performance of these
projects.
IA}}4T S(r F, i
I /
"A i.
i! IT, lttIsm, tlt
ss,t�^:�es�!ian' it
w■�c�:taY�Y.
�ll. .. •:� ....
-
Burns Road
ggJJ
P11.N1.
Figure 3: Parcels included in LID-152 (East UGA Sewer LID) are shown in orange - almost 900
acres.
Page 17of11
Issue 7: Long -Term Financial Risk to City (Utility Revenues and LID 152)
Finally, we caution that dramatically higher connection
fees may carry long-term financial risks for the City's
utilities and infrastructure funds. If the fee hikes slow
down the pace of new housing construction (a likely
outcome of reduced affordability and developer
pullback), the City will see lower housing absorption in
growth areas. Slower growth means fewer new utility
customers paying monthly water/sewer bills, which in
turn means reduced future utility rate revenue. This will
The City should avoid being "pennym
wise but pound-foolish" and
raising fees so much that it has a
significant impact on growth, as this
would leave the City without the
growth needed to recover financial
stability.
cause a much more significant impact on the utilityfunds than having a lower connection fee, as
well over half the revenue needed forthe next 20 years of CIP water and sewer projects will be
coming from homes yet to be constructed.
In Attachment A's utility fund graphs, it is shown that the majority of funding for the 2025-2045 CIP
projects will be provided by new homes. The City's current financial plan is HIGHLY sensitive to
changes in Pasco's growth rate. If the area doesn't grow, Pasco won't have money for their
projects. The majority of the revenue from new homes is actually from their service fees —the City
should avoid being "penny-wise but pound-foolish" and raising fees so much that it has a
significant impact on growth, as this would leave the City without the growth needed to recover
financial stability.
_ -Page 18of11
570,000;000 Sewer Forecasted Revenue: Proposed Connection Fee + City Recommended Rate Increases
$65,000,000
a Annual AdO Sewer Connection Fees
560,000,000
Collected (New Fee)
Annual Add'I Sewer Service Fees Collected 2025-2045 CIP Funding from
Homes Built Btwn 2025-2045
$55,000,000
From New domes
■ Sewer Fees Collected from Existing Homes
$50,000,000
2025-2045 CIP Funding from
545,000,000
3
Existing Homes 2025-2045
c
s $40,000,00n
....
cc
$35p00,aoa
Sewer Revenue Requirement
ro
a S30,000,000'''
c
Source: Staff council packet
$25,000,000
p
O&M Expenses
$20,000,000
r
Source: Staff council packet
$15A00,000
510,000,000
55,000,0
I HHIII
5-
5-
.-+ In C ul lD i'� W C O N m Q tt1 tb N u7 II, O •-i N m t1
0 0 N 0 r+ 0 C?
O O O C7 C7 Q O O O O O O O O O In O O O O O Q O O g O O O
N
N N N N N fJ N !AI N J N ry N N N N N N N N N N N N ry N N N N N N N N
Figure 4: Graph showing revenue from proposed sewer service fees and connection
charges through 2044, assuming the proposed connection fee increases (even though they
are likely far too high) and the staff -proposed rate increases. Additional graphs can be
reviewed in AttachmentA.
As can be seen from the above graph above, monthly service fees and connection fees from newly
constructed homes will fund a significant amount of the CIP project budget for replacement of
aging infrastructure between now and 2044, as long as the City doesn't chase away developers
and potential homebuyers with fees in excess of what should be charged. Service charges on
existing homes, even with the staff proposed increases, will not support much above the O&M
expenses of the existing infrastructure.
Page 19of11
Issue 8: Capacity Increasing Improvements Allocated Over 20 years
Rather than charging for only the amount of capacity used by anew connection, it appears from
the Staff Report that FCS has amortized the full cost of a capacity upgrade over a period of 20
years, possibly correlating with loan payoff timeframes. This means that if a capacity upgrade
provided enough additional capacity for 40 years of growth, the full cost would be distributed to
only the first 20 years' worth of new connections. This may lead to an unconstitutional taking —
someone being made to pay more than their fair share. Were this to be the case, the City could be
liable for damages and the legal fees associated with an appeal.
Requests
In summary, while ensuring adequate funding for utility capacity is important, the current
proposal raises serious questions of fairness, alignment with policy, and economic impact. We
respectfully ask the City Council and management to consider the following actions before
moving forward:
• Ensure alignment with laws applicable to connection fees to prevent damages and avoid
possibly expensive appeals and the potential liability of both damages and legal fees.
• Release a full, detailed FCS Group fee study report in its entirety including supporting
analysis, and allow sufficient time (at least a few weeks) for Council members and
stakeholders to review and understand its assumptions. Transparent vetting of this study is
essential for informed decisions.
• Reevaluate the inclusion of legacy infrastructure costs (and tong -accrued interest) in the
fee calculation. The City should reflect carefully on whether it is legally and ethically
appropriate to make new homeowners pay for infrastructure that was built long ago and
funded by others. At minimum, ensure compliance with RCW 35.92.025's limits on interest
and the principle of an "equitable share."
• Provide clarity on project scope: Clearly identifywhich capital projects the new fees will
fund, and confirm they are capacity expansions for newgrowth (not replacement of
existing assets or remedying past deficiencies). Improved transparency here will build
public confidence that new development isn't being unfairly charged for existing system
problems.
• Avoid double -charging for the same infrastructure. Coordinate the approach to connection
fees and future utility rate increases so that new customers aren't paying twice. For
example, if a new treatment plant is funded largely by connection fees, those same
growth -related costs should not also be baked into general rate hikes for new residents.
The financing burden needs to be allocated consistently and fairly.
Page I10of11
Conclusion
If these proposed connection fees are imposed on our project, they could have impacts on
project's finance and could cause loss or renegotiation of our sales contracts with builders or
decreased market absorption of our lots. This could cause significant financial damages.
If these fees are passed as -is, the parties I represent would have no choice but to challenge these
fees which do not appearto be supported bythe law based on the limited amount of information
provided in the Staff Report. Please be advised that under RCW 64.40 and other applicable
statutes and federal laws, the City may be liable for costs, damages, and attorney fees resulting
from the City's attempt at imposing what appears to be an unlawful fee.
By addressing the issues described herein, the City can mitigate potential challenges (or legal
disputes) down the road and ensure that growth pays for growth in a proper manner.
Thank you for considering our concerns. I am available to answer any questions you may have —
feel free to reach out if you want to engage in further dialog regarding the information I assembled.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Padvorac
Attachments:
- Attachment A: Utility Fund Graphs for Sewer and Water*
- Attachment B: Excerpts from Housing Action and Implementation Plan (HAIP)
- Attachment C: Facility Plan Excerpts (Capital Facilities & Phasing)
- Attachment D: Butterfield Water Treatment Plant Facility Plan Excerpts
- Attachment E: Supporting Analysis and Case Examples of Fee Impact on Developments (to be
updated by staff)
*The sewer utility graphs generated from publicly available information seemed fairly consistent
with those prepared by FCS, but the water utility graphs were not. As the supporting analysis and
documentation is not provided, there is no way to track down the source of this discrepancy.
111 of 11
ATTACHMENTA
$70,000,000
$65,000,000
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
a�
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
+.j
Z' $25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
Water Forecasted Revenue: Proposed Connection Fee + City Recommended Rate Increases
r-1 N M d' Ln 1.0 t- w M 0 r-i N M d Ln lD iN% w M O ri N M I M lD I- w M 0 r-1 N M d'
r-j c-i r-1 r-1 r-i r-I r1 r-I r-I N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M lqt d' d' d Cr
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
$70,000,000
$65,000,000
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
c
$35,000,000
a�
-j tin nnn nnn
$25,000,000
a $20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
Water Forecasted Revenue: Current Connection Fee + City Recommended Rate Increases
■ Annual Add'l Water Connection Fees Collected
(Current Fee)
■ Add') Water Service Fees Collected From New
Homes
■ Water Fees Collected from Existing Homes
Water Revenue Requirement
Source: Staff council packet
2025-2045 CIP Funding from
Homes Built Btwn 2025-2045
c-I N m d' Ln w� oo O> O ri N M q t' Ln tD � oo Ql O r•- (V M d Ln lD (*- m m O r-i N M
r-4 rH rH r-i r-i r--i rl r-i r-1 N N N N N N N CV N CV M M M M M M M M M M d- Rt I:zr Ct d'
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
F
$70,000,000
$65,000,000
$60,000,000
$55,000,000
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
Q $20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
Sewer Forecasted Revenue: Current Connection Fee + City Recommended Rate Increases
• Annual Add'I Sewer Connection Fees
Collected (Current Fee)
Annual Add'I Sewer Service Fees Collected
From New Homes
■ Sewer Fees Collected from Existing Homes
Sewer Revenue Requirement
Source: Staff council packet
2025-2045 CIP Funding from
Homes Built Btwn 2025-2045
r-I N M d' Ln CD t- 00 M O r1 N M ::J- Ln lD r- 00 M O rH N M ::t Ln lD 1-- CO M O r-i cV M ct
rH rH ri r-i r--1 r-4 r-i TH rH N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M lzt It R' Tt d
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N fV N fV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
ATTACHMENT
HOUSING A
IMPLEM
PLAN
NOVEMBER
2024
OAOneza & Associates
ECONorthwest
E�c�tir����,_s • -ice,°,�i�E • ut,�,���r�.�r�ca
® NYU WAGNER
10001 J 100 w IMFJ
HOUSING OPTIONS
i FOR ALL
Worker affordability
Exhibit 50 shows the average wages by industry in Franklin County and the maximum rent and
median home price that workers in each industry could afford.
More than half of the industries in Franklin County have high enough wages that can afford the
average rent of $1,272 in Pasco. However, only one industry, the information industry, has a
high enough wage to afford the median home price of $386,000 in Pasco. Pasco's employment
is concentrated in educational services and retail trade. Based on the average wages earned in
Franklin County 2021, workers in these industries cannot afford the average rent or the median
priced home in Pasco.
A select number of industries can support to afford the median home priced home if they 1.5
times per household. These industries include construction, wholesale trade, information,
finance and insurance, professional and technical services, and government.
City of Pasco Housing Action Plan 43
Exhibit 52. Housing Needed by Income Level in Pasco by 2045
Source: OFM, CHAS 2015-2019, ECONorthwest Calculations
Income Category
0-300/cAMI
Underproduction
800
Need
2,484
Total Need
3,284
Share
14%
30-50%AMI
590
2,905
3,495
15%
50-80%AMI
295
4,468
4,763
20%
80-100%AM1
11
2,123
2,134
9%
100-120% AMI
37
2,351
2,388
10%
120-140% AMI
0
1,474
1,474
6%
140%+ AMI
0
5,780
5,780
25%
Total
1,733
21,585
23,318
100%
;Summary of Housing Needs in Pasco
Who Lives in Pasco Today?
■ Pasco has a relatively young population. Pasco's population generally skews
younger with a median age of 29.9. In comparison, Franklin County has a median age
of 30.5 and Washington 37.9. Children (ages 0 to 17 years old) represent 33 percent of
the population, while young adults ages 18 to 39 make up about 31 percent.
■ Senior adults (60 years and older) saw the fastest growth in this the past decade.
Seniors age 60 and older saw almost a 90 percent increase between 2010 and 2021.
Although Pasco does not have a large senior population, this population cohort has
rapidly grown over the past decade.
• The Hispanic community continues to be a growing population group in Pasco. In
2021, over half (56 percent) of Pasco's population identified as Hispanic. Growth
trends indicate that Pasco will continue to grow rapidly, and Hispanics will continue to
be a majority ethnic group.
■ Socio-economic gaps exist between Non -Hispanic White residents and Black and
Hispanic residents. Between 2010 and 2019, distribution of income has been higher
among White non -Hispanic compared to Hispanic, and Black or African American.
Median income of Hispanic households was 76% of the Non -Hispanic White
households Countywide
■ Median renter incomes have grown but remain very low. Median renter incomes
have grown in the past decade, however in 2021 median renter incomes were $38,588
compared to $86,676 for the median owner income.
What will Pasco's Future Population Look like?
■ Pasco's population is projected to grow by 86 percent by 2045. From 2020 to 2045,
Pasco's population will increase from an estimated population of 77,108 in 2020 to
143,657 in 2045. This estimate assumes that Pasco will continue to make about 80
Exhibit 48. Housing Affordability in Franklin County by Industry and Wages, 2023
Cni irra• ()FM rairt slatinnc
All Industries
$49,736
$1,243
No
$186,648
No
No
Ag., forestry, fishing & hunting
$36,126
$903
No
$135,573
No
No
Mining
$60,000
$1,500
"30
$225,169
No
Yes
Construction
$57,717
$1,443
$216,601
No
Manufacturing
$53,653
$1,341
$201,351
No
NO
Wholesale trade
$66,555
$1,664
$249,767
No
Retail trade
$42,457
$1,061
No
$159,331
No
No
Transportation & warehousing
$53,656
$1,341
$201,359
No
No
Information
$109,235
$2,731
$409,939
Finance and Insurance
$71,792
$1,795
$269,423
No
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
$51,268
$1,282
win
$192,400
No
No
Professional & Technical Services
$59,876
$1,497
$224,703
No
Administrative & Waste Services
$43,787
$1,095
No
$164,326
No
No
Educational Services
$42,118
$1,053
No
$158,062
No
No
Health Care & Social Assistance
$45,692
$1,142
No
$171,472
No
No
Art, Entertainment, & Recreational
$37,732
$943
No
$141,601
No
No
Accommodation & Food Services
$23,462
$587
No
$88,048
No
No
Government
$64,056
$1,601
Yes
$240,390
No
_r
Median Sale Price of New
Homes = Around $430k
WE
ATTACHMENT C
City of Pasco
i Pasco BUTTERFIELD WATER TREATMENT
Wastungton
PLANT FACILITIES PLAN
FINAL I September 2022
CHAPTER 6 1 BUTTERFIELD WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES PLAN I CITY OF PASCO
Table 6.4 Capital Improvement Plan Summary
1
Electrical Building
$11,295,000
$1,129,000 $5,083,000
$5,083,000
2
Misc. Improvements and Compressor Replacement
$371,000
$371,000
-
3
Raw Water Pump Station Improvements
$6,022,000
$2,409,000
$3,613,000
_4
-Flocculation and Sedimentation Basin Improvements
$2,279,000
$1,279,000
�
5
Chemical Building
$16,317,000
$1,632,000
$4,895,000 $7,343,000
$2,447,000
6
Filters
$17,780,000
$1,778,000 .'.$7,112,000
$7,112,000 $1,778,000
7
UV Disinfection
$8,368,000
$837,000 $3,347,000
$3,347,000 $837,000
8
Flocculation Basins
$10,21;000
-
n
$2,043,000 $4,084,000 $4,084,000 -
9
Residuals Improvements (Phase 1)
$1,196,000
$239,000
$957,000
10
Finished Water Pump Station
$17,262,000
-
"* s,fr:' � z° '' ' 4 ^
,�,;, -� y�, s . `�, _ h=;+*. �+
- - - -
#3,452,000 S6,9fl5,000 $6,905,000
11
Ozone (including generation)
$22,461,000
- $4,493,000 $8,984,000 $8,984,000
12
Residuals Improvements (Phase 2)
$2,503;000
M: 'vg
$zap 1 nr:.
- - _ $751,000 $1,752,000 -
13
Admin Building
$12,364,000
$1,236,000 $5,564,000 $5,564,000
14
Backwash Lift Station Redundancy Improvements,967
$2
_000
- -
_
' { `r` '
u ] �r a:9 t a,., .
,4 .,- ""-fix
f .. r.
- - - - - - $1187, 000 f1780 000
_ _
_
15 WTP Repairs $164,000 $164,000
CIP Total (2021 Dollars)")
$130,560,000
$4,575,000 $5,083,000
$5,083,006', ` #4,895,(�0 r 1 ,i� flip ' ,632,009
, $"9,000
$10,459,000 $8,110,000 $10,989,000 $10,989,000 $5,244,000 $10,736,000 $10,220,000 $6,751,000 $7,344,000
Notes: I
(1) Costs are provided in May 2021 dollars. Project costs should be escalated for use during budgetary planning. At the time of the writing of this plan, a 4 percent annual escalation rate was deemed reasonable.
(2) For this plan, effort was made to sequence and phase projects to align annual expenditures with the City's rate studies and overall funding availability. Should alternative funding opportunities become available, some projects maybe able to be advanced earlier than the timing shown.
FINAL I SEPTEMBER 2022 16-15
City "I
vdSco
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant Facilities Plan
CIP Update -
Cyanotoxins
FINAL / October 2023
Aquatic Plants and
<<CarviiO
Table 4 Capital Improvement Plan Summary
1 Electrical Building $12,537,000 $251,000 $2,507,000 $5,015,000 $4,764,000
2 Misc. Improvements and Compressor Replacement $412,000 $412,000
�3 Raw Water Pump Station Improvements $6,684,000 $134,000 $668,000 $3,342,000 $2,540,000
Chemical Building $18,111,000 $181,000 $3,622,000 $7,788,000 $6,520,000$-
6 Filters— _ $19,736,000 $- $- $395,000 $1,579,000 $9,868,000 $7,894,000
8 Flocculation Basins $11,334,000 1$- $- $227,000 $907,000 $6,234,000 $3,967,000 $ ;
9 Residuals Improvements (Phase 1) $1,328,000 $- $- $- $- $133,000 $1,195,000 $- ;
10 Finished Water Pump Station $19,159,000 $- $- $- $- $- $1,916,000 $9,580,000
11 Ozone (including generation) $24,931,000 $249,000 $4,986,000 $9,972,000 $9,723,000$-
12 1 Residuals Improvements (Phase 2) $2,774,000 $-
_ _____ __ ____ - _...._�_.__ ____. _ .._..-_.__.-
13 Admin Building $13,723,000
i 14 Backwash Lift Station Redundancy Improvements $3,294,000
15 WTP Repairs $182,000 $182,000
16 Intake Screen Replacement $1,358,000
p --- -- - ----- $136,000 $1,222,000
7,664,000
,372,000
CIP Total (2023. Dollars)Ir1 $135,563,000 $1,545,000 13,005,000 $26,739,000 $26,033,000 $16,235,000 $14,972,000 $9,580,000 19,036,000
Notes: ,
(1) Costs are provided in May 2023 dollars. Project costsshouldbe escalated for use during budgetary planning. At the time of the writing of this plan, a 4% annual escalation rate was deemed reasonable.
Table 5 Capital Improvement Plan Summary Continued
i Electrical Building
$12,537,000
$-
$-
80%
2 Misc. Improvements and Compressor Replacement
$412,000
$-
$
50%
3 Raw Water Pump Station Improvements
$6,684,000
$-
$-
50%
5 Chemical Building
$18,111,000
$-
$-
25%
77,
6 Filters ..
�,-
_..... $1,974,000
$17,762,000
$-
50% .
8 Flocculation Basins
_
$1,134,000
$10,201,000
$-
0%
9 Residuals Improvements {Phase 1)
$
$1,328,000
$-
100%
10 : Finished Water Pump Station
$-
' $19,160,000
$-
50%
11 Ozone (including generation)
$24,930,000
$-
$-
0%
12 Residuals Improvements (Phase 2)
$
$-.
$2,774,000
100%
Admin Building y
$-
$1,372,000
$12,350,000
°
0%
.13
14 Backwash Lift Station Redundancy Improvements
$-
$-
$3,294,000
50%
15 WTP Repairs
$182,000
16 'Intake Screen Replacement
$1,358,000
50%
CIP Total (2023 Dollars)()
$67,322,000
$49,823,000
$18,418,000
$43,981,000
Annual Cost (2023 Dollars)h>
L-
$16,831,000
$11,463,000
$993,000
$2,199,000
Notes:
(1) Costs are provided in May 2023 dollars. Project costs should be escalated for use during budgetary- planning_ At the time of the writing
of this plan, a 4% annual escalation rate was deemed reasonable.
CITY OF PASCO
BUTTERFIELD WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES PLAN
CIP UPDATE - AQUATIC PLANTS AND CYANOTOXINS
OCTOBER 2023 / FINAL / CAROLLO
$-
$
$832,000
$1,942,000
$6,175,000
$6,175,000
$1,318,000
$1,976,000
$7,493,000
$8,151,000
$832,000
$1,942,000
20%
0%
0%
50%
0°/a
0%
50%
0%
0%
25%
25%
25%
50%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0% j
50%
0%
_. _.
100/0 °
0%
-
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
1009(r
00/(
0%
....... '0%
50%
0%
$51,250,000
~ NG
$35,805,000
:; $4,528,000
$2,563,000
$1,790,000
$226,000
=IBM CITY OF City of Pasco
,PAsC, COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN
murraysmirth`
June 2018
Revised January 2019
• Phase 1 — 6 mgd expansion (total "reliable" capacity of 12 mgd)
• Phase 2 — 6 mgd expansion (total "reliable" capacity of 18 mgd)
The West Pasco WTP expansion phases are presented as individual projects in the CIP. Cost
estimates for the treatment expansion improvements were provided by the City and are
presented in Table 7-1.
In addition to the treatment capacity upgrade, the West Pasco WTP high service pump
station will require new pumping units to supply the system. The high service pump station
upgrades were not included in the City's current Phase 1 capital improvement but are
included in the current City's CIP (project #16008), West Pasco Water Treatment Plant
Backwash Ponds Project. This project also includes the expansion of filter backwash
capability. The Phase 2 capital improvement will also require high service pump station
improvements.
The completion of a Water Treatment Facility Plan and associated preliminary design for the
Butterfield WTP is recommended to evaluate an overall plant and determine improvements
to increase the "reliable" capacity to 30 mgd. The WTP capacity is currently limited by
contact time, reducing the "reliable" capacity to 26.8 mgd.
In addition, an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Feasibility Study i recommended to
evaluate opportunities to store treated surface water from the Columb' River in the basalt
aquifer system below the City. ASR has the ability to self -mitigate se of water under the
Quad City Water Right (QCWR) permit by transferring surface ater supply availability
from the winter to the summer. ASR could also provide econo ical storage benefits
compared to traditional above ground storage. Additionally t would address instantaneous
flow limitations and reduce associated environmental eff is of summer surface water
diversion.
As defined in Section 9 —Operations and Maint ance Program, the City is also
interested in adding backup power to the Riverv' w Heights Pump Station (PS), as it is the
main source of supply to Pressure Zone 3. Th pgrades would include an onsite generator
and transfer switch to allow for a fully func 'onal pump station during a power failure. The
last three supply projects listed in Table -1 are currently defined CIP projects in the 2018
CIP. Appendix 7-C expands on the de cription of the projects listed in Table 7-1.
Only a small fraction
of the Butterfield
WTP replacement is
related to new
capacity - the
remainder is the
replacement of an
existing facility past
its useful service life.
15-1710.1084
June 2018
Page 7-3 City of Pasco
Capital Improvement Program Comprehensive Water System Plan
Table 7-1
Supply CIP Projects
Project ID
Description
Location
Time
Cost
Frame
AP-03'
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant PLC
Zone 1
2017-2018
$600,000
and Control Upgrades Project #00039
AP-041
Columbia Water Supply Project #11001
Zone 1
2017-2018
$8,705,000
West Pasco Water Treatment Plant
AP-06'
Backwash Ponds Project (City Project
West Pasco WTP
2017-2020
$2,226,000
#16008
S-0051
Riverview Heights PS Backup Power
Riverview PS
2018
$380,000
S-004
ASR Feasibility Study
System Wide
2019
$75,000
AP-05
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant
Zone 1
2019-2020
$325,000
Chlorine Safety Improvements (City
Project #17004
S-003
Butterfield WTP Facility Plan
Butterfield WTP
2020
$300,000
S-001'
West Pasco WTP Expansion — Phase 1
West Pasco WTP
2024-2027
$1,350,000
S-002'
West Pasco WTP Expansion — Phase 2
West Pasco WTP
2035
$1,350,000
S-002-PS'
West Pasco WTP Expansion — Phase 2 —
West Pasco WTP
2035
$910,000
Pump Station UpEpde
Total Supply CIP Cost
$16,221,000
Note: Project costs were provided by the City and do not include all the assumptions defined in Appendix 7-A.
7.4.2 Storage
As part of the storage capacity evaluation, pressure zones where the existing usable storage
does not meet the equalization, fire suppression or emergency criteria were identified. Table
7-2 shows the recommended storage improvements, implementation timeframe, and
associated cost opinions. Land acquisition costs are not included. Figure 7-1 presents the
approximate location of storage improvements. Cost estimates for the planned Zone 2
reservoir were provided by the City and are presented in Table 7-2. Appendix 7-C expands
on the description of the projects listed in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2
Storage CIP Projects
Project
Description
Location
Time
Volume
HGL
Cost
ID
Frame
MG
FT
New storage reservoir —
2020-
T-0011
ground elevation storage
Zone 2
5.75
585
$11,700,000
(City Project #00041
2023
T-002'
New storage reservoir —
Zone 3
2035
3.5
660
$7,469,000
Elevated tank
Total Storage CIP Cost
$19,169,000
Note: Cost based on elevated
Zone 2 and Zone 3 tanks are pre-existing
deficiencies, not growth related.
15-1710.1084 Page 7-4 City of Pasco
June 2018 Capital Improvement Program Comprehensive Water System Plan
ATTACHMENT D
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Adam Lincoln, City Manager
FROM: Jacob Gonzalez, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Development Fees (5 minutes)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Presentation
2023 City of Pasco Permit Fees Comparison
2023 Port of Kennewick Permit Fees Comparison
June 13, 2024
City Council Regular
Meeting: 6/17/24
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Development -related fees are charges imposed by local governments on
developers/developments to help cover the costs of public services and
infrastructure required due to new development. These fees aim to ensure that
the financial burden of growth is balanced between developers and existing
residents.
The City of Pasco had adopted a fee structure that address the various
permitting, development, and construction activity facilitated and administer by
the City. There are several different fees, identified below:
• Permit Fees
o Charged for processing and reviewing applications, including
building permits and land use, zoning, environmental review,
traffic analysis, and general planning and development.
• Utility Connection Fees
Page 95 of 112
T
v
to
m
0
CO
0
Permit Fee Estimates for a Single -Family Dwelling Unit
R-3= Residential Single Family Home, 1,400 sgft
U-G = Garage, 450 sgft
U-P = Porch, 140 sgft
City of Pasco
City of West City of Richland City of Kennewick
Richland
R-3 Rate x sf: $150.87
R-3 Rate x sf: $150.87
R-3 Rate x sf: $148.33
R-3 Rate x sf: $148.33
U-G Rate x sf: $ 60.43
U-G Rate x sf: $ 60.43
U-G Rate x sf: $ 59.88
U-G Rate x sf: $ 59.88
U-P Rate x sf: $ 30.22
U-P Rate x sf: $ 28.00
U-P Rate x sf: $ 39.44
Total Value:
U-P Rate x sf: $ 40_.00
Total Value:
Total Value:
Total Value:
$242,642.30
$242,331.50
$240,129.60
$240,208.00
Application Fee:
Application Fee:
Application Fee:
Application Fee:
-0
-0
-0
-0
Technology Fee:
$ 59.17
(3%of permit fee)
State Fee:
State Fee:
State fee:
State Fee:
$6.50
$6.50
$6.50
$6.50
Permit Fee:
Permit Fee:
Permit Fee:
Permit Fee:
$1,794.55
$1,972.50
$1,783.35
$1,783.35
Plan Review Fee:
Plan Review Fee:
Plan Review Fee:
Plan Review Fee:
$50
$1,183.50
-0
-0
<setfee>
Permit Total Cost:
Permit Total Cost:
Permit Total Cost:
Permit Total Cost:
$1,851.05
$3,221.67
$1,789.85
$1,789.85
Impact Fees:
Impact Fees:
Impact Fees:
Impact Fees:
Park Impact Fee:
Park Impact Fee:
Park Impact Fee:
Park Impact Fee:
$1, 734
$1,600
$1, 505
$1,009
<depends on
<depends on subdivision>
subdivision>
Traffic Impact Fee:
Traffic Impact Fee:
Traffic Impact Fee:
Traffic Impact Fee:
$709
$1,752.20
$ 1,600
$1,470
<depends on location>
<depends on district>
This fee is assessed by
Public Works and is an avg.
fee amount.
Total Fees: Total Fees:
Total Fees:
$4,294.05 $6,573.87 $4,894.85
$4,268.85
Total Fee with Pasco Does not have a School Does not have a School
Does not have a School
$4700 School Impact Impact Fee Impact Fee
Impact Fee
Fee: $8,994.05
tk
cQ
CD
0
0
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
Compiled October 11, 2023 fldp)
IMPACT FEES Tr*i=C'it'ies WA
October 11, 2023
Annual increases codified and/or likelv for each fee
VISTA FIELD
KENNEWICK
Waterfront ;
Southridge
RICHLAND
Core Badger Mt.
WEST
RICHLAND
City -Wide
PASCO
City -Wide
JIMPACT FEES
LUC
District 2
District 4
District 1
No Zone
Zone 1
City-wide
City-wide
TRAFFIC
(TIF)
SFDU
210
$993!
$3891
$1,516
$OI
$1,971
$1,762
$709
TRAFFIC
(TIF)
MFDU
220
$562i;
$220;i
$857
$0!
$1,016
$997
$435
TRAFFIC
(TIF)
Senior Housing
252
$301;
$118:
$459
$0:
$498
$997
$435
PARK
(PIF)
SFDU
210
$1,064;
$878;
$1,064
$1,640;
$1,640
$2,100
$1,300
PARK
(PIF)
MFDU (5+ units)
220
$625;
$520;
$625
$1,030;
$1,030
$1,400
$1,300
PARK
(PIF)
Senior Housing
252
$6251
$520;
$625
$1,030i
$1,030
$1,400
$1,300
SCHOOL
SFDU
210
None
None
None
None
None
None
$4,700
SCHOOL
MFDU
220
None
None
None
None
None
None
$4,525
SCHOOL
Senior Housing
252
None
None i
None
None
None
None
$4,525
IMPACT FEE TOTALS
f1+4+71 Fees per DU SFDU
f2+5+81 Fees per DU MFDU (5+ units)
{3+6+9} Fees per DU Senior Housing
"OPPORTUNITY ZONE"
Federal Tax Benefit
NOTES
$2,057;
$1,267;
$2,580
$1,640;
$3,611
$3,862
$6,709
$1,187;
$740;
$1,482
$1,030;
$2,046
$2,397
$6,260
$926;
$638;
$1,0$4
$1,030;
$1,528
$Z,397
$6,260
No No No No No
Information complied October 11, 2023 by Port of Kennewick to compare and contrast Vista Field with current Tri-City multi -family projects
Information compiled by searching the city websites and contact with City staff
Tabs included in the Excel document contain the source information for each Impact Fee