HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.01.12 Council Workshop Packet
AGENDA
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, January 12, 2026
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 356 863 00#.
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. OATH OF OFFICE - COUNCILMEMBER
5. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC
Page 1 of 402
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
opposing sides wish to speak, then both sides receive an equal amount of
time to speak or up to 4 minutes each side.
3 - 218 (a) Preliminary Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan (10
minute staff presentation)
Presentation by Wendy Mifflin, Herrera Inc., the consultant for the
Solid Waste Management Plan
219 - 273 (b) Introduction of Quasi Judicial Item - Ordinance for Rocky Hills
Management LP "Wilson Estates" Rezone from R-T to R-1
(Z2025-009) (5 minute staff presentation)
274 - 343 (c) 5 Resolutions - Helena 1 and 2 Development Reimbursement
Agreements with Broetje Orchard LLC and Jubilee Foundation (5
minute staff presentation)
344 - 383 (d) Resolution – Project Acceptance for the Citywide Genetec
Enterprise Access Control System (3 minute staff presenation)
384 - 400 (e) Resolution - Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 3
with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for Design Services for the Process
Water Reuse Facility Phase 4 Irrigation System Farm Upgrades
Project (5 minute staff presentation)
7. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
(a) Discussion with legal counsel about current or potential
litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
9. ADJOURNMENT
10. ADDITIONAL NOTES
401 - 402 (a) Adopted Council Goals (Reference Only)
Page 2 of 402
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council December 8, 2025
TO: Harold L Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 1/12/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Preliminary Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan (10 minute
staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Preliminary Solid Waste Management Plan
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation by Wendy Mifflin, Herrera Inc., the consultant for the Solid Waste
Management Plan
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
associated costs future impact, fiscal While no is there with immediate
implementing the plan will be proportionally shared among the County, the
participating cities, haulers, and ultimately the public through solid waste rates
and fees.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
Under Washington State law, specifically RCW 70A.205, each county is
required to prepare and maintain a comprehensive solid waste management
plan that is developed in cooperation with the cities located within the county.
Franklin and history long a have County of City the of Pasco working
collaboratively on solid waste planning and implementation. The most recent
version of the Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was
completed in 2015.
To maintain compliance with state regulations and to ensure that current needs
and requirements are addressed, this plan must be periodically updated. The
plan addresses topics within solid waste like waste reduction, moderate risk
waste, collection, transfer and disposal, and an implementation plan.
Page 3 of 402
An Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County outlined the preparation of the
draft SWMP. The City of Pasco, through this agreement, agreed to participate
actively in the planning process by providing input, assisting in public education
and outreach, and reviewing draft materials. The final draft has been produced
and is ready for regulatory review and comments. The process is expected to
last through the first half of 2026.
Impact (other than fiscal):
Having a current Solid Waste Management Plan in place allows Franklin
County and the City of Pasco to be in compliance with Washington State law.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
This presentation introduces the content of the Draft Franklin County Solid
Waste Management Plan. The consultant will review the content of the Draft
SWMP which includes goals, a mission statement, and strategies for proper
handling of solid waste in Franklin County. Following regulatory comments,
Council will be asked to adopt the plan later this year.
Constraints
The plan must meet the requirements of State law and address specific topics
regarding solid waste.
Next Steps
The Draft SWMP is being submitted for review by the State. When that process
is complete, the plan will come before Council for adoption.
Alternatives
At this time, the plan is presented for information and discussion only.
Page 4 of 402
Prepared for
Franklin County
Prepared by
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.
DRAFT
Franklin County Comprehensive
Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste Management Plan
For Years 2026 to 2031
Franklin County, Washington
December 2025
Page 5 of 402
Franklin County Comprehensive Solid
Waste and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan
For Years 2026 to 2031
Franklin County, Washington
Prepared for
Franklin County
1016 North 4th Avenue Pasco, WA 99301
Prepared by
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080
DRAFT
December 2025
Page 6 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx i
Acknowledgements
The Franklin County Public Works Department acknowledges the valuable contribution of the following organizations for their assistance in the development of this plan:
● Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee Members
● Washington State Department of Ecology Staff
● Benton-Franklin Health District Staff
● Franklin County Solid Waste Staff
Franklin County residents and businesses also contributed to this plan through comments provided
during public meetings and through various other channels. The Board of County Commissioners and
Franklin County Public Works Department gratefully acknowledge this input.
Page 7 of 402
ii cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (Plan) recommends strategies
to manage solid waste generated in Franklin
County over the next 6 to 20 years as required by
the Revised Code of Washington 70A.205. This
plan will guide the actions of Franklin County and
the participating cities and towns of Connell,
Kahlotus, Mesa, and Pasco; Basin Disposal, Inc.,
which owns and operates the Pasco Transfer
Station and provides curbside collection and
processing of municipal solid waste. It is the
collaborative effort of participating city and
industry representatives, thought leaders, and
subject matter experts in the solid waste field,
and incorporates a balanced approach to solid
waste and hazardous waste management in
Franklin County.
The overriding mission statement for the Plan is:
“Franklin County and the participating
jurisdictions ensure that the citizens
continue to have efficient and effective solid waste collection, handling, recycling, and disposal services with stable rates as low as reasonably possible, while protecting and preserving human health, environmental quality, and natural resources.”
To further this mission, the Plan proposes a
comprehensive set of recommended strategies
for implementation over the 6-year planning
period. Highlights are described below.
Waste Reduction and Recycling – Waste prevention, reduction, and recycling are continuing priorities for
this plan. Promoting a variety of education and outreach initiatives, while dealing with changing recycling
markets, will continue to be a priority through harmonization of programs and working cooperatively
with jurisdictional and private partners.
Page 8 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx iii
System Enhancements – Evaluation and system enhancements for recyclables, moderate risk waste, and
organics will be key elements to the successful continuation of waste and recycling operations for county
residents that will enhance environmental safety while providing long-term benefits to the communities
served by this plan. As new regulatory requirements for recyclable materials, collection requirements and
organics are implemented at the State level, system upgrades may be needed for continued compliance.
Long-range planning is essential to achieving a cost-effective and environmentally sound integrated solid
waste system. To this end, this plan facilitates a cooperative effort between partners and provides a
framework for infrastructure planning, short-term and long-term management of solid waste, moderate
risk waste, and recyclables, policymaking, and funding for the system. The summary of recommendations
and implementation costs can be found in Chapter 11.0 – Implementation Plan.
This Plan is intended to be a “living document” to be revisited on a regular basis to evaluate progress,
reassess initiatives and implementation plans, and consider potential updates to the Plan in response to
emerging data and information and future conditions.
Page 9 of 402
iv cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................ iv
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................................... xii
Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................... xiii
Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................. xiii
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. xiv
1. Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17
1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 17
1.2. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17
1.3. Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 17
1.4. Participants in the Planning Process ................................................................................................................ 19
1.5. Planning Area ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
1.6. Planning Authority .................................................................................................................................................. 21
1.7. Plan Development Process .................................................................................................................................. 21
1.8. Status of Previous Plans ........................................................................................................................................ 22
1.9. Relationship to Other Plans ................................................................................................................................ 22
1.9.1. Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics ..................................................................... 22
1.9.2. Franklin County Comprehensive Plan ........................................................................................ 23
1.10. Required Regulatory Plan Elements ..................................................................................................... 24
1.11. Regulatory Overview .................................................................................................................................. 25
1.11.1. Solid Waste Handling Standards .................................................................................................. 25
1.11.2. Hazardous Waste Management Act ........................................................................................... 25
1.11.3. Relevant Oregon Solid Waste Regulations .............................................................................. 26
1.12. Summary of Changes in Solid Waste Regulation and Policy Since 2010 .............................. 26
1.12.1. Mercury-Containing Lights Product Stewardship Program ............................................... 26
1.12.2. Revenue-Sharing Agreements ...................................................................................................... 27
1.12.3. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan .................................................................... 27
1.12.4. Quarantine – Agricultural Pests .................................................................................................... 28
Page 10 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx v
1.12.5. Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance ...................................................................................... 28
1.12.6. Secure Drug Take-Back .................................................................................................................... 28
1.12.7. Sustainable Recycling ....................................................................................................................... 29
1.12.8. Food Waste .......................................................................................................................................... 29
1.12.9. Paint Stewardship .............................................................................................................................. 30
1.12.10. Reducing Pollution From Plastic Bags ..................................................................................... 30
1.12.11. Polystyrene Prohibition and Plastics Reduction (Plastics Law) ....................................... 30
1.12.12. Organics Management Law ......................................................................................................... 31
1.12.13. Reducing Plastic Pollution ............................................................................................................ 32
1.12.14. Environmental Management of Batteries ............................................................................... 32
1.12.15. Commercial Organics Recycling ................................................................................................. 33
1.12.16. Improving Outcomes with Waste Material Management Systems (Organics
Food Waste) .................................................................................................................................................. 34
1.12.17. Improving Outcomes Associated with Waste Material Management
Systems (Organics Collection) ................................................................................................................ 35
1.12.18. Improving Washington’s Solid Waste Management Outcomes (Consumer
Packaging) ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
2. Waste Stream..................................................................................................................................................................... 37
2.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 37
2.2. Waste Stream and Population Projections .................................................................................................... 37
2.2.1. Population and Waste Generation Rates .................................................................................. 37
2.2.2. Recycling Data ..................................................................................................................................... 39
2.2.3. Composition of Disposed Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................. 41
3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education .......................................................................................................... 43
3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 43
3.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.1. State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines ....................................................................... 43
3.2.2. Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan ........................................................................ 45
3.2.3. Extended Producer Responsibility – Consumer Packaging and Paper Products .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
3.2.4. Climate Action ..................................................................................................................................... 46
3.3. Existing Program Elements .................................................................................................................................. 47
Page 11 of 402
vi cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
3.3.1. Waste Reduction and Reuse .......................................................................................................... 48
3.3.2. Public Education ................................................................................................................................. 48
3.3.3. Urban Area Residential Recycling ................................................................................................ 48
3.3.4. Rural Area Residential Recycling .................................................................................................. 49
3.3.5. Commercial Recycling ...................................................................................................................... 49
3.3.6. Public Event Recycling ...................................................................................................................... 49
3.3.7. Incentives for Recycling ................................................................................................................... 49
3.3.8. Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 49
3.3.9. Processing Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 50
3.3.10. Markets .................................................................................................................................................. 50
3.3.11. Market Overview ................................................................................................................................ 50
3.3.12. Designation of Recyclable Materials ........................................................................................... 52
3.3.13. Recyclable Key Contaminants ....................................................................................................... 53
3.4. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 54
3.5. Alternatives and Evaluations ............................................................................................................................... 54
3.5.1. Recycling Rates by Material ........................................................................................................... 54
3.5.2. Recycling Program Costs and Affordability ............................................................................. 54
3.5.3. Sham Recycling ................................................................................................................................... 55
3.5.4. Establish a Waste Diversion Goal ................................................................................................. 55
3.5.5. Promote Existing Reuse Programs .............................................................................................. 55
3.5.6. Expand and Refresh the Public Education Program ............................................................. 55
3.5.7. Update and Expand on Digital Education Through Websites, Social Media, and Newsletters ........................................................................................................................................... 56
3.5.8. Adopt City Service Standards that Promote Residential Waste Reduction and Curbside Recycling ............................................................................................................................ 57
3.6. Recommended Actions ......................................................................................................................................... 57
4. Organics ............................................................................................................................................................................... 58
4.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 58
4.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 58
4.2.1. State Legislation and Regulations ............................................................................................... 58
4.2.2. Washington State Department of Agriculture Regulations ............................................... 62
4.3. Existing Program Elements .................................................................................................................................. 63
Page 12 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx vii
4.3.1. Organics Collection Programs ....................................................................................................... 63
4.3.2. Home Composting ............................................................................................................................ 63
4.3.3. Compost Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 63
4.3.4. Food Rescue and Donation Programs ....................................................................................... 63
4.3.5. Compost Procurement Ordinance ............................................................................................... 64
4.3.6. Organic Material Generation ......................................................................................................... 64
4.4. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 64
4.5. Alternatives and Evaluations ............................................................................................................................... 64
4.5.1. Organics Education ........................................................................................................................... 64
4.5.2. Organics Recycling Facilities .......................................................................................................... 64
4.5.3. Organics Collection and Composting ........................................................................................ 64
4.5.4. Food Waste .......................................................................................................................................... 65
4.5.5. Christmas Tree Collection Program............................................................................................. 65
4.6. Recommended Actions ......................................................................................................................................... 66
5. Moderate Risk Waste ...................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.2.1. Household Hazardous Waste Facility ......................................................................................... 67
5.2.2. Used Oil Collection ............................................................................................................................ 68
5.2.3. Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 68
5.2.4. Regulations and Guidance .............................................................................................................. 70
5.3. Moderate Risk Waste Generation ..................................................................................................................... 72
5.3.1. Inventory of Moderate Risk Waste Generators ...................................................................... 72
5.4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 73
5.4.1. Current Moderate Risk Waste and Oil Programs ................................................................... 73
5.5. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 74
5.6. Alternatives and Evaluations ............................................................................................................................... 74
5.6.1. Public Education ................................................................................................................................. 75
5.6.2. Business Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................... 75
5.6.3. Household Collection ....................................................................................................................... 75
5.6.4. Used Oil Collection ............................................................................................................................ 76
Page 13 of 402
viii cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
5.6.5. Paint Stewardship .............................................................................................................................. 76
5.6.6. Business Collection ............................................................................................................................ 76
5.6.7. Compliance and Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 77
5.6.8. Moderate Risk Waste Plan Preparation ..................................................................................... 77
5.7. Recommended Actions ......................................................................................................................................... 77
6. Solid Waste Collection ................................................................................................................................................... 78
6.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 78
6.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 78
6.2.1. Legal Authority .................................................................................................................................... 78
6.2.2. Incorporated Areas ............................................................................................................................ 78
6.2.3. Unincorporated Areas ...................................................................................................................... 79
6.3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 80
6.3.1. Waste Collection Programs ............................................................................................................ 80
6.4. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 81
6.5. Alternatives and Evaluations ............................................................................................................................... 81
6.5.1. Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 81
6.6. Recommended Actions ......................................................................................................................................... 82
7. Waste Transfer and Disposal ....................................................................................................................................... 83
7.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 83
7.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 83
7.2.1. State Legislation and Regulations ............................................................................................... 83
7.2.2. Waste Disposal Statistics ................................................................................................................. 84
7.3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 84
7.3.1. Pasco Transfer Station ...................................................................................................................... 86
7.3.2. Closed Landfill ..................................................................................................................................... 86
7.3.3. Current Disposal ................................................................................................................................. 90
7.4. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 90
7.5. Alternatives and Evaluations ............................................................................................................................... 90
7.5.1. Transfer Station Facilities ................................................................................................................ 90
7.5.2. Landfill Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 91
7.6. Recommended Actions ......................................................................................................................................... 91
Page 14 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx ix
8. Energy Recovery ............................................................................................................................................................... 92
8.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 92
8.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 92
8.3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................. 93
8.4. Status Of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 93
8.5. Alternatives and Evaluations ............................................................................................................................... 93
8.5.1. Energy Recovery Needs ................................................................................................................... 93
8.6. Recommended Actions ......................................................................................................................................... 94
9. Miscellaneous Wastes .................................................................................................................................................... 95
9.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 95
9.2. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 95
9.3. Agricultural Waste .................................................................................................................................................. 96
9.3.1. Regulations and Guidelines............................................................................................................ 96
9.3.2. Current Practice .................................................................................................................................. 96
9.3.3. Planning Issues .................................................................................................................................... 96
9.4. Animal Carcasses ..................................................................................................................................................... 97
9.4.1. Regulations and Guidelines............................................................................................................ 97
9.4.2. Current Practice .................................................................................................................................. 97
9.4.3. Planning Issues .................................................................................................................................... 97
9.5. Appliances/White Goods ..................................................................................................................................... 98
9.5.1. Regulations and Guidelines............................................................................................................ 98
9.5.2. Current Practice .................................................................................................................................. 98
9.5.3. Planning Issues .................................................................................................................................... 98
9.6. Asbestos ..................................................................................................................................................................... 98
9.6.1. Regulations and Guidelines............................................................................................................ 98
9.6.2. Current Practice .................................................................................................................................. 99
9.6.3. Planning Issues .................................................................................................................................... 99
9.7. Biomedical/Infectious Waste .............................................................................................................................. 99
9.7.1. Regulations and Guidelines............................................................................................................ 99
9.7.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 100
9.7.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 100
Page 15 of 402
x cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
9.8. Carpet and Padding ............................................................................................................................................ 100
9.8.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 100
9.8.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 100
9.8.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 100
9.9. Construction and Demolition Debris ............................................................................................................ 101
9.9.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 101
9.9.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 102
9.9.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 102
9.10. Disaster Debris Management .............................................................................................................. 102
9.10.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 102
9.10.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 103
9.10.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 104
9.11. Electronic Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 105
9.11.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 105
9.11.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 105
9.11.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 105
9.12. Junk Vehicles .............................................................................................................................................. 105
9.12.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 105
9.12.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 106
9.12.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 106
9.13. Litter and Illegal Dumping .................................................................................................................... 106
9.13.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 106
9.13.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 106
9.13.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 107
9.14. Mattresses ................................................................................................................................................... 107
9.14.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 107
9.14.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 107
9.14.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 107
9.15. Petroleum-Contaminated Soils ........................................................................................................... 107
9.15.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 108
9.15.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 108
Page 16 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx xi
9.15.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 108
9.16. Pharmaceuticals ........................................................................................................................................ 108
9.16.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 108
9.16.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 108
9.16.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 109
9.17. Street Sweepings and Vactor Waste ................................................................................................. 109
9.17.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 109
9.17.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 109
9.17.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 109
9.18. Tires ............................................................................................................................................................... 109
9.18.1. Regulations and Guidelines......................................................................................................... 109
9.18.2. Current Practice ............................................................................................................................... 110
9.18.3. Planning Issues ................................................................................................................................. 110
9.19. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................. 110
9.20. Alternatives and Evaluations ................................................................................................................ 110
9.20.1. General Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 110
9.20.2. Construction and Demolition Debris Alternatives .............................................................. 110
9.20.3. Disaster Debris Management Alternatives ............................................................................ 111
9.20.4. Evaluation of Alternative Strategies ......................................................................................... 112
9.21. Recommended Actions .......................................................................................................................... 112
10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement ..................................................................................................... 113
10.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 113
10.2. Background ................................................................................................................................................ 113
10.3. Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 113
10.3.1. Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division ............................................................ 113
10.3.2. Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee............................................................. 115
10.3.3. Incorporated Cities ......................................................................................................................... 115
10.3.4. Benton Franklin Health District .................................................................................................. 115
10.3.5. Washington State Department of Ecology ............................................................................ 116
10.3.6. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ..................................................... 117
10.3.7. United States Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................ 118
Page 17 of 402
xii cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
10.4. Status of Previous Recommendations ............................................................................................. 118
10.5. Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................. 118
10.5.1. Long-Term Funding Needs ......................................................................................................... 118
10.5.2. Staffing ................................................................................................................................................ 119
10.5.3. Permit Review ................................................................................................................................... 120
10.6. Recommended Actions .......................................................................................................................... 120
11. Implementation Plan.................................................................................................................................................... 121
11.1. Recommended Strategies, Implementation Schedule, and Budget ..................................... 121
11.2. State Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................................................... 124
11.3. Twenty-Year Implementation Program ........................................................................................... 124
11.4. Draft Plan Review ..................................................................................................................................... 124
11.5. Procedures for Amending the Plan ................................................................................................... 124
Appendices
Appendix A Solid Waste Advisory Committee Bylaws and Meeting Procedures
Appendix B Interlocal Agreements
Appendix C Resolution of Adoption
Appendix D Status of 2010 Plan Recommendations
Appendix E Household Hazardous Waste Handling Assessment
Appendix F State Environmental Policy Act Information
Appendix G Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Cost Assessment Questionnaire
Appendix H Regulatory and Stakeholder Comments
Page 18 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx xiii
Tables
Table 1. Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. ........................................................................... 19
Table 2. Franklin County Current and Future Population Estimates. ........................................................... 37
Table 3. Current Waste Generation Rate (2022). ................................................................................................. 38
Table 4. Projected Waste Quantities. ....................................................................................................................... 39
Table 5. Recycled and Diverted Materials (2022). ............................................................................................... 40
Table 6. Franklin County Waste Stream (2022). ................................................................................................... 42
Table 7. Recycling Operations in Franklin County (2025). ................................................................................ 47
Table 8. Markets for Recyclable Materials (as of July 2025). ........................................................................... 51
Table 9. List of Designated Recyclable Materials. ................................................................................................ 52
Table 10. Hazardous Household Substance List. ................................................................................................... 69
Table 11. Moderate Risk Waste Quantities Shipped (in pounds). ................................................................... 74
Table 12. Solid Waste Collection Data. ...................................................................................................................... 80
Table 13. Solid Waste Accepted at Pasco Transfer Station (in tons). ............................................................. 84
Table 14. Transfer Station Tipping Fees (2024). ...................................................................................................... 86
Table 15. Miscellaneous Wastes. .................................................................................................................................. 95
Table 16. Potential Disasters and Resultant Debris. ........................................................................................... 103
Table 17. Franklin County Solid Waste 2024 Budget......................................................................................... 115
Table 18. Potential Funding Methods for Solid Waste Management. ........................................................ 119
Table 19. Recommendations, Implementation Schedule, Responsibility, and Budget. ........................ 122
Figures
Figure 1. Franklin County Stormwater Management Plan Planning Area. .................................................. 20
Figure 2. 2025 Ecology Business Organics Management Areas Map. ........................................................... 34
Figure 3. 2020 to 2021 Central Washington Region Waste Composition Study. ..................................... 41
Figure 4. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Management Hierarchy. ............................................ 43
Figure 5. Franklin County Solid Waste Sites. ........................................................................................................... 85
Figure 6. Closed Pasco Sanitary Landfill Site Layout. ........................................................................................... 89
Figure 7. Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division Organizational Structure. ..................... 114
Page 19 of 402
xiv cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
2010 Plan 2010 Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
BDI Basin Disposal, Inc.
BOMA Business Organics Management Area
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
C&D construction and demolition debris
CB Columbia Basin, LLC
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
Commerce Washington State Department of Commerce
Comprehensive Plan Franklin County Comprehensive Plan 2018-2038
County Franklin County, Washington
CPO compost procurement ordinance
CROP Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan
DDMP disaster debris management plan
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMP Emergency Management Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPR extended producer responsibility
ESHB Engrossed Substitute House Bill
FDWG Food Donation Workgroup
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
GMA Growth Management Act
H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Asian Avian Influenza A
HB House Bill
Health District Benton-Franklin Health District
Herrera Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.
HHW household hazardous waste
HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan
Page 20 of 402
cz cc_25-08641-000_franklinswmp_20251031.docx xv
Abbreviation Definition
LSWFA Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance
MRW moderate risk waste
MSW municipal solid waste
OFM Office of Financial Management
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCS petroleum-contaminated soils
Plan Franklin County Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SHB Substitute House Bill
SQG Small Quantity Generator
SVE soil vapor extraction
SWAC Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee
TBD To Be Determined
TPY tons per year
UGAs Urban Growth Areas
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WSDA Washington State Department of Agriculture
WSU Washington State University
WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Page 21 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 17
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1. Background
1.1. Introduction
This Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan) recommends strategies to manage solid waste and moderate risk waste (MRW) generated in Franklin County, Washington (County). Solid waste handling includes management, storage, collection, diversion, transportation, treatment, use, processing,
and final disposal. This plan includes recommendations for municipal solid waste (MSW), MRW, waste
reduction, recycling and education, organics, construction and demolition (C&D) debris, and
miscellaneous wastes.
1.2. Purpose
Washington State law assigns primary responsibility for managing MSW and MRW to local governments.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70A.205 requires local government to maintain current solid waste
management plans. RCW 70A.300 requires local government to develop plans for managing hazardous
waste, which in this plan is covered in Chapter 5.0 – Moderate Risk Waste.
The purpose of this plan is to develop recommended waste management strategies for the period years 2026 through 2031. The Plan also looks forward to confirm that sufficient processing and disposal options are anticipated to be available to the County for at least the next 20 years, or through year 2046.
Local plans must be complete and in good standing to receive grant monies from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance (LSWFA), which is a funding source for non-disposal related programs and activities.
1.3. Goals and Objectives
The mission statement for this plan is as follows:
Franklin County and participating jurisdictions ensure that the citizens continue to have efficient and effective solid waste collection, handling, recycling, and disposal services with stable rates as low as reasonably possible, while protecting and preserving human health,
environmental quality, and natural resources.
For each element and chapter of the Plan, goals were developed. An assessment of existing conditions
relative to each element was made, followed by an identification of needs and opportunities. An
evaluation of alternatives was then performed and recommendations for specific programs, policies, or
actions were selected and adopted.
Page 22 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
18 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
In summary, the goals for the Plan are as follows:
Infrastructure and System
● Manage wastes in a cost-effective manner that promotes, in order of priority, waste reduction,
reuse, and recycling.
● Encourage and expand coordination and communication regarding waste collection and disposal among all jurisdictions, agencies, and private firms in the County.
● Ensure that wastes are properly managed and facilities are operated in full compliance with appropriate rules and regulations.
● Establish guidelines and strategies for management of specific waste streams.
Economic Sustainability
● Manage waste as a resource to increase local job opportunities and support economic development.
● Consider environmental impacts to climate, air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal.
● Provide a sustainable funding mechanism to manage waste and recyclables.
Education
● Reinvigorate the public education and outreach programs throughout the County.
● Encourage people and businesses to make responsible choices about what they produce and consume, and what they generate as waste.
● Encourage public/private partnerships for waste reduction and recycling programs.
Outside Influences
● Support changes to federal and state regulations and policies that support increased and affordable
recycling opportunities and waste diversion.
● Manage waste in a manner that promotes Washington State’s waste management priorities presented in Ecology’s Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics document.
● Comply with federal, state, and local solid waste and MRW regulations.
● Promote and support product stewardship and regulatory changes that increase recycling and diversion opportunities that meet the needs of the County citizens.
Page 23 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 19
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.4. Participants in the Planning Process
This document was developed with the guidance of the Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), whose participation is gratefully acknowledged. Refer to the County SWAC Bylaws in Appendix A for additional information on SWAC roles and responsibilities. Committee members and their affiliations
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Name Affiliation/Title
Rocky Mullen Franklin County Board of Commissioners
Lee Barrow City of Connell
Vacant City of Kahlotus
Cade Scott City of Mesa
Mary Heather Ames City of Pasco
Rebecca Francik Waste Industry
Candy Thornhill Business and Industry
Rob Wiskerchen Jin Muse (Alternate) Business and Industry
Bridget Gallant Agriculture
Joey Castilleja Pasco School District
Bailey Stanger Benton-Franklin Health District
Dale Lindsay Citizen
Rick Dawson Citizen
1.5. Planning Area
The planning area includes the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. This includes the cities and towns of Connell, Kahlotus, Mesa, and Pasco. Figure 1 illustrates the planning area.
Page 24 of 402
Produced by Herrera Environmental Consultants (herrerainc.com) | Sources: WSDOT, Franklin County, Esri (Imagery, 2025)
Au
t
h
o
r
:
b
B
a
g
n
i
e
w
s
k
i
D
a
t
e
:
6
/
2
5
/
2
0
2
5
F
i
l
e
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
Y
2
0
2
5
\
2
5
-
0
8
6
4
1
-
0
0
0
\
P
r
o
\
G
I
S
_
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
\
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
\
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
.
a
p
r
x
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
_
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
_
A
r
e
a
¹
City oI Mesa
City oI Kahlotus
City oI Connell
City oI Pasco
GLAD
E
1
O
R
T
H
RD
PA S C O
K
A
HLOT 8S R D
S
A
G
EHILL
RD
Benton County
Columbia
County
Franklin
County
Adams County
Highway
Road
City Limits
County Boundary
0 5 102.5 Miles
Figure 1.
Franklin County SWMP Planning Area.
Pa
g
e
2
5
o
f
4
0
2
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 21
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.6. Planning Authority
This Plan is intended to satisfy the participating jurisdictions’ responsibilities for maintaining a current
solid waste management plan in accordance with RCW 70A.205 and to provide a local hazardous waste
management plan in accordance with RCW 70A.300.
Cities and counties share the responsibility for developing and maintaining a local solid waste
management plan. RCW 70A.205.040 provides cities with three alternatives for satisfying their planning
responsibilities:
● Prepare and deliver to the County Auditor a city solid waste management plan for integration into
the county solid waste plan;
● Enter into an agreement with the County to prepare a joint city-county plan; or
● Authorize the County to prepare a plan for the City for inclusion in the county plan.
Participating cities and towns have both the opportunity and the responsibility to participate in plan
development, to review and comment on the draft Plan, and to adopt the final Plan.
The incorporated communities of Kahlotus, Mesa, and Pasco executed interlocal agreements with the
County regarding solid waste management. The agreement authorizes the County to prepare a county-
wide solid waste and MRW management plan that includes each of these cities and towns. The City of
Connell has requested to consider adoption upon completion of regulatory review.
Executed Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements can be found in Appendix B. Resolutions of adoption for this
plan can be found in Appendix C.
1.7. Plan Development Process
The Plan was developed over a period of approximately 12 months. The process began in June 2025 with
the contract execution for Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Herrera), as the team that would
assist with the update process. Technical research, analysis, and recommendations were prepared by
Herrera and discussed with County staff, Benton Franklin Health District (Health District), SWAC,
stakeholders, interested members of the public, and interest groups. This participatory, interactive
process was undertaken in order to prepare and build support for the Plan.
The public participation process was focused largely on the SWAC. The Board of County Commissioners
appoints SWAC members. Members are selected to represent a balance of interests including citizens,
public interest groups, businesses, the waste management industry, local elected public officials, and the
agricultural industry. The SWAC provides guidance to the Franklin County Solid Waste Program in the
development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal. The SWAC reviews
and comments on rules, policies, resolutions, and ordinances before they are proposed for adoption.
SWAC meetings are open to the public and meeting notices are published beforehand. For additional
information on the SWAC, please refer to Appendix A.
Page 26 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
22 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The Plan is anticipated to be adopted by each participating city or town and by the Board of County Commissioners in meetings open to the public.
1.8. Status of Previous Plans
This plan supersedes previous solid waste and MRW management plans, including the 2010 Franklin
County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010 Plan). The status of the 2010 Plan
recommendations from the 2010 Plan recommendations can be found in Appendix D.
1.9. Relationship to Other Plans
This section provides information on how this plan is related to other state and local documents.
1.9.1. Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics
Ecology released a waste and toxics reduction plan in June 2015. Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics (Ecology 2015) focuses on reducing waste and toxics by adopting a sustainable materials management approach, which is also used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This approach looks at the full life cycle of materials from design and manufacturing, through use, to disposal or recycling. The EPA believes that a sustainable materials management approach can help identify more sustainable ways to produce products that are less impactful to the environment.
Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics’ vision is as follows:
“We can transition to a society where waste is viewed as inefficient,
and where most wastes and toxic substances have been eliminated.
This will contribute to economic, social and environmental vitality.”
The following four priorities are included in Moving Washington
Beyond Waste and Toxics (Ecology 2015):
● Increase our focus on manufacturing and use phases, not just on end-of-life issues.
● Reduce toxic threats in products and industrial processes.
● Increase efficiency of recycling (including organic processing) systems, and maximize effectiveness of existing solid and hazardous waste infrastructure.
● Mitigate climate change through waste reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Source: Washington State Department of
Ecology
Page 27 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 23
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.9.2. Franklin County Comprehensive Plan
The Franklin County Comprehensive Plan 2018-2038
(Comprehensive Plan) is the long-term vision and approach for
managing the County’s natural and built environment. The
Comprehensive Plan includes policy direction for community and
economic development, housing, protection of environmentally
sensitive areas, public services, and growth. The most current
Comprehensive Plan serves as the “blueprint” for a period of
20 years, from 2018 to 2038. The Comprehensive Plan may be
amended on a yearly basis, but not more than once per year with
the County required to update its plan periodically to address
changing conditions.
The Comprehensive Plan considers the past and present history and circumstances of the County, and the people’s choices and preferences, with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). This Comprehensive Plan is a decision-making tool; a broad statement of community goals and policies that direct the orderly and coordinated physical development of the County and anticipates change and provides specific guidance for land development, zone changes, and the subdivision of land while maintaining the rural and agricultural character of the unincorporated areas.
The role of County government is to respond to the requirements of the GMA and to also respond to the needs and expectations of its residents and businesses. Such needs and expectations relate to safe and secure housing options, a vibrant economy, educational opportunities, a safe and efficient transportation system, and recreation opportunities.
The current Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies that provide guidance for public and private decision-makers and provides the basis for the designation of land use, for infrastructure development,
and for implementing community services and is written for a planning period of 20 years, with periodic
updates and an annual review of capital projects, and a potential for annual text and mapping
amendments. The Comprehensive Plan covers and applies to the unincorporated areas of the County,
however, facilities and services which are located within incorporated areas are addressed to fully
account for these features from a system-wide standpoint. The cities of Pasco, Connell, Mesa and
Kahlotus each maintain their own plans within their Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The cities and County
coordinate for development activities within UGAs but outside of the incorporated city limits.
The Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this element serves as a framework for
setting goals, policies and recommendations for implementing and evaluating solid waste management
efforts based on the most current plan adopted.
Source: Franklin County
Page 28 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
24 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.10. Required Regulatory Plan Elements
This plan is intended to meet or exceed applicable requirements set by Washington State. RCW 70A.205.045 establishes requirements for local solid waste management plans. Local solid waste management plans are required to include the following elements:
● An inventory and description of solid waste handling facilities, including any deficiencies in meeting current needs
● The projected 20-year needs for solid waste handling facilities
● A program for the development of solid waste handling facilities that meets applicable laws and regulations, takes into account the comprehensive land use plans of participating jurisdictions, and contains a 6-year construction and capital acquisition program and a plan for financing both capital costs and operational expenditures
● A program for surveillance and control (to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of improper
waste handling)
● An inventory and description of solid waste collection operations and needs within each jurisdiction, including state collection certificate holders and municipal operations
● A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element
● An assessment of the Plan’s impact on the costs of solid waste collection
● A review of potential areas that meet state criteria for land disposal facilities
RCW 70A.300 establishes the required elements for local hazardous waste management plans identified below:
● A plan or program to manage MRW including an assessment of the quantities, types, generators,
and fate of MRW in the jurisdiction
● A plan or program to provide for ongoing public involvement and education, including the potential hazards to human health and the environment resulting from improper use and disposal of the waste
● An inventory of existing generators of hazardous waste and facilities managing hazardous waste
within the jurisdiction
● A description of the public involvement process used in developing the plan
● A description of the eligible zones designation in accordance with RCW 70A.300.370
Page 29 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 25
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.11. Regulatory Overview
The statutes and regulations that govern solid waste handling are summarized briefly below.
1.11.1. Solid Waste Handling Standards
A rule governing solid waste facilities and handling practices, Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
173-350, also known as Solid Waste Handling Standards, went into effect in 2003. This rule replaced WAC
173-304. WAC 173-350 sets out standards of operation and permitting requirements for solid waste
handling facilities for recycling, intermediate handling (i.e., transfer), composting, MRW, and tires (unless
exempted by definition or due to beneficial use). The rule regulates landfill disposal of a new category of
wastes called “inert” wastes.
WAC 173-350 also places importance on local solid waste management plans (such as this document) by requiring solid waste handling facilities (whether exempt or requiring a permit) to conform to local solid waste plans. WAC 173-350 also states that a facility’s exemption for handling only recyclable materials is contingent on meeting the definition of a recyclable material as designated in a local solid waste management plan.
Landfill disposal of solid waste is regulated under a separate rule, WAC 173-351, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. This rule was last revised in October 2015.
1.11.2. Hazardous Waste Management Act
In 1982, Ecology adopted rules that combined the state and federal regulation of hazardous wastes.
These rules, as amended several times in the ensuing years, are contained in WAC 173-303 and are the
main body of regulations for hazardous wastes in Washington State. In 1983, Washington State
Legislature adopted a hierarchy of hazardous waste management methods in RCW 70A.300. In
descending order of priority for management, the hierarchy is waste reduction; waste recycling; physical,
chemical, and biological treatment; incineration; solidification/ stabilization treatment; and landfill.
Amendments to RCW 70A.300 in 1985 and 1986 defined MRW and required that local governments
(counties) develop plans for the proper management of MRW. As stated in RCW 70A.300, the
legislature’s intent was “to promote cooperation between state and local governments by assigning
responsibilities for planning for hazardous waste to the state and planning for MRW to local government.” In 1987, the legislature appropriated funds for grants to counties to assist in their planning efforts and clarified the schedule.
The legislature enacted the Used Oil Recycling Act, RCW 70A.205, in 1991. This statute requires local governments to manage used oil in conjunction with their MRW programs and to submit annual reports to Ecology. Local governments were required to adopt used oil recycling amendments to their MRW management plans by July 1, 1993.
Page 30 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
26 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
New Solid Waste Handling Standards (WAC 173-350) were developed by Ecology and became effective September 1, 2018. These standards address MRW facilities (including construction, record keeping, and reports).
The Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) have been amended several times, with the last update completed in 2020, to address new issues and to incorporate new provisions of state and federal regulations.
1.11.3. Relevant Oregon Solid Waste Regulations
Oregon statute (Oregon Revised Statute 459.305) requires out-of-state local governments, which export
more than 75,000 tons annually into Oregon for landfill disposal, to provide the opportunity to recycle
and implement recycling education programs. Specifically, the local government must either achieve a
recovery rate equivalent to that achieved in a comparable Oregon county or implement an equivalent
recycling program. The disposal site operator is responsible for demonstrating to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality that the city from which the waste originates has implemented an equivalent recycling program.
An equivalent recycling program requires that each person be notified of the opportunity to recycle and be encouraged to source-separate recyclables through education programs. Additionally, for cities with a population of less than 4,000, a convenient drop-off recycling location must be provided for source separated recyclables. For cities with a population of more than 4,000, monthly curbside collection of source-separated recyclables must be provided.
1.12. Summary of Changes in Solid Waste
Regulation and Policy Since 2010
Several new rules have been adopted since the previous plan was developed. Important new rules and
regulations for consideration in plan development are shown below (not in order of priority).
1.12.1. Mercury-Containing Lights Product Stewardship Program
WAC 173-910 requires establishment of a product stewardship program for mercury-containing lights throughout Washington State. Producers of mercury-containing lights sold for residential use must finance and participate in the product stewardship program by doing the following:
● Fund its producer share cost of the standard plan and program operated by the department-
contracted stewardship organization or operate, either individually or jointly, an independent plan
and program approved by Ecology.
● Pay administrative and operational costs associated with the standard program or the independent program in which they participate, except for the collection costs associated with curbside and mail-back collection programs. For curbside and mail-back programs, a stewardship organization must
Page 31 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 27
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
finance the costs of transporting and processing mercury-containing lights from the point of accumulation. For collection locations, including household hazardous waste (HHW) facilities, charities, retailers, government recycling sites, or other suitable locations, a stewardship organization must finance the costs of collection, transportation, and processing of mercury-containing lights collected at the collection locations.
● Submit market share data to Ecology to determine market share in the event more than one approved product stewardship plan is operating.
● Meet its financial obligations to the Plan, which includes Ecology’s annual fee.
● Comply with producers' requirements.
● Participate in a fully implemented plan.
● Take actions required to correct violations.
1.12.2. Revenue-Sharing Agreements
An update to RCW 81.77.185 allows waste collection companies to retain up to 50 percent of the revenue
paid to the companies for the material. Retaining revenue requires companies to submit a plan to the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) that is certified by the appropriate local
government authority as being consistent with the local government solid waste plan and that
demonstrates how the revenues will be used to increase recycling. The remaining revenue shall be
passed to residential customers.
1.12.3. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
In 2010, RCW 70A.205 was updated to require that when updating a solid waste management plan, each local comprehensive solid waste management plan must, at a minimum, consider methods to address the following:
● C&D waste for recycling or reuse
● Organic material including yard debris, food waste, and food-contaminated paper products for composting or anaerobic digestion
● Metals, glass, and plastics for recycling
● Waste reduction strategies
Page 32 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
28 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.12.4. Quarantine – Agricultural Pests
Effective January 1, 2017, the Washington State Department of
Agriculture (WSDA) amended WAC 16-470 by adding MSW,
yard debris, organic feedstocks, organic materials, and
agricultural wastes to the list of commodities regulated under
the apple maggot quarantine. Special permits are required
for the following:
●Transportation and disposition of MSW from an areaunder quarantine for disposal at a solid waste landfill or disposal facility in the apple maggot andplum curculio pest-free area
●Transportation and disposition of yard debris, organic feedstocks, organic materials, and agriculturalwastes from the area under quarantine for disposal at a solid waste landfill or treatment at acomposting facility in the apple maggot and plum curculio pest-free area
Refer to Chapter 4.0 – Organics for additional information regarding how these rules affect solid waste and organics management in the County.
1.12.5. Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance
In September 2017, WAC 173-312 was updated to replace the Coordinated Prevention Grant program. The purpose of WAC 173-312 is to provide financial assistance for local programs related to hazardous waste planning and implementation, local solid waste planning and implementation, and enforcement of rules and regulations governing solid waste handling. Planning, implementation, and enforcement are designed to prevent or minimize environmental contamination resulting from improper management or disposal of waste. WAC 173-312 established a structure for the administration of LSWFA.
1.12.6. Secure Drug Take-Back
Washington’s Safe Medication Return program, also known as the Drug Take-Back program, was established in 2018 under RCW 69.48. This program created a unified, statewide, medication return program that provides Washington State residents free, convenient, and environmentally responsible options for disposing of unwanted medication. Drug manufacturers fund the program at no cost to taxpayers and it is operated by an approved program operator(s).
Source: Washington State Department of Health
Source: Washington State Department of
Agriculture
Page 33 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 29
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.12.7. Sustainable Recycling
House Bill (HB) 1543, Sustainable Recycling, was signed by the previous Governor Inslee on April 29, 2019.
This act took effect on July 1, 2019. This act created a Recycling Development Center within Ecology.
Ecology works with the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) on recycling market
research and development. Ecology and Commerce appoint an advisory board and enter into an
interagency agreement. Ecology was directed to create a state recycling Contamination Reduction and
Outreach Plan (CROP) by July 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions were required to create their own CROPs or
adopt the state CROP by July 1, 2021. Counties with populations of fewer than 25,000 are exempt from
this requirement. Local governments were allowed to use LSWFA Grants and Waste Reduction and
Recycling Education Grants to support CROPs.
1.12.8. Food Waste
HB 1114 establishes a goal for Washington State to reduce by 50 percent the amount of food waste generated annually by 2030. It states that Ecology will work with WSDA and Washington State Department of Health to develop a state wasted-food reduction and diversion plan by October 1, 2020.
The Use Food Well Washington Plan was published in February 2022. The Use Food Well Washington Plan developed 2015 baseline data that
further defined the edible food waste reduction goal, resulting in the
following statewide food waste reduction goals:
● Reduce food waste generated by 50 percent by 2030.
● Reduce at least half of edible food waste by 2030.
● Reduce edible food waste disposed in landfills by 20 percent by 2025.
The Use Food Well Washington Plan also developed a food waste reduction plan that focuses on three key strategies:
● Prevention: Prevent and reduce the amount of food that is wasted.
● Rescue: Rescue edible food that would otherwise be wasted and ensure the food reaches those who need it.
● Recovery: Support productive uses of inedible food materials, including using it for animal feed, energy production through anaerobic digestion, and for offsite or onsite management systems including composting, vermicomposting, or other biological systems.
The Use Food Well Washington Plan prioritizes public-private partnerships over regulations and was developed in collaboration with the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and Washington Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health, and more than 100 subject matter experts.
Source: Washington State Department
of Ecology
Page 34 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
30 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The Use Food Well Washington Plan recommendations are a mix of federal and state policy changes, increased program funding, and investments in public education, food management systems, and recovery infrastructure. A total of 30 recommendations to reduce food waste were identified through this collaborative engagement process.
1.12.9. Paint Stewardship
Substitute HB (SHB) 1652 requires producers of architectural paint sold in Washington to participate in an
approved paint stewardship plan. This SHB prohibits a producer or retailer of paint from selling or
offering for sale architectural paint unless the producer or brand of paint is participating in a stewardship
plan. A paint stewardship organization implements this SHB with Ecology providing oversight. Additional
information on paint stewardship can be found in Chapter 5.0– Moderate Risk Waste.
1.12.10. Reducing Pollution From Plastic Bags
In 2020, Engrossed SHB (ESHB) 5323 was authorized and mandates the following:
● Prohibits a retail establishment from providing to a customer or a person at an event a single-use
plastic carryout bag, or a paper carryout bag or reusable carryout bag made of film plastic that
does not meet recycled content requirements
● Prohibits a retail establishment from using or providing certain polyethylene or other non-compostable plastic bags
● Authorizes a retail establishment to provide a reusable carryout bag or a recycled content paper carryout bag of any size to a customer at the point of sale
● Requires a retail establishment to collect a pass-through charge of not less than 10 cents for every
recycled content paper carryout bag or reusable carryout bag made of film plastic it provides
● Prohibits a city, town, county, or municipal corporation from implementing a local carryout bag ordinance
1.12.11. Polystyrene Prohibition and Plastics Reduction (Plastics Law)
In 2021, ESHB 5022 was authorized, aimed at reducing the use of single-use plastics and increasing
recycled content in bottles and trash bags. The law will be phased in over several years. Immediate
provisions include:
June 25, 2021 – Washington State no longer requires plastic bottles or other rigid plastic containers to
include the “chasing arrows” symbol around the plastic resin code.
July–December 2021 – A stakeholder committee is convened to make recycled content recommendations
for plastic items not covered by the 2021 plastic law.
Additional provisions include:
Page 35 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 31
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
● 2022 – Requires restaurants and food service businesses to give customers disposable service ware
only upon request.
● 2023 – Requires minimum recycled content in several types of single-use plastics.
● 2023–2024 – Restricts the sale of specific types of expanded polystyrene products starting with
packing peanuts, food service containers, and recreational coolers.
● 2024 – Washington State agencies may buy only plastic trash bags that meet the post-consumer recycling content requirements.
● 2028 – Washington State will conduct a study of plastic resin market conditions, if funding is available.
1.12.12. Organics Management Law
In 2022, in support of the Washington Legislature’s 2021 Climate Commitment
Act, which sets carbon emission limits and
requires the state to reduce its carbon
output 45 percent by 2030, 70 percent by
2040, and 95 percent by 2050 the
Washington State Legislature
passed HB 1799, requiring diversion of
organic materials away from landfill
disposal and towards food rescue
programs and organics management
facilities. Each city or county with a
population greater than 25,000 must
develop a compost procurement ordinance, and new or updated comprehensive plans and comprehensive solid waste management plans must include identification of possible locations for organic materials management facilities.
HB 1799 requires state and local governments, businesses, and other organizations to reduce the amount of organic materials disposed of in landfills and increase the demand for processed organic materials such as compost. The legislation also calls for an increase in edible food recovery and amends many laws affecting organics management.
Washington State Preferred Organic Management Hierarchy Source: Washington State Department of Ecology
Page 36 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
32 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The law states that by January 1, 2023, cities and counties must adopt compost procurement ordinances. This section applies to each city or county with a population greater than 25,000, as measured by Washington State’s Office of Financial Management (OFM), and to each city or county in which organic material collection services are provided under RCW 70A.205.
Beginning December 31, 2024, required jurisdictions must report to Ecology the total tons of organic matter they diverted from the landfill, including the amount of compost purchased from specific sources.
After July 1, 2024, new and updated local comprehensive solid waste management plans must address
the new requirement to provide organic materials collection and management to residential and
nonresidential customers. This includes identifying priority areas to locate new organic management
facilities.
Currently, the City of Pasco is identified by Ecology as an organics recycling collection area. Additional
information, as it pertains to Franklin County, can be found in Chapter 4.0 – Organics.
1.12.13. Reducing Plastic Pollution
In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed HB 1085, which requires Ecology to oversee new restrictions on single-use health and beauty products provided to guests by lodging establishments. HB 1085 also restricts the installation of overwater plastic foam structures such as floating boat docks, blocks, and floats. To support these restrictions, the bill requires the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct a study of sustainable alternatives to these types of floating structures. Finally, HB 1085 requires certain public buildings to install bottle filling stations to reduce waste from single-use plastic bottles. Ecology will aid involved state agencies and lodging establishments by coordinating education, outreach, and compliance for the new requirements.
1.12.14. Environmental Management of Batteries
In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill 5144, which requires battery producers to
create a statewide collection system for portable used batteries by January 1, 2027. It phases in medium-
sized batteries in 2029 and requires a study that will address the management of large-format batteries
and products with embedded batteries. The bill requires a battery stewardship organization to submit a
plan to Ecology by July 1, 2026, describing how the program will operate, including producers
participating; transporters, processors, and disposal facilities to be used; how the program will be funded;
performance goals; consumer outreach; and safety procedures.
Senate Bill 5144 also requires Ecology to research the management of electric vehicle batteries and provide recommendations to the Washington State Legislature via a preliminary legislative report in November 2023 and a final report in April 2024.
Page 37 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 33
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
1.12.15. Commercial Organics Recycling
In 2022 and 2024, the Washington State Legislature passed organic management laws that establish a
phased approach to collecting source-separated organics from businesses located in “Business Organics
Management Areas” (BOMAs) established by Ecology. BOMAs are created in geographical areas where
the following two conditions are met:
● Curbside collection of food waste and organic materials is provided to businesses, and these materials are delivered to an organics management facility such as a compost facility or anaerobic digester.
● Adequate capacity exists at these facilities to accept increased volumes of organic materials from
businesses, and these facilities are willing to accept additional materials.
Within an established BOMA, businesses are required to follow these guidelines:
● By January 1, 2024, businesses generating at least 8 cubic yards of organic material waste per week
must arrange for organics materials management services.
● By January 1, 2025, businesses generating at least 4 cubic yards of organic material waste per week must arrange for organics materials management services.
● By January 1, 2026, businesses generating at least 96-gallons of organic material waste per week
must arrange for organics materials management services. However, Ecology may determine that
additional reductions in organic materials in landfills can be more readily achieved at different
volumetric amounts.
● By April 1, 2027, businesses generating more than 0.25 cubic yard or organic materials per week must have access to voluntary organics materials management services.
Figure 2 illustrates the 2025 Ecology BOMA map.
Page 38 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
34 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Figure 2. 2025 Ecology Business Organics Management Areas Map.
The BOMA map may be updated annually by Ecology so required business collection areas may expand over time.
Currently there are no BOMA’s located in Franklin County. Additional information, as it pertains to the County, can be found in Chapter 4.0 – Organics.
1.12.16. Improving Outcomes with Waste Material Management
Systems (Organics Food Waste)
In March 2024, Washington State legislature passed HB 2301, a bill that enacted additional organic
material management measures. HB 2301 directed a division within Ecology to study food donation and
recovery systems infrastructure. It also implements compost collection for single-family homes in
“urbanized areas” beginning in 2027 and sets new criteria for food packaging labeled as compostable. The legislation enshrined the EPA’s Wasted Food Scale into state law, emphasizing food waste prevention, donation or upcycling first before prioritizing uses like composting or anaerobic digestion
Page 39 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
December 2025 35
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
with beneficial use of end products. The bill also created a Washington Commodities Donation grant program, which supports existing infrastructure diverting food to donation.
Ecology has established a Food Donation Workgroup (FDWG) to study and recommend ways to improve edible food rescue from commercial generators, including food service, grocery stores, and processors. The FDWG is dedicated to enhancing food rescue efforts from commercial sources and prioritizes food waste prevention, food rescue, and managing the remaining material through recovery systems. Success will be driven by forging strong partnerships and ongoing discussions about current issues and research.
The FDWG is tasked with assisting with completion of a report to the legislature, scheduled for release in
September 2025. Ecology convened eight meetings of the workgroup between July 2024 to April 2025
and reached consensus on nine draft actionable recommendations as follows:
● Strengthen Food Donation Through Scalable Pilots and Infrastructure.
● Fund the Washington Commodities Donation Grant Program.
● Invest in School Food Rescue Infrastructure and Programs.
● Identify Sustainable Funding to Expand Food Donations.
● Provide Technical Assistance to Address Barriers and Standardize Food Donation Best Practices.
● Implement Statewide Education and Outreach Campaigns.
● Advance Statewide Data Tracking Through the Food Date Hub to Support Food Rescue and Donation.
● Support Local Health Jurisdictions in Guiding Safe Food Donation and Connecting with Hunger Relief Organizations.
● Develop a Statewide Collaborative Food Donation and Recovery Map.
Additional information, as it pertains to the County, can be found in Chapter 4.0 – Organics.
1.12.17. Improving Outcomes Associated with Waste Material
Management Systems (Organics Collection)
HB 1497 was passed in the 2025 legislative session and becomes effective July 27, 2025. HB 1497 seeks to improve waste management systems in Washington State, with particular emphasis on organic materials. It establishes new requirements for the collection and management of organic waste, including the implementation of color-coded containers by January 1, 2028, to minimize contamination. Jurisdictions are mandated to provide year-round source-separated organic solid waste collection services to single-family residents and certain nonresidential customers starting April 1, 2027. The legislation also
introduces an Organic Grant Program to support compliance with these requirements, with specific
eligibility criteria for grant recipients and a prohibition on funding for non-compliant entities.
Additionally, the HB outlines obligations for building owners to provide adequate space for organic
waste collection and emphasizes the importance of educational resources in schools to support food
waste reduction initiatives.
Page 40 of 402
Chapter 1. Background
36 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Moreover, HB 1497 enhances the farm-to-school program by establishing policies that facilitate the procurement of locally grown food by schools, including provisions for marketing Washington-grown food and allowing schools to purchase food that may otherwise go to waste. HB 1497 mandates collaboration between the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the WSDA to promote regional market programs and provide technical assistance to school districts. HB 1497 also includes provisions for grants aimed at reducing high school dropout rates through farm engagement initiatives targeting low-income youth. Notably, it includes a clause that nullifies its effectiveness if specific funding
is not appropriated by June 30, 2025, and ensures that the remainder of the act remains enforceable if
any part is deemed invalid.
Additional information, as it pertains to the County, can be found in Chapter 4.0 – Organics.
1.12.18. Improving Washington’s Solid Waste Management
Outcomes (Consumer Packaging)
Senate Bill 5284 was signed into law on May 17, 2025. Senate Bill 5284 seeks to improve solid waste management in Washington State by implementing extended producer responsibility programs for consumer packaging and paper products. It requires producers to engage in the management of their materials from design to end-of-life, ensuring responsible planning and funding to mitigate environmental impacts. Key definitions are introduced, including "covered materials" and "producer," while exemptions for certain materials and criteria for "de minimis producers" are established. The
legislation maintains the roles of local governments and the Utilities and Transportation Commission in
regulating solid waste management and emphasizes collaboration between state and local entities to
enhance recycling rates and access, particularly for underserved communities.
Producers must appoint producer responsibility organizations by January 1, 2026, and these
organizations are responsible for managing covered materials, including financial obligations to fund
implementation and enforcement. Senate Bill 5284 mandates the development of statewide collection
lists for recyclable and compostable materials, requires service providers to register and report
operational details, and emphasizes the importance of equity in service availability. Additionally, it
introduces provisions for performance targets, independent reviews, and community engagement in the
development of a beverage container deposit return system. The legislation aims to enhance
environmental protection, improve worker compensation standards, and ensure compliance with solid
waste management plans, ultimately promoting sustainability and accountability among producers and
service providers.
Page 41 of 402
Chapter 2. Waste Stream
December 2025 37
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
2. Waste Stream
2.1. Introduction
This chapter provides information on population and waste generation rates. This data is used in various ways in the following chapters, such as assessing the need for or determining the impact of a proposed new program.
2.2. Waste Stream and Population Projections
This section presents information on historic and current data, along with future projections regarding
waste generated in Franklin County.
2.2.1. Population and Waste Generation Rates
Population
Current population levels and future population growth are important factors to consider for solid waste management plans. People create solid waste and, in general, the more people there are (now and in the future), the more waste is created.
Table 2 provides current and future estimates of the population of Franklin County. This table uses population figures produced by the Washington State OFM, which OFM based on U.S. Census 2020 results and adjustments made through 2022. For future population projections, the OFM produces three different sets of forecasts for population growth: low, medium, and high series. The medium series figures are used in this plan.
Table 2. Franklin County Current and Future Population Estimates.
Area 2020a 2022a 2025a 2035b 2045b
Franklin County, Total 96,749 99,750 103,250 123,928 141,945
Unincorporated Areas 13,668 14,195 14,535 17,449 19,986
Incorporated Areas 83,081 85,555 88,715 106,479 121,959
Cities
Connell 5,441 4,840 5,180 6,309 7,249
Kahlotus 147 145 145 145 145
Mesa 385 390 400 425 485
Pasco 77,108 80,180 82,990 99,600 114,080
a Data for these years are from the OFM's " April 1, 2025 Population of Cities, Towns, and Counties, 2020-2025,"
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp. (OFM 2025).
b Total population data for the years 2035 through 2040 is from the OFM's "Projections of the Total Resident Population for the Growth
Management Act, Medium Series: 2025 to 2050 by 5-year intervals," Growth Management Act population projections for counties: 2010 to 2040 | Office of Financial Management (wa.gov). Population figures by area and city for the years 2035 through 2045 assume the same breakdown as 2025.
Page 42 of 402
Chapter 2. Waste Stream
38 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
According to the OFM April 2025 Population Changes and Rank Report, Franklin County is the 14th most populated county in Washington State and incurred a 6.5 percent growth in population from April 2020 to April 2025.
Waste Generation Rules
Washington State defines solid waste as “all putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated soils and contaminated
dredged material, and recyclable materials” (WAC 173-350-100).
This plan focuses primarily on MSW, consisting of those wastes generated by residential and commercial
sources that are meant to be handled by the County’s solid waste disposal system. Wastes generated by
industrial and agricultural sources are generally included to the extent that these are similar to what is
disposed of through the County’s system, and do not require special handling. Miscellaneous wastes
handled separately by these sources are addressed only briefly in this plan in Chapter 9.0 – Miscellaneous
Wastes .
Table 3 summarizes the 2022 solid waste disposed of in the County or taken to other facilities. This table
also shows the amount of materials recycled or diverted through various drop-off and collection
programs in the County as well as the amounts of C&D debris and other miscellaneous wastes disposed
of in the County or taken to other facilities in 2022. These materials are accounted for in developing a
waste generation rate because tonnages may shift from one facility to another in the future due to new
programs, changes in rates, or other factors.
Table 3. Current Waste Generation Rate (2022).
Facility and Waste Stream Annual Amount
MSW Disposed Tonnages:
Finley Buttes Landfill (Oregon) Other Landfills
149,090 tons
27 tons
Total Tonnage Disposed 149,117 tons
Recycling / Diverted Tonnage 42,636 tons
Total Materials Tonnage Recycled/Diverted 42,636 tons
Solid Waste Grand Total 191,753 tons
Population (2022 Estimate) 99,750
Waste Generation Rate, per person per year 3,845 pounds
Waste Generation Rate, per person per day 10.53 pounds
Page 43 of 402
Chapter 2. Waste Stream
December 2025 39
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
In Table 4, waste quantities have been projected using the most current available per capita generation rate multiplied by County population forecasts. The current generation rate was calculated by combining the tons disposed of in 2022 with the tons recycled, diverted, or sent to special landfills in 2022 and then dividing by the population in 2022 as determined in Table 3. By applying the current per capita rate to future years, the projected figures for 2025 through 2045 assume no change in waste generation or disposal practices, or in the percentage of material recycled and reduced. This approach also assumes no change in the amount of waste migrating to out-of-county facilities and other factors (such as the ratio
of annual tourists and migrant workers to the general County population).
Table 4. Projected Waste Quantities.
Yeara Total
Populationa
Waste Generated
TPYa,b
Waste Generation
Ratea
Amount Recycled
TPYa,c
MSW Disposed
TPYa,c
Actual Amounts
2022 99,750 191,753 10.53 42,186 (22%) 149,567 (78%)
Projected Amounts
2025 103,250 198,418 10.53 43,652 154,766
2035 123,928 238,155 10.53 52,394 185,761
2045 141,945 272,779 10.53 60,011 212,768
a Figures, except year, population, and generation rate, are shown as tons per year (TPY). The waste generation rate is shown as pounds per
person per day. Population figures are from Table 2.
b Projected waste generation figures for 2025 through 2045 are based on the estimated waste generation rate for 2022 (10.53 pounds per
person per day) and population forecasts.
c The projected amounts of recycling, other diversion, disposed MSW, and other wastes assume the same percentage of the total waste
generated as in Table 3.
2.2.2. Recycling Data
The most recent recycling survey conducted by Ecology suggests that 22 percent of the County’s MSW was recycled or composted (see Table 5). This figure is generally called a recycling rate, although it sometimes includes composting and some reuse as well.
Ecology also defines a diversion rate, which includes several additional materials shown in Table 5 that are not included in the stricter recycling rate. These diverted materials include specific materials such as agricultural organics and tires, which are still being put to a beneficial use but simply do not count as recycling as defined by Washington State. For comparison purposes, Ecology reports that the state recycling/diversion rate for the same time period was 42.5 percent.
Page 44 of 402
Chapter 2. Waste Stream
40 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 5. Recycled and Diverted Materials (2022).
Materials Annual Tons Percent of Tons of
MSW Disposed
Percent of Total
Tons Generated
Recycled Materials
Agricultural Organics 227.00 <1% <1%
Aluminum Cans 45.29 <1% <1%
Antifreeze 46.33 <1% <1%
Asphalt & Concrete 3,150.00 2.1% 1.6%
Cardboard 5,119.49 3.4% 2.7%
Cartons 2.75 <1% <1%
Electronics 160.50 <1% <1%
Fluorescent Light Bulbs 2.42 <1% <1%
Food Scraps 95.31 <1% <1%
Glass 20.05 <1% <1%
HDPE Plastics 12.96 <1% <1%
High Grade Paper 127.35 <1% <1%
Household Batteries 0.88 <1% <1%
Meat, Fats & Oils 247.39 <1% <1%
Metals/White Goods 8,789.00 5.9% 4.6%
Mixed Wastepaper 237.16 <1% <1%
Mixed Plastics 22.10 <1% <1%
Newspaper 67.86 <1% <1%
Oil Filters 58.91 <1% <1%
Other Ferrous Metals 7,277.00 4.9% 3.8%
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 416.12 <1% <1%
Other Recyclable Plastics 112.02 <1% <1%
Paint 7.95 <1% <1%
PET Plastics 34.47 <1% <1%
Textiles 425.00 <1% <1%
Tires 10.50 <1% <1%
Tin Cans 13.07 <1% <1%
Used Motor Oil 464.44 <1% <1%
Vehicle Batteries 449.50 <1% <1%
Wood Waste 83.16 <1% <1%
Miscellaneous Other 8.11 <1% <1%
Tons Recycled/Composted Materials 227.00 <1% <1%
Diverted Materials
Tires (Energy Recovery, Baled, and Reuse) 13.91 <1% <1%
Landclearing Debris (Burned for Energy) 8,829.00 5.9% 4.6%
Wood Waste (Burned for Energy) 5,886.00 3.9% 3.1%
Use Oil (Burned for Energy) 172.61 <1% <1%
Paint (Burned for Energy) .41 <1% <1%
Tons Diverted Materials 14,901.93 10.0% 7.8%
Tons Diverted or Recycled/Composted 42,636.03 28.6% 22.3%
Tons Disposed 149,117 - -
Total Tons Generated 191,753 - -
Overall Diversion Rate 22.3%
Notes: Data for recycled and diverted materials, and for the amount of “other wastes,” are from the 2022 annual survey conducted by Ecology.
Page 45 of 402
Chapter 2. Waste Stream
December 2025 41
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
2.2.3. Composition of Disposed Municipal Solid Waste
In 2020 to 2021, Washington conducted a waste composition study for the entire state. Figure 3 presents
an overview of the 2020 to 2021 Central Washington Region State Waste Composition Study by material
type disposed of and percentage of the waste stream.
This plan utilizes the Central Washington Region Waste Stream Composition Study results, as a baseline
for planning, as it more closely represents the waste stream generated and disposed in the County for
such materials as paper, organics, and construction materials. The County is within the Ecology
designated Eastern Washington Region.
Figure 3. 2020 to 2021 Central Washington Region Waste Composition Study.
Waste composition can be expected to change in the future due to changes in consumption patterns, packaging, disposal habits, tourism, and other factors. These changes are difficult to predict in the long term. Furthermore, implementation of this plan may affect waste composition in the County by changing purchasing and disposal habits. Utilizing the compositional analysis derived from the 2020 to 2021
Central Washington Region Waste Composition Study, Table 6 illustrates the composition of the total
measured County 2022 waste stream.
Paper
20.2%
Plastic
14.8%
Glass
3.8%
Metal
7.3%
Organics
21.2%
Other
13.5%
Hazardous Wastes
1.4%
Wood and C&D
17.2%
Page 46 of 402
Chapter 2. Waste Stream
42 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 6. Franklin County Waste Stream (2022).
Materials Waste Stream
Percent by Weight Tons of Material
Paper 17.6% 26,230
Cardboard 3.4% 5,067
Newspaper 0.7% 1,043
Other Recyclable Paper 5.3% 7,899
Compostable Paper 5.9% 8,793
Non-Recoverable Paper 2.3% 3,428
Plastic 12.1% 18,034
PET Bottles 1.1% 1,639
HDPE Bottles 1.3% 1,938
Other Recyclable Plastic 5.4% 8,048
Recyclable Film 4.3% 6,409
Glass 1.7% 2,534
Clear Containers 0.6% 894
Brown Containers 0.3% 448
Green Containers 0.2% 298
Non-Recyclable Glass 0.6% 894
Metals 5.1% 7,601
Aluminum Cans 0.3% 448
Tin Cans 0.4% 596
Other Ferrous 1.8% 2,683
Other Non-Ferrous 0.1% 149
Computers, Electronics 0.3% 447
Non-Recyclable Metal 2.2% 3,278
Organics 32.3% 48,218
Food Waste 16.2% 24,222
Yard Debris 11.3% 16,843
Non-Recoverable Organics 4.8% 7,153
Other Materials 11.2% 16,692
Carpeting 1.7% 2,534
Textiles 2.3% 3,428
Mattresses 0.8% 1,192
Tires, Rubber Products 1.9% 2,831
Recoverable Hazardous/Special Wastes 0.4% 596
Other Hazardous/Special Wastes 0.2% 298
Other Non-Recoverable Materials 3.9% 5,813
Construction Debris 20.0% 29,808
Clean Wood 7.5% 11,178
Recoverable C&D 9.1% 13,563
Non-Recoverable C&D 3.4% 5,067
Total Tons Disposed 149,117
Note: Table utilizes the Central Washington Region State Waste Composition Study as the baseline for waste stream percent by weight.
Page 47 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 43
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and
Education
3.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses existing waste reduction, recycling, and education programs; identifies relevant
planning issues to meet local and state goals; and develops and evaluates alternative strategies for future
implementation.
3.2. Background
This section describes the applicable Washington and Oregon State laws and rules regarding waste
reduction and recycling programs.
3.2.1. State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines
Chapter 3 provides an update of the
County’s methods to divert waste
away from landfill disposal and to
comply with Washington State
requirements regarding the EPA
Waste Hierarchy (Figure 4), regarding
waste reduction and recycling
opportunities and programs. The EPA
is currently in the process of
reviewing its Waste Hierarchy to
determine if potential changes should
be made based on recent data and
information.
Washington State’s requirements are
based on the “Waste Not Washington
Act” (ESHB 1671), which declared that
waste reduction and recycling must
become a fundamental strategy for
solid waste management. This law is
Figure 4. Environmental Protection Agency Waste
Management Hierarchy.
Page 48 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
44 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
reflected in various sections of the RCW and WAC. RCW 70A.205 includes the following goals (among
others) and requires that solid waste management plans demonstrate how these goals will be met:
●Washington State is to achieve a statewide recycling rate of 50 percent of the total tons of solid
waste generated and recovered statewide. Ecology conducts waste composition studies and
recycling surveys on an annual basis to track achievement of waste reduction and recycling goals.
●Source separation of waste (at a minimum, separation into recyclable and non-recyclable fractions)must be a fundamental strategy of solid waste management.
●Steps should be taken to make recycling at least as affordable and convenient to the ratepayer as
disposal of mixed solid waste.
Other applicable Washington State requirements are as follows:
●Establish programs for the collection of source-separated materials from residences in urban and
rural areas. In rural areas, these programs shall include, but not be limited to, drop-off boxes, buy-
back centers, or a combination of both, at each solid waste transfer, processing, or disposal site, or
at locations convenient to the residents. The drop-off boxes and buy-back centers may be owned
or operated by the public, a nonprofit, or a private company or person.
●Establish programs to educate and promote concepts of waste reduction and recycling.
●Develop clear criteria for designating areas as either urban or rural for the purpose of providing
solid waste and recycling services (RCW 70A.205.050).
●Monitor the collection of source-separated waste from non-residential sources when there issufficient density to economically sustain a commercial collection program. Planning guidelines caninclude criteria such as anticipated recovery rates and levels of public participation, availability ofenvironmentally sound disposal capacity, access to markets for recyclable materials, unreasonablecost impacts on the ratepayer, utilization of environmentally sound waste reduction and recyclingtechnologies, and other factors as appropriate (RCW 70A.205.045).
RCW 70A.205 requires counties to develop clear criteria for designating areas as urban or rural for the
purpose of providing solid waste and recycling services. RCW 70A.205 requires recyclables to be
collected from homes and apartments in urban areas (with some exceptions), whereas drop-off centers
and other methods can be used in rural areas.
According to the Washington State OFM, a “rural county” is defined as “…a county with a population
density less than 100 persons per square mile or smaller than 225 square miles.” Using this definition,
Franklin County is considered a rural county. Additional information on this designation can be found on
the OFM website via the following link:
https://ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-demographics/population-
estimates/population-density/population-density-and-land-area-criteria-used-rural-area-assistance-and-other-programs
Page 49 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 45
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
RCW 70A.205 requires a monitoring program for collection of source-separated waste from non-residential sources when there is sufficient density to economically sustain a commercial collection program. The County complies with this requirement by working cooperatively with Ecology and using the data Ecology collects through the annual Washington State Recycling Survey.
In addition, public education is an important element for solid waste management systems. County residents and businesses need to be informed as to the proper and available methods for waste reduction, disposal, and recycling. The programs described in this chapter encourage residents and
businesses to take the extra steps to recycle or reduce waste, or to avoid generating waste in the first
place.
County waste is exported to Finley Buttes Landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. Oregon Revised
Statute 459.305 requires out-of-state local governments that export more than 75,000 tons annually into
Oregon for landfill disposal to provide the opportunity to recycle and implement recycling education
programs. Specifically, the local government must either achieve a recovery rate equivalent to that
achieved in a comparable Oregon county or implement an equivalent recycling program. The disposal
site operator is responsible for demonstrating to the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
that the area from which the waste originates has implemented an equivalent recycling program. An
equivalent recycling program requires that each person be notified of the opportunity to recycle and be
encouraged to source-separate recyclables through education programs.
3.2.2. Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan
HB 1543, Sustainable Recycling, was signed on April 29, 2019, and took effect July 1, 2019. The act required Ecology to create a statewide CROP by July 1, 2020. RCW 70A.205.045(10) requires counties with a population of more than 25,000 to include a CROP in their Solid Waste Management Plan by July 1, 2021. This requirement also applies to cities with independent Solid Waste Management Plans in counties with more than 25,000 people.
RCW 70A.205.045 stipulates the following requirements to be included in a CROP:
● A list of actions for reduction of contamination in recycling programs for single-family and multi-family residences, commercial locations, and drop boxes
● A list of key contaminants identified by the jurisdiction or Ecology
● A discussion of problem contaminants and the contaminants’ impacts on the collection system
● An analysis of the costs and other impacts associated with contaminants to the recycling system
● An implementation schedule and details of how outreach is to be conducted, which may include sharing community-wide messaging through newsletters, articles, mailers, social media, websites, or community events; informing recycling drop-box customers about contamination; and improving signage
The County CROP requirements are met in this chapter.
Page 50 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
46 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.2.3. Extended Producer Responsibility – Consumer Packaging
and Paper Products
Senate Bill 5284 was signed into law on May 17, 2025. Senate Bill 5284 seeks to improve solid waste
management in Washington State by implementing extended producer responsibility programs for consumer packaging and paper products. It requires producers to engage in the management of their materials from design to end-of-life, ensuring responsible planning and funding to mitigate environmental impacts. Key definitions are introduced, including "covered materials" and "producer," while exemptions for certain materials and criteria for "de minimis producers" are established. The legislation maintains the roles of local governments and the Utilities and Transportation Commission in regulating solid waste management and emphasizes collaboration between state and local entities to enhance recycling rates and access, particularly for underserved communities.
Producers must appoint producer responsibility organizations by January 1, 2026, and these organizations are responsible for managing covered materials, including financial obligations to fund implementation and enforcement. Senate Bill 5284 mandates the development of statewide collection lists for recyclable and compostable materials, requires service providers to register and report operational details, and emphasizes the importance of equity in service availability.
Additionally, it introduces provisions for performance targets, independent reviews, and community engagement in the development of a beverage container deposit return system. The legislation aims to
enhance environmental protection, improve worker compensation standards, and ensure compliance
with solid waste management plans, ultimately promoting sustainability and accountability among
producers and service providers.
3.2.4. Climate Action
In response to federal mandates in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the process to write the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) began in 2024 with the formation of a planning partnership. This countywide partnership helped to pool resources and create a Countywide hazard mitigation strategy. The process was led by Franklin County Emergency Management and funded by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) planning grants. The initial draft HMP was released in 2024 for public comment.
The HMP provides information as to how the County can be more resilient to natural hazards such as wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, drought, and severe storms. The HMP provides an overall strategy of programs, projects, and measures aimed at reducing the adverse impacts of natural hazards on the communities within the County. The agencies participating in the planning process used hazard data to identify specific projects that can mitigate against the risk of natural hazards, such as retrofitting water and sewer systems, adding generators to critical facilities, or modifying structures with fire resistant materials.
The current version of the HMP is available via the following link: https://franklinem.org/
Page 51 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 47
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.3. Existing Program Elements
This section provides background information regarding waste reduction, recycling, and education and discusses Franklin County’s existing programs. Table 7 provides a list of currently available drop-off recycling sites in the County.
Table 7. Recycling Operations in Franklin County (2025).
Recycler Facility
(Location) Type
Hours of
Operation
Paper and
Metala Waste Oil
Moderate
Risk Waste Electronicsb Paint
Basin Recycling, Inc.
(Pasco) Drop Box 9:00 to 5:00
(Mon. to Sat.) X X X X
City of Connell (Fire Station) Drop Box 24 Hours X
City of Mesa 101 North 1st Drop Box 24 Hours X
City of Pasco Sites
Grigg's Department
Store Drop Box 24 Hours X
Road 48 Soccer Field Drop Box 24 Hours X
Virgie Robinson Elementary Drop Box 24 Hours X
Stevens Middle School Drop Box 24 Hours X
Columbia Valley Grange Drop Box 24 Hours X
McLaughlin Middle School Drop Box 24 Hours X
Community U.U.
Church Drop Box 24 Hours X
Ochoa Middle School Drop Box 24 Hours X
Auto Zone Drop Off Call Ahead X
O’Reilly Auto Parts Drop Off Call Ahead X
Walmart Automotive Drop Off Call Ahead X
Goodwill Electronic Recycling Drop Off Operating Hours X
Sherwin Williams Drop Off Operating Hours X
Unincorporated County Sites
Eltopia
(Merrill's Corner Store
on North Glade Road)
Drop Box 24 Hours X
a Paper category includes corrugated cardboard, catalogues, chip/paperboard, computer paper, magazines, newspaper, office pack, phone
books, and white ledger paper. Metals category includes aluminum and tin cans.
b Electronics category includes computer monitors, computers, TVs, and other electronic equipment.
Page 52 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
48 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.3.1. Waste Reduction and Reuse
Waste reduction is the highest priority for solid waste management according to RCW 70.95 and is
preferred over recycling and composting because the social, environmental, and economic costs are
typically lower for avoiding the creation of waste.
Waste collection fees can be used to encourage waste reduction (and recycling) through “pay as you
throw” rates in which single-family households are charged according to the cart size required for
amount of garbage they discard. Businesses and multifamily properties are generally already charged
according to the amount of garbage disposed. Curbside recycling is not currently offered in the County;
thus “pay-as-you-throw” collection is not an incentive for curbside recycling.
Onsite composting can reduce the amount of yard debris disposed of as garbage or composted
commercially. Chapter 4.0 Organics provides additional information on composting and yard debris
management.
Other opportunities for reuse and waste reduction that are available in the County include the following:
● A non-profit Habitat for Humanity, Tri-County Partners reuse store for furniture, appliances, home
goods, tools, and building materials
● Organizations such as Goodwill and Salvation Army that accept gently used clothes, furniture, and home goods
● Yard sales
● Material reuse
● Local government public surplus sales
● Use of websites, such as Craigslist, which may be used to buy and sell second-hand goods locally
3.3.2. Public Education
Currently, the County is providing limited public education and outreach for waste reduction, recycling,
and proper management and disposal of MRW due to administrative constraints. The County does
maintain a website with links to some recycling options via the following link:
https://www.franklincountywa.gov/465/Solid-Waste
3.3.3. Urban Area Residential Recycling
Currently, curbside residential recycling collection services are not available in the urban County areas. Urban residents rely on drop-off sites as well as the Pasco Transfer Station facility. Additional information regarding the Pasco Transfer Station services is provided in Chapter 7.0 Waste Transfer and Disposal.
Page 53 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 49
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.3.4. Rural Area Residential Recycling
Currently, curbside recycling service is not available in rural areas. Rural residents rely on drop-off sites
and the Pasco Transfer Station facility. Additional information regarding the Pasco Transfer Station
services is provided in Chapter 7.0 Waste Transfer and Disposal.
3.3.5. Commercial Recycling
Commercial-sector recycling of cardboard is available in the County. Recycling bins are provided through drop-off recycling sites. See Table 8 for additional information.
3.3.6. Public Event Recycling
RCW 70A.200.100 requires public event recycling in communities where there is an established curbside service and where recycling service is available to businesses. A recycling program must be provided at
every official gathering and at every sports facility by vendors who sell beverages in single-use aluminum,
glass, or plastic bottles or cans. A recycling program includes provision of receptacles or reverse vending
machines, and provisions to transport and recycle the collected materials. Facility managers or event
coordinators may choose to work with vendors to coordinate the recycling program. The recycling
receptacles or reverse vending machines must be clearly marked, and must be provided for the
aluminum, glass, or plastic bottles or cans that contain the beverages sold by the vendor.
There is not currently an established curbside recycling service in the County and events would not be
required to comply until such a service is available.
3.3.7. Incentives for Recycling
As previously discussed, the County provides recycling bins at multiple locations throughout the City of Pasco and in Mesa and Connell (see Table 8) as an incentive to recycle. Source-separated paper, cardboard, magazines, newspaper, aluminum, and tin are not assessed a fee at the drop boxes. MRW is also accepted at the Pasco Transfer Station from residential self-haul customers at no cost.
Recycling can enable residents in Unincorporated Areas and City of Mesa and businesses to reduce their garbage service volumes, lower the garbage bill, and for some recyclable materials such as aluminum or copper even get paid if taken to a private recycling facility.
3.3.8. Monitoring and Evaluation
The County gathers information from Ecology on recycled quantities and an estimate of its countywide
recycling rate. Annual figures for recycled tonnages are reported on a voluntary basis by both public-
and private-sector entities.
Page 54 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
50 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.3.9. Processing Facilities
Columbia Basin, LLC (CB), provides the most diverse recycling operation in the County. Its main facilities
are in Pasco at 1721 Dietrich Road. CB operates recycling infrastructure for urban and rural residents. CB
provides a drop-box (30-yard container) program for the following items:
● Mixed Paper – Corrugated cardboard, catalogues, chip/paperboard, computer paper, magazine, newspaper, office pack, phonebook, white ledger
● Metals – Aluminum and tin
3.3.10. Markets
Washington State regulations (RCW 70A.205.045) require “a description of markets for recyclables,” which is provided below. This description is intended to be only a brief report of current conditions, and it should be noted that market conditions for recyclables can change drastically and rapidly.
3.3.11. Market Overview
In July 2017, China's government announced that it would ban twenty-four recyclables, including
"unsorted mixed paper" and "mixed plastics," starting in 2018. This ban originates from China's "National
Sword" campaign to crack down on contaminated scrap and recyclable commodities imports.
China applied a strict new contamination standard for other recyclables. Starting in March 2018, scrap materials imported into China may not exceed 0.5 percent contamination. This is below the typical processing standards of 3 to 5 percent at Washington recycling facilities at the time, and it risked excluding domestic recyclables from sale in China.
With a few exceptions, China has frozen the approval of scrap paper import permits. As a result, most scrap paper companies cannot export scrap paper into China, causing a suspension of imports into China since September 2017. This has created market uncertainty, even for materials not covered by the restrictions.
Additionally, in 2018, China's government implemented restrictions on what recyclables may be imported into the country, impacting Washington’s recycling programs. China was a major buyer of Washington’s recyclables prior to 2018.
China no longer allows the importation of low-grade plastics and unsorted paper. The regulations aim to increase the quality of recyclables entering China by requiring a low amount of contamination in the recyclables it imports.
The import ban created a major disruption in Washington and throughout the region. Material recovery facilities in Washington, which receive mixed recyclables and sort them for resale to commodities brokers, slowed down their processing of recyclable materials in an attempt to reduce contamination. This slowdown has reduced the amount of material that can be processed. The amount of material collected in Washington periodically exceeds the processing capacity at these slower processing rates.
Page 55 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 51
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Some materials may not be able to be processed, and recyclable materials may sometimes need to be disposed of as MSW.
An important factor for marketing of recyclable materials collected in the County is the cost of transporting them to end-markets, some of which are outside Washington State. Recyclers in Eastern Washington are farther from most markets than recyclers along the I-5 corridor, reducing market access and creating a transportation cost barrier. The low market value of many recyclable materials limits the number of materials that can be cost-effectively moved to markets.
Facilities have been added in Washington State since China's "National Sword" campaign to locally to handle commodities. In 2019, Norpac, which is located in Longview, Washington, pledged to bring in an additional 400,000 tons per year of recycled paper as it shifted one-third of its production capacity into packaging production. This expansion has the ability to consume available wastepaper and mixed paper grades in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. In addition, the Packaging Corporation of America Wallula
paper mill resumed operations in December 2023, which allowed for additional Eastern Washington use
of wastepaper and mixed paper grades for production of packaging materials.
Primary markets for specific materials and comments on factors that affect them are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Markets for Recyclable Materials (as of July 2025).
Material Primary Market(s) Comments
Paper
Cardboard Regional paper markets, paper
mills and export
The markets for cardboard (used in packaging) have
recently been improving and may be stabilizing.
Mixed Wastepaper and Newspaper Regional paper markets, paper mills and export The markets are fluctuating due to supply and demand from overseas markets and processors.
Plastics
Bottles #1 through #7 Regional markets in Western Washington and Oregon, and export
The markets for polyethylene terephthalate and high-density polyethylene bottles are currently weak to non-existent (#1 and #2), and even weaker for bottle types #3 through #7.
Other Plastics Primarily export Markets are volatile and sometimes unreliable.
Metals
Aluminum Regional markets in Western Washington and Oregon; can manufacturing in St. Louis
Aluminum prices are fluctuating due to potential tariffs and have generally been good.
Tin Cans, Appliances, and Ferrous and Non-ferrous Scrap Regional markets in Western Washington and Oregon Steel has fluctuated, and the market is currently weak.
Glass
Clear Glass Regional markets in Western
Washington and Oregon
Prices are poor.
Brown and Green Glass Regional markets in Western Washington and Oregon Prices are low or negative (i.e., the glass is recycled for a charge).
Ecology provides recycling market data that is updated every 2 months and available at the following link:
https://app.box.com/s/kzy7vdio1vv4tab5zzewl8t5xghwzdm3
Page 56 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
52 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.3.12. Designation of Recyclable Materials
Table 9 presents the list of “designated recyclable materials” required by WAC 173 350, which should be
used for guidance as to the materials to be recycled. This list is based on existing conditions (collection
programs and markets), so future markets and technologies may warrant changes in this list. Because
market conditions for recyclables can change rapidly, the list of designated materials is accompanied by a
description of the process for its revision, if needed, before the next major plan update.
This list is not intended to create a requirement that recycling programs in the County collect every
designated material. Instead, the intent is that if materials become feasible for recycling, the feasibility of
collection will be reviewed in respect to markets, ease of collection, size of waste stream, special events,
or removal of collection limitations and consider programs for collection so that residents and businesses
have an opportunity to recycle the designated materials listed through at least one program.
Table 9. List of Designated Recyclable Materials.
Priority Level Material
Routine Collection:
Materials feasible to be collected by drop-off
programs throughout the County.
● Aluminum
● Cardboard ● High-Grade Paper ● Mixed Paper ● Newspaper ● Vehicle Batteries ● Ferrous Metals ● Non-ferrous Metals
Limited Collection: Materials that can be recycled but that have collection or market limitations in the County.
● Electronics (covered by E-Cycle Washington) ● Mercury-Containing Lights (covered by LightRecycle Washington) ● Tires ● Paint ● Textiles ● Wood Waste ● Cell Phones ● Ink Cartridges ● Motor Oil ● Antifreeze ● Organics
Potentially Recyclable: Hard to recycle materials that could be recycled if markets are available.
● Plastics #1 through #7 ● Plastic Containers (Non-Bottle) ● Plastic Film ● Poly-Coated Paper ● Glass
Page 57 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 53
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The following conditions are grounds for additions or deletions to the list of designated materials:
● The market price for an existing material becomes so low that it is no longer feasible to collect,
process, and transport it to markets.
● Local markets or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on new uses for materials or technologies that increase demand.
● New local or regional processing or demand for a particular material develops.
● No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to be stockpiled
with no apparent solution in the near future.
● There is potential for increased amounts of diversion.
● There is a legislative mandate.
● Other conditions are not anticipated at this time.
Proposed changes to the list of designated materials should be submitted to the SWAC for review. Unless there are objections from the SWAC, the Franklin County Department of Public Works Director can make minor changes to the list. These will be adopted, depending on the schedule of SWAC meetings, without formally amending the Plan. Should the SWAC conclude that the proposed change is a “major change” (what constitutes a “major change” is expected to be self-evident at the time, although criteria such as opposition by the SWAC or difficulty in achieving consensus for adoption could be used as indicators of a “major change”), an amendment to the Plan would be necessary (a process that could take 120 days or longer to complete). In either case, Ecology should be notified of changes made to the list of designated materials or of the initiation of an amendment process.
3.3.13. Recyclable Key Contaminants
The following is the initial list of key contaminants to be addressed in the current recyclables collected at
the drop-box sites as required by RCW 70A.205.045 CROP:
● Plastic bags, film, and clamshells
● Non-program plastics
● Food and liquids
● Hose, wire, and rope (tanglers)
● Bagged garbage
● Textiles and toys
The following additional contaminants will also be addressed:
● Hazardous materials
● Hypodermic needles
Page 58 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
54 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Contamination in drop-box collected recyclables are best addressed through a variety of means and actions, to include the following:
● Visual inspections of self-haul loads of recyclables delivered to the drop-box sites and advising
customers of proper segregation techniques
● Updated signage at the drop-box sites to advise system users on contamination in commodities and acceptable recyclable materials
● Cooperation between the County, cities, and waste collection companies to implement a coordinated countywide messaging campaign
Costs for contaminants in the recycling system are currently covered through curbside fees for collection assessed to users, commodity pricing for recyclables, and tipping fees charged at the disposal facilities. Implementation costs for the CROP are discussed in Chapter 11– Implementation Plan.
3.4. Status of Previous Recommendations
The status of the recommendations made by the 2010 Plan can be found in Appendix D.
3.5. Alternatives and Evaluations
Existing service gaps and an evaluation of issues connected to the waste reduction, recycling, and
education component of solid waste management are discussed below.
3.5.1. Recycling Rates by Material
Overall, the County’s waste diversion rate is estimated to be 22 percent. In 2022, a total of 42,636 tons was reported as recycled, composted, or otherwise diverted. Refer to Chapter 2.0 Waste Stream for data sources and detailed information. Recovery rates appear to be highest for cardboard, metals, and asphalt/concrete.
3.5.2. Recycling Program Costs and Affordability
An overriding goal of the County’s solid waste program is to keep costs and rates affordable for both residents and businesses. Recycling and other services discussed in this plan may add to program costs and increase rates. The key issues related to costs, rates, and affordability that should be considered as
part of developing this plan are as follows:
● How to provide recycling services on a cost-effective basis
● How to decrease contamination in recyclables collected at the drop-box sites
● How expanded recycling services may result in disposal cost savings by reducing hauling cost to out-of-state landfills
● The potential for higher tip fees to provide a stronger incentive to recycle
Page 59 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 55
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
With the implementation of Senate Bill 5284, producers of consumer goods would be required to reduce unnecessary packaging and fund statewide recycling services starting in January 2030. Washington State estimated that hundreds of thousands of residents would get curbside recycling for the first time as part of this effort to cut down on waste going into landfills while creating a sustainable market for recyclable materials.
Senate Bill 5284 calls for Ecology to develop a list of recyclable materials in Washington State with most plastic packaging and paper products sold, distributed or shipped into and within the state would likely
be covered. Ecology would also work on an education campaign, paid for by producer fees, to inform
residents on what products they can recycle. As envisioned, residents could receive free or reduced
recycling services starting in 2030.
At this time, what recycling benefits may be provided for County residents is unknown. Monitoring of
regulatory implementation should be maintained and considered as the requirements become effective.
3.5.3. Sham Recycling
Some facilities may claim they are recycling a material without actually doing so. Others haul mixed garbage they claim constitutes recyclable materials to avoid flow-control policies in areas with high transfer station or landfill tip fees. These practices can both be considered “sham recycling.” Though Washington State’s 2005 “Sham Recycling Bill” and the Recyclable Materials Transporter and Facility Requirements (WAC 173-345) limit this practice by requiring recycling haulers to register with Washington State and prohibiting delivery of recyclable materials to transfer stations and landfills, sham recycling may still occur. To date, no sham recycling has been documented in the County.
3.5.4. Establish a Waste Diversion Goal
The County and signatory cities could set specific performance targets for waste reduction and recycling
programs. Setting diversion goals provides a benchmark for measuring future performance.
3.5.5. Promote Existing Reuse Programs
The County and signatory cities could promote and support expansion of existing reuse and material exchange opportunities, such as the Habitat for Humanity Store and local reuse and donation stores. Residential options include providing information on reuse organizations or supporting reuse events focused on specific products (such as bike swaps). Promotion could involve maintaining and publishing a resource guide in local newspapers, a stand-alone guide with a map, or a web page listing organizations that promote waste reduction activities such as thrift shops, repair services, and tool rental businesses.
3.5.6. Expand and Refresh the Public Education Program
Education and outreach initiatives have greater impact if messaging is consistent throughout the County.
To achieve this, County staff should coordinate between departments and with cities and towns and
waste collection companies to expand and refresh messaging on waste prevention, recycling,
Page 60 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
56 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
contamination reduction, private recycling options, and extended producer responsibility options. Options could include the following:
● Setting similar priorities for education objectives in terms of material and content
● Maintaining consistency in labeling, use of picture-based icons, color coding, and, when applicable, translations for bin decals and drop-box signage
● Communicating across agencies (e.g., with the Health District) to work jointly on overlapping objectives (e.g., diversion and MRW)
County staff can also review and selectively refresh their library of existing materials or create new materials to reflect priority recycling and composting topics; objectives around waste reduction; recycling contamination reduction; and key littering, illegal dumping, and MRW issues. Building on materials and resources, such as open-source photos for recyclables, from other jurisdictions and organizations can be cost-effective. For example, Ecology offers a Recycle Right toolkit, and The Recycling Partnership offers free images for signage.
Messaging materials can be tailored to specific generator types with relevant resources according to the specific challenges presented to the group (such as food waste prevention, proper MRW management, organics recycling options, illegal dumping prevention, and reducing contamination in recyclables).
3.5.7. Update and Expand on Digital Education Through
Websites, Social Media, and Newsletters
County staff’s efforts to reach younger or more digitally inclined groups can include updating existing digital materials and expanding on digital education campaigns through social media, the County website, and email newsletter subscriptions. At a minimum, the County should refresh its website to keep it current, add updated information, make it more visual, and make it easier for different types of users (e.g., single-family residents, multifamily tenants, multifamily property managers, businesses, and self-haulers) to find the information related to their needs.
Social media campaigns are a low-cost supplement to other education and outreach efforts and can build on free resources provided by organizations such as the social media toolkit from The Recycling Partnership. This toolkit provides a schedule for various content including text and images to align with seasons and holidays throughout the year. Social media campaigns also offer flexibility in topics that can be covered, including promoting upcoming events and addressing seasonal or emerging issues (such as backyard composting in spring or collection schedule changes during weather events).
A consideration when using social media, newsletters, or blogs is that individual posts and articles about
a small subset of products can lead to an overload of unorganized information. If adopted, these digital
methods should direct users to resources on the County website, so they should be organized and easy
to find by residents and businesses.
Page 61 of 402
Chapter 3. Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
December 2025 57
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
3.5.8. Adopt City Service Standards that Promote Residential
Waste Reduction and Curbside Recycling
Signatory cities contracting for collection services could adopt service standards that promote waste
reduction and curbside recycling. Options include offering or amending contracts to require garbage
haulers to offer the following:
● Recycling service on a subscription basis for a rate equal to or less than garbage service
(establishing a “right to recycle”)
● Recycling collection bundled with garbage service (potentially on an every-other-week or a monthly collection schedule)
● Subscription options for lower levels of garbage capacity (such as containers smaller than 64-
gallons or once-per-month collection frequency)
3.6. Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction, recycling, and education programs:
WWR1) Adopt the updated list of designated materials (Table 9) and maintain it through periodic
review and updates.
WWR2) Monitor regulatory implementation of Senate Bill 5284 and assist in implementation as appropriate for County residents.
WWR3) Update and expand the education and promotion program.
WWR4) Support private sector programs, forums, or other methods, such as existing reuse and reusable materials exchange programs, to facilitate material exchanges.
WWR5) Increase promotion of existing recycling and reuse programs through newsletters, community reuse events, guidebooks, and community-based social marketing.
WWR6) Work cooperatively with County, city and hauler staff to create and implement recycling contamination reduction campaigns for drop-box recycling programs.
WWR7) Work cooperatively with cities and towns to establish standards that promote residential waste reduction and recycling and implement curbside collection of recyclables as appropriate.
WWR8) Review and implement actions pertaining to the CROP as needed during this plan cycle.
Page 62 of 402
Chapter 4. Organics
58 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
4. Organics
4.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses existing organics management collection and handling methods in Franklin County and participating cities and towns, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and evaluates organics management strategies.
4.2. Background
This section provides information regarding regulations and guidance related to organics management.
4.2.1. State Legislation and Regulations
Beginning in 1989, the Waste Not Washington Act (ESHB 1671) declared that waste reduction and recycling must become a fundamental strategy of solid waste management. To that end, RCW 70A.205 included a statement that encouraged the elimination of yard debris from landfills by 2012 in those areas where alternatives exist.
RCW 70A.205 also required that collection programs for yard debris be addressed in areas where there are adequate markets or capacity for composted yard debris within or near the service area.
House Bill 1114 – Food Waste
HB 1114 establishes a goal for Washington State to reduce by 50 percent the amount of food waste generated annually by 2030. It states that Ecology will work with the Washington State Departments of Agriculture and Health to develop a state wasted-food reduction and diversion plan by October 1, 2020.
The Use Food Well Washington Plan was published in February 2022. The Use Food Well Washington Plan developed 2015 baseline data that further defined the edible food waste reduction goal, resulting in the following statewide food waste reduction goals:
● Reduce food waste generated by 50 percent by 2030.
● Reduce at least half of edible food waste by 2030.
● Reduce edible food waste disposed in landfills by 20 percent by 2025.
Page 63 of 402
Chapter 4.Organics
December 2025 59
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The Use Food Well Washington Plan also developed a food waste reduction plan that focuses on three key strategies:
● Prevention: Prevent and reduce the amount of food that is
wasted.
● Rescue: Rescue edible food that would otherwise be wasted and ensure the food reaches those who need it.
● Recovery: Support productive uses of inedible food materials, including using it for animal feed, energy production through anaerobic digestion, and for offsite or onsite management systems including composting, vermicomposting, or other biological systems.
The Use Food Well Washington Plan prioritizes public-private partnerships over regulations and was developed in collaboration with the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and Washington Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health, and more than 100 subject matter experts.
The Use Food Well Washington Plan recommendations are a mix of federal and state policy changes, increased program funding, and investments in public education, food management systems, and recovery infrastructure. A total of 30 recommendations to reduce food waste were identified through this collaborative engagement
process.
House Bill 1799 – Organics Management Law
In 2022, in support of the Washington Legislature’s 2021 Climate Commitment Act, which sets carbon
emission limits and requires the state to reduce its carbon output 45 percent by 2030, 70 percent by
2040, and 95 percent by 2050 the Washington State Legislature passed HB 1799, requiring diversion of
organic materials away from landfill disposal and towards food rescue programs and organics
management facilities.
Each city or county with a population greater than 25,000 must develop a compost procurement
ordinance, and new or updated comprehensive plans and comprehensive solid waste management plans
must include identification of possible locations for organic materials management facilities.
HB 1799 requires state and local governments, businesses, and other organizations to reduce the amount
of organic materials disposed of in landfills and increase the demand for processed organic materials such as compost. The legislation also calls for an increase in edible food recovery and amends many laws affecting organics management.
The law states that by January 1, 2023, cities and counties must adopt compost procurement ordinances. This section applies to each city or county with a population greater than 25,000, as measured by
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology
Page 64 of 402
Chapter 4. Organics
60 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Washington State’s Office of Financial Management, and to each city or county in which organic material collection services are provided under RCW 70A.205.
Beginning December 31, 2024, required jurisdictions must report to Ecology the
total tons of organic matter they diverted
from the landfill, including the amount of
compost purchased from specific sources.
After July 1, 2024, new and updated local
comprehensive solid waste management
plans must address the new requirement
to provide organic materials collection
and management to residential and
nonresidential customers. This includes
identifying priority areas to locate new
organic management facilities.
Commercial Organics Recycling
In 2022 and 2024, the Washington Legislature passed organic management laws that establish a phased approach to collecting source-separated organics from businesses located in BOMAs established by Ecology. BOMAs are described in Chapter 1.0 – Background. As of 2025, the County itself and cities and town within the County are not designated as a BOMA.
House Bill 2301 – Organic Material Management Measures
In March 2024, Washington State legislature passed HB 2301, a bill that enacted additional organic material management measures. HB 2301 directed a division within Ecology to study food donation and recovery systems infrastructure. It also implements compost collection for single-family homes in “urbanized areas” beginning in 2027 and sets new criteria for food packaging labeled as compostable.
The rule requires that by April 1, 2027, Washington cities or counties in an Organics Recycling Collection Area (ORCA) must provide organics collection service to all single-family residences and certain business customers. The ORCA map is located at the following link:
https://ecology.wa.gov/waste-toxics/reducing-recycling-waste/organics-and-food-waste/2022-organics-
management-law/organics-management-for-local-governments
Locations are determined by population and waste generation. Jurisdictions with less than
25,000 residents, or that dispose of 5,000 tons or less of solid waste, are not on the ORCA map.
Washington State Preferred Organic Management Hierarchy. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology
Page 65 of 402
Chapter 4.Organics
December 2025 61
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The City of Pasco and UGAs are designated as an ORCA. By April 1, 2027, local governments in an ORCA must have year-round organics collection service provided in their jurisdiction. Year-round is defined as 26 weeks or more of service, annually and at a minimum service must be the following:
● Source-separated, so food and yard waste are placed in a separate container from other recyclables
and trash.
● Provided to all single-family residents.
● Provided to business customers that generate more than 0.25 cubic yards (approximately 45 gallons) of organic waste per week. This does not include multifamily units where residents share collection containers.
Cities impacted by ORCA are also required to establish a compost procurement ordinance (CPO) and an associated annual report. A CPO is a plan to purchase and use local compost in public projects.
By April 1, 2030, organics collection services provided in the ORCAs become non-elective for customers. All single-family homes and businesses generating 0.25 cubic yards of organic waste per week must have mandatory service provided. Additionally, the local government’s collection service must accept food waste and collect organic waste separately from garbage and recycling.
Counties and their respective cities in an ORCA where service is required to be provided but is unable to be arranged by the legislative deadline may apply for a renewable service waiver that lasts up to 5 years when one or more of the following is true and documented:
● The distance to transport organic materials to an organic management facility is too far to make service economical.
● Nearby facility capacity is not sufficient to handle the volume of incoming organic materials
generated in an area.
● The estimated increase to rate payers in the area makes organics collection service unfeasible.
● The transport of organic materials is restricted under Washington’s apple maggot quarantine
(Chapter 17.24 RCW).
● Organics collection would have disproportionate impacts on an overburdened community.
One type of ORCA service waiver for jurisdictions is to reduce the collection frequency requirements. A jurisdiction must be using an alternative type of organics management system or technologies that will reduce the volume, odor, or both of collected food waste.
Cities and counties can apply for a service and/or frequency waiver but may do so on behalf of their impacted cities, UGAs, or census tracts. A County may apply up to 1 year in advance of a compliance deadline. For example, for 2027 requirements, the earliest a county may apply is 2026. For 2030 requirements, the earliest a county may apply is 2029.
Page 66 of 402
Chapter 4. Organics
62 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
House Bill 1497 – Organic Waste Collection and Management
HB 1497 was passed in the 2025 legislative session and becomes effective July 27, 2025. HB 1497 seeks to improve waste management systems in Washington State, with a particular emphasis on organic materials. It establishes new requirements for the collection and management of organic waste, including the implementation of color-coded containers by January 1, 2028, to minimize contamination. Jurisdictions are mandated to provide year-round source-separated organic solid waste collection services to single-family residents and certain nonresidential customers starting April 1, 2027. The
legislation also introduces an Organic Grant Program to support compliance with these requirements,
with specific eligibility criteria for grant recipients and a prohibition on funding for non-compliant
entities. Additionally, the bill outlines obligations for building owners to provide adequate space for
organic waste collection and emphasizes the importance of educational resources in schools to support
food waste reduction initiatives.
Moreover, HB 1497 enhances the farm-to-school program by establishing policies that facilitate the
procurement of locally grown food by schools, including provisions for marketing Washington-grown
food and allowing schools to purchase food that may otherwise go to waste. HB 1497 mandates
collaboration between the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the WSDA to promote
regional market programs and provide technical assistance to school districts. HB 1497 also includes
provisions for grants aimed at reducing high school dropout rates through farm engagement initiatives
targeting low-income youth. Notably, it includes a clause that nullifies its effectiveness if specific funding is not appropriated by June 30, 2025, and ensures that the remainder of the act remains enforceable if any part is deemed invalid.
4.2.2. Washington State Department of Agriculture Regulations
In 2016, the WSDA amended WAC 16-470 Quarantine – Agricultural Pests as follows:
● Adding MSW, yard debris, organic feedstocks, organic materials, and agricultural wastes to the list
of commodities regulated under the apple maggot quarantine
● Establishing a special permit to allow transportation and disposition of MSW from the areas under
quarantine for disposal at a solid waste landfill or disposal facility in the apple maggot and plum
curculio pest-free area
● Establishing a special permit to allow transportation and disposition of yard debris, organic feedstocks, organic materials, and agricultural wastes from the area under quarantine for disposal at a solid waste landfill or treatment at a composting facility in the apple maggot and plum curculio pest-free area
In addition, WSDA has recently found Japanese Beetle in Franklin County and has implemented an expansion of the treatment area in City of Pasco and the County. Additional information on pest quarantine areas and eradication can be found on the WSDA website at the following link: https://agr.wa.gov/departments/insects-pests-and-weeds
Page 67 of 402
Chapter 4.Organics
December 2025 63
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The County is currently designated as a non-quarantined area for apple maggot and Japanese Beetle by the WSDA, which allows the transportation of organics to permitted facilities outside of the County without a special permit.
4.3. Existing Program Elements
The sections below describe existing collection and processing activities for organic materials.
4.3.1. Organics Collection Programs
Prior to 2020, the Pasco Transfer Station offered customers a reduced rate for source segregated yard
debris. With regulatory changes adopted by the WSDA, several composting facilities in Eastern Washington were closed due to their inability to import yard debris from the west side of the state. Yard debris and organics are no longer segregated in the County and are disposed of with MSW.
There are currently no curbside organics collection programs operating within the County.
4.3.2. Home Composting
The County encourages home composting of yard waste and food waste through composting workshop events. Information on these events can be found at the Solid Waste Division comprehensive website: https://www.franklincountywa.gov/475/Workshops-Events
The Washington State University (WSU) Extension Office for Benton and Franklin Counties also provides
workshops that include home composting tips.
4.3.3. Compost Facilities
There are currently no compost facilities in the County. The City of Richland, in Benton County, owns and operates a compost facility for yard debris collected through its curbside collection programs. Natural Selection Farms in Sunnyside, Washington, and Dirt Hugger in Dallesport, Washington, are the next-closest compost facilities to the County.
4.3.4. Food Rescue and Donation Programs
Various food rescue and donation programs are available in the County. These organizations work to provide nutritious food to those in need. Food rescue programs consist of non-profit organizations that collect, store, and distribute food to individuals and families.
These programs acquire food through a variety of channels including donations from individuals,
businesses, and the government, as well as through purchasing food from wholesalers and farmers. A list
of food bank sites can be found by zip code at the following link: https://2-harvest.org/food-near-me/
Page 68 of 402
Chapter 4. Organics
64 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
4.3.5. Compost Procurement Ordinance
The City of Pasco adopted a CPO which has been codified into City Code. The County adopted a CPO in
August 2025.
4.3.6. Organic Material Generation
Information on the County organic waste stream composition and tonnage can be found in Chapter 2.0 – Waste Stream.
4.4. Status of Previous Recommendations
The status of the recommendations made by the 2010 Plan is shown in Appendix D.
4.5. Alternatives and Evaluations
This section describes alternatives considered for implementation by the County.
4.5.1. Organics Education
The County has offered home composting education programs in the past. As future organics programs
are implemented, such as a pilot food waste composting program or organics collection programs,
educational materials outlining the benefits of the programs could be developed and distributed.
WSU has information on its website about nutrition and food safety and Master Gardeners classes which
include composting education. The WSU website can be found via the following link :
https://extension.wsu.edu/benton-franklin/
4.5.2. Organics Recycling Facilities
There are currently no permitted organics recycling or composting facilities located within the County. The County plans for development under the Growth Management Act. Organics recycling facilities can be permitted, in the Unincorporated Areas, utilizing the conditional use permit process in various zones as outlined in the Franklin County Code. In addition, each City Code has the ability to allow for organics recycling facilities under a conditional use permit process as outlined in their planning requirements.
4.5.3. Organics Collection and Composting
With the discontinuation of yard waste segregation and composting in 2020 through the Pasco Transfer
Station, yard debris is disposed of at the Finley Buttes Landfill in Morrow County, Oregon, or burned. The
County, the City of Pasco, and the Pasco Transfer Station will need to monitor WSDA pest quarantines
and determine the feasibility of implementing organics collection in the future.
Page 69 of 402
Chapter 4.Organics
December 2025 65
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Curbside recycling programs, organics acceptance at the transfer station for composting, and the availability of a composting facility for processing materials are essential elements to increase waste diversion efforts. High solid anaerobic digesters also offer a compliant form of organics treatment. There is currently no composting facility infrastructure located within the County that could accept organics that could potentially be collected through implementation of curbside collection programs or through acceptance at the transfer station.
Implementation of organics recycling programs could require evaluation of and an investment in a new
composting facility, anaerobic digester facility, or transfer to an out-of-county facility, potential transfer
station expansion of the privately owned and operated facility, collection trucks, recycling carts, and
staffing.
If the City of Pasco determines that organics collection is feasible, a curbside collection program could be
established through the collection contract with Basin Disposal, Inc. (BDI), with collected materials
transported to a permitted composting facility or anaerobic digester, either sited within the County or
located outside the County. The closest composting facility is located at the Horn Rapids Landfill and is
owned and operated by the City of Richland. The City of Pasco could consider opening discussions with
the City of Richland on the feasibility of transporting organics material to the Horn Rapids Landfill for
composting.
If the City of Pasco determines that organics collection is not feasible, due to pest quarantines, and an
organics composting facility is not located within the County, a service and/or frequency waiver would
need to be obtained from Ecology.
4.5.4. Food Waste
The County and participating municipalities could evaluate the potential for supporting food waste collection programs. The County could establish a pilot program in cooperation with the City of Pasco, and if successful, consider expanding the program to serve more customers in the other cities and unincorporated areas. The County should also consider implementation of strategies for education and outreach from the Use Food Well Washington Plan drafted by Ecology, as they pertain to organics and
food waste handling in the County system.
4.5.5. Christmas Tree Collection Program
The County will continue the Christmas tree collection program for collection and composting of trees
following the holiday season. The County could work cooperatively with BDI, the operator of the Pasco Transfer Station, and the cities and towns to develop a pilot program and conduct a survey to assess public participation and interest.
Page 70 of 402
Chapter 4. Organics
66 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
4.6. Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are made for organics:
O1) Develop and distribute educational materials related to organics and food waste management as programs are established and implemented.
O2) Consider options for organics collection and composting and implement as feasible and
financially viable in compliance with rules and regulatory requirements.
O3) Evaluate supporting food waste collection programs through educational efforts on the County
and cities and towns websites as appropriate.
O4) Develop and promote educational materials for at-home composting including adding
information on the County website.
Page 71 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
December 2025 67
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
5. Moderate Risk Waste
5.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses programs for MRW, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and evaluates alternative strategies.
5.2. Background
This section provides summary of County MRW activities, definitions, regulations and guidance, and
County objectives for managing MRW.
5.2.1. Household Hazardous Waste Facility
In 1996, a permanent HHW Facility was built, by BDI, at Pasco Transfer Station on Dietrich Road in Pasco, funded by a charge on City of Pasco residents’ garbage bills.
The HHW Facility is owned and operated by BDI and accepts MRW from residential customers, located in the County, free of charge for up to 10 gallons per household. Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Wastes are not accepted at the facility.
The Health District is responsible for the enforcement and oversight of the facility.
The HHW facility is open as follows:
Summer: April 1 through October 31 Monday-Friday: 7:00 am to 4:30 pm Saturday: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Sunday: Closed
Winter: November 1 through March 31 Monday-Friday: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Saturday: 9:00 am to 4:30 pm Sunday: Closed
Household Hazardous Waste Facility.
Page 72 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
68 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
5.2.2. Used Oil Collection
Prior to 2013, used oil, crushed oil filters, and antifreeze were collected at various locations throughout
the County. The County contracted for the collected used oil to be re-refined and recycled the antifreeze.
In February 2013, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected, through routine testing, in multiple oil
collection drums and the main oil storage container. Of the 29 samples taken, 9 tested positive for PCBs,
with 4 tests being above the 50-parts-per-million EPA allowable amount.
The County immediately closed its seven used oil collection sites. Clean Harbors was contracted to
decontaminate equipment and to dispose of drums and secondary containment located at the seven
collection sites. The sites have remained closed since February 2013.
5.2.3. Definitions
MRW refers to materials that have the characteristics of and pose the same risks as hazardous wastes: they are flammable, corrosive, toxic, and/or reactive. State and federal laws do not regulate these wastes as hazardous wastes due to their relatively small quantities. MRW is regulated by WAC 173-350-360 under the authority of RWC 70A.300 and RCW 70A.205. MRW is defined as solid waste that is limited to conditionally exempt SQG waste
and HHW.
Household Hazardous Waste
The Hazardous Household Substances List developed by
Ecology is shown in Table 10. When generated in a
residence, these products become HHW when discarded.
Small Quantity Generator Waste
Many businesses and institutions produce small quantities
of hazardous wastes; the list is the same as for HHW (see
Table 10). SQGs produce hazardous waste at rates less
than 220 pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds
per month or per batch of extremely hazardous waste)
and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste on site (or 22 pounds of extremely hazardous waste). Extremely hazardous wastes include certain pesticides and other poisons that are more toxic and pose greater risks than other HHW. SQGs are conditionally exempt from state and federal regulations, meaning that they are exempt only as long as they properly manage and dispose of their wastes.
Page 73 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
December 2025 69
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 10. Hazardous Household Substance List.
Substance(s} or Class(es} of Substances Hazards
Group 1: Repair and Remodeling Flammable Toxic Corrosive Reactive
Adhesives, Glues, Cements X X
Cement Etching Solutions X
Roof Flashing Containing Lead X
Roof Coatings, Sealants X
Caulkings, Sealants X
Epoxy Resins X X X
Latex (water} Based Paints with mold inhibitors X
Solvent Based Paints X X
Solvents, Thinners X X X X
Paint Removers, Strippers X X
Group 2: Cleaning Agents Flammable Toxic Corrosive Reactive
Oven Cleaners X X
Rust Removers X
Degreasers, Spot Removers X X X
Toilet, Drain, Septic Cleaners X X
Polishes, Waxes, Strippers X X X
Deck, Patio, Chimney Cleaners X X X
Solvent Cleaning Fluid X X X X
Household Bleach (< 8% solution} X
Group 3: Poisons Flammable Toxic Corrosive Reactive
Insecticides X X
Fungicides X X
Rodenticides X X
Molluscides X
Wood Preservatives X
Moss Retardants X X
Herbicides X
Fertilizers X X X
Group 4: Auto, Boat, and Equipment Maintenance Flammable Toxic Corrosive Reactive
Batteries X X X X
Waxes, Cleaners X X X
Paints, Solvents, Cleaners X X X X
Aerosol Cans X X X X
Adhesives, Glues, Cements X X
Fuel or Oil Additives X X X X
Gasoline X X X X
Flushes X X X X
Auto Body Repair Materials X X
Motor Oil X
Diesel Oil X X
Group 5: Hobby and Recreation Flammable Toxic Corrosive Reactive
Paints, Thinners, Solvents X X X X
Pooll/Sauna Chemicals X X X X
Photo Processing Chemicals X X X X
Metal Cleaning, Refining Chemicals X X X
Glues, Cements X X X
Page 74 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
70 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
5.2.4. Regulations and Guidance
MRW is regulated primarily by state and federal laws that govern proper handling and disposal of these
wastes. A review of the recent regulatory changes affecting solid wastes and MRW is provided in
Chapter 1.0 – Background, and the relevant details for MRW are repeated below.
Moving Washington Beyond Waste a nd Toxics Plan
Ecology released an updated waste and toxics reduction plan in 2021. Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics focuses on reducing waste and toxics by adopting a sustainable materials management approach, which is also used by the EPA. This approach looks at the full life cycle of materials from design and manufacturing, through use, to disposal or recycling. The EPA believes that a sustainable
materials management approach can help identify more sustainable ways to produce products that are
less impactful to the environment. The vision of Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics is as
follows:
We can transition to a society where waste is viewed as inefficient, and where most wastes and toxic substances have been eliminated. This will contribute to economic, social and environmental vitality.
One of the five sections of the Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics plan is titled “Managing Hazardous Waste and Materials.” The background information for this initiative explains that perhaps as little as 1 percent of SQG waste is properly managed on a statewide basis. For HHW, only about 16 percent (statewide) is estimated to be collected through local programs. The Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics plan provides the following goals pertaining to MRW:
● Until toxic substances are phased out of products and use of hazardous materials declines, MRW
collection will be maximized (Goal HWM 11).
● MRW locations and programs will provide increased services for residents, businesses, and underserved communities (Goal HWM 12).
● Facilities that collect MRW will be properly permitted (if required) and in compliance with applicable laws and rules (Goal HWM 13).
Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70A.300 RCW)
The Hazardous Waste Management Act establishes requirements for state and local hazardous waste management plans, rules for hazardous waste generation and handling, criteria for siting hazardous waste management facilities, and local zoning designations that permit hazardous waste management facilities. The Hazardous Waste Management Act also establishes waste management priorities for hazardous wastes. In order of decreasing priority, the management priorities are as follows:
1. Waste reduction 2. Waste recycling 3. Physical, chemical, and biological treatment 4. Incineration 5. Solidification/stabilization/treatment 6. Landfill
Page 75 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
December 2025 71
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The waste hierarchy is a key element in determining compliance of this plan with state requirements.
Rules implementing the Hazardous Waste Management Act are codified in the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). This regulation defines dangerous waste materials and establishes minimum handling requirements. State rules specifically exclude household and SQG wastes from Dangerous Waste Regulations, which have been amended multiple times, most recently in 2014. The 2014 amendments allow mercury-containing equipment to be managed as a universal waste, require recyclers and used oil processors to develop closure plans and meet financial responsibility requirements, and
provide several other changes and updates.
Used Oil
Washington State law (RCW 70A.205) requires local governments to manage used oil in conjunction with
their MRW programs and to submit annual reports to Ecology.
Mercury-Containing Lights Product Stewardship Program
Washington State rules (WAC 173-910) established a product
stewardship program for mercury-containing lights, called
LightRecycle. Producers of mercury-containing lights sold for
residential use must finance and participate in the stewardship
program. Counties can choose to have a collection site at their
facilities, and retailers can also be designated collection sites for
spent mercury-containing lights. Product stewardship program participants that accept mercury-containing light can be found at the following link: https://www.lightrecycle.org/collection-site-locator/
Additional information on Mercury-Containing Lights Product Stewardship can be found in Chapter 3.0 – Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education.
Paint Stewardship
In 2019, SHB 1652 was approved by the state legislature to require producers of architectural paints sold in Washington State to participate in an approved paint stewardship program. PaintCare is the manufacturer’s stewardship organization that operates the statewide recycling program and the Paintcare logo is shown to the right. Sherwin-Williams, located in Pasco, is a participant in the statewide PaintCare recycling program and accepts up to 20 gallons of latex and oil-based paint per visit from both households and businesses. The BDI HHW Facility does not participate in the PaintCare program.
Source: PaintCare Inc.
Source: LightRecycle by Product Care Recycling
Page 76 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
72 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
5.3. Moderate Risk Waste Generation
RCW 70A.300(1)(a) requires local governments to prepare hazardous waste plans that contain an assessment of the quantities, types, generators, and fates of hazardous waste in each jurisdiction. This plan serves to compile that data for the County, and this chapter focuses on the MRW associated with
HHW and SQG aspects and quantities of hazardous waste. The quantities, types, and fates of MRW in the
County are described in Section 5.4. The following subsections focus on the generators of this waste in
the County.
The following information helps provide an inventory of hazardous waste management by addressing
dangerous waste generators (i.e., large-quantity generators), contaminated sites, transporters and
processing facilities, and locations where hazardous waste facilities can be sited (“zone designations”).
Dangerous Waste Generators
Ecology records (latest data as of April 2023) show that 80 businesses and institutions in the County are
registered as hazardous waste generators and reported generation of waste.
Remedial Action Sites
Ecology’s list of confirmed and suspected contaminated sites in the County can be found at the following
link: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/cleanupsearch/reports/cleanup/contaminated
As of September 2025, there were 27 remedial action sites identified in the County.
Hazardous Waste Services (Transporters and Facilities)
Multiple private companies provide transportation and disposal services for a wide range of materials. The current list of these companies can be found at the following link: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Dangerous-waste-guidance/Dispose-recycle-or-treat/Hiring-a-contractor
There are six hazardous waste transporters and facilities identified in the County as of April 2023.
5.3.1. Inventory of Moderate Risk Waste Generators
As stated above, MRW generators include HHW from local residents as well as SQG from local businesses
and institutions. For residential sources in particular, products may be stored for several years before the
resident determines that the material is no longer useful and takes it to an MRW facility. In addition,
although quantities and types of MRW collected and shipped are tracked, it is unknown how many
residents are recycling or disposing of wastes through drop-off programs and private collection services.
Also unknown is the number of SQGs and large-quantity generators utilizing the services of private
collection companies for their hazardous wastes.
Page 77 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
December 2025 73
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
5.4. Existing Conditions
This section describes existing programs to manage MRW in Franklin County.
5.4.1. Current Moderate Risk Waste and Oil Programs
Moderate Risk Waste Collection
MRW in the County is collected primarily through drop-off programs. The following are available drop-off programs active in the County, including:
● Pasco Transfer Station accepts MRW from households at no charge. Residents can bring in HHW any time during facility operating hours.
● Electronics can be recycled at any Goodwill location and at the Pasco Transfer Station.
● Paint can be recycled at Sherwin Williams in Pasco.
● Fluorescent tubes can be recycled in Pasco through Griggs Department Store Ace Hardware.
● The WSDA conducts agricultural chemical waste collection events in Eastern Washington on an as-
needed basis. Participants must sign up in advance to bring in wastes, but there is no cost to
participate.
● SQGs and large-quantity generators use the services of private companies that collect specific types of wastes, but little information is available on the amounts collected in this manner.
Used Oil Collection
Since 2013, there has been limited used oil collection in Franklin County, mainly through auto parts stores. Chapter 3.0 – Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education, Table 7 lists the private sites accepting used oil.
Processing, Transport and Disposal
MRW to be shipped off site for recycling or disposal is sorted at the HHW Facility located at the Pasco Transfer Station according to its Washington State Department of Transportation hazard classification (flammable, toxic, acid, corrosive, or reactive) and consolidated for shipment. The drums of waste are stored in secured storage lockers until quantities are available for transport. MRW is shipped to licensed hazardous waste treatment, storage, and/or disposal facilities. Table 11 provides the quantities of MRW processed, transported, and disposed of in 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Page 78 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
74 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 11. Moderate Risk Waste Quantities Shipped (in pounds).
Waste Type 2022 2023 2024
Antifreeze 130 - 926
Aerosols 380 649 606
Acids - - 307
Bases 250 - 318
Paint – Oil-Based 1,895 - -
Paint-Related Materials 215 256 636
Pesticide/Poison - 597 727
Oxidizers 120 - 278
Batteries – Household 110 - -
Batteries – NiCad/NIMH/Lithium 130 - -
Flammable Liquids 1,315 805 1,166
Total 4,545 2,307 4,964
Household Hazardous Waste Education
The County conducts only limited activities to educate residents about proper handling and disposal of HHW, due to funding constraints. Additional information can be found at the following link: https://www.franklincountywa.gov/470/Household-Hazardous-Waste-Disposal
Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance issues are handled by the Health District, which responds to complaints and other problems as they are identified. The Health District receives LSWFA grant funding for this purpose.
5.5. Status of Previous Recommendations
The status of recommendations made by the 2010 Plan can be found in Appendix D.
5.6. Alternatives and Evaluations
There are generally five components for local MRW management programs: two that address educational efforts and three that help fulfill the mandate to prepare a “program to manage moderate-risk waste” (RCW 70.105.220(1)(a)). These five elements are as follows:
● Public education program
● Technical assistance program for businesses
● Collection program for HHW and used oil
● Collection program for business wastes
● A plan or program to ensure compliance by SQGs and others
Page 79 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
December 2025 75
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The existing service gaps and other issues connected to these components are discussed below.
5.6.1. Public Education
There are currently limited efforts to inform the public about opportunities for proper disposal of used oil
and HHW in Franklin County, due to funding constraints. Public education should be expanded to ensure
that household generated MRW is being properly handled and disposed of.
5.6.2. Business Technical Assistance
The County is not currently providing technical assistance and education to businesses about SQG waste handling and disposal. The level of expertise required to effectively assist the various businesses would require training for specific types of businesses and is better handled at the state level.
5.6.3. Household Collection
Household collection is currently being provided through the Pasco Transfer Station and other
opportunities. As part of this plan update, a Household Hazardous Waste Handling Assessment
(Assessment) was completed to assess HHW facilities and operations located within the County and to
provide options and recommendations for future operations, facilities, collection programs, and
education and outreach opportunities that can be incorporated as recommendations for implementation
as part of this plan.
The Assessment was completed in September 2025 and provided information on the following:
● Regulatory Requirements
● Existing Conditions
● MRW Options
● Conclusions and Recommendations
MRW options presented for County consideration included MRW Collection Events, Municipal MRW Facility Construction, Agreement with Private Firm (BDI) for MRW Collection Services, and Contracting with Benton County for HHW Collection Services.
The Assessment conclusion for County consideration are as follows:
● The County, by regulatory authority, is responsible for the planning, collection, and disposal of
MRW within its jurisdiction. The County has not delegated this authority through County Code,
contractual agreements, or the previous County Solid Waste Management Plan that was completed
in 2010. The 2010 Plan recommended that corresponding with the next plan update in January 2013,
Franklin County and participating cities will conduct a comprehensive review of existing services and
programs. At that time, they will consider the need for additional collection services or facilities to
support both SQG and HHW programs. Services may include conducting additional collection
Page 80 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
76 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
events, enlarging the permanent facility, or contracting services to private enterprise. The County will also evaluate results annually and adjust program efforts as appropriate. This recommendation was not implemented, and annual evaluations of facilities and programs was not conducted. BDI owns and operates the only permanent MRW facility in the County. Since there has not been a contract between the County and BDI since 1997, the parties should immediately open discussions regarding facilities, programs, and education and outreach efforts to gain an understanding of what items would need to be addressed to continue this public/private partnership and contained in a
mutually acceptable contract.
● If BDI and the County cannot agree on contract terms, the County should consider holding HHW collection events to address the appropriate disposal of MRW for both residents and SQGs in the unincorporated areas of the County and potentially the other municipalities located within the County.
● If BDI and the County agree to a contract, the County should consider holding events in the
northern portion of the County to serve residents of Connell, Kahlotus, and Mesa as well as
residents of the unincorporated areas.
The complete Assessment can be found in Appendix E.
5.6.4. Used Oil Collection
The County is not currently providing used oil, oil filter, and antifreeze collection. The County could consider reestablishing the used oil, oil filter, and anti-freeze collection sites and develop best management practices, policies, procedures, and testing protocols to ensure that citizens have the opportunity to dispose of these commodities in an easily accessible, environmentally sound manner. As an alternative, the County could consider promoting private used oil collection sites and coordinate an advertising campaign to ensure proper recycling and disposal.
5.6.5. Paint Stewardship
Sherwin Williams, in Pasco, is currently participating in the statewide PaintCare recycling program and
accepts up to 20 gallons of paint per visit from both residential and commercial customers. In addition,
while not currently participating in the PaintCare program, the Pasco Transfer Station accepts paint from
households for disposal.
5.6.6. Business Collection
The County is not currently providing business collection and is directing businesses and institutions to contact private contractors. One alternative that could be explored for handling business MRW is to charge SQGs to use the Pasco Transfer Station HHW Facility, by appointment, for proper handling and disposal of SQG wastes, as is done in some other Washington counties. This approach could generate revenue but would require dedicated and trained staff to handle the SQG waste stream in addition to potential modifications of existing facilities. The cost of the dedicated and trained staff would be offset by the revenue generated from fees charged to SQGs.
Page 81 of 402
Chapter 5. Moderate Risk Waste
December 2025 77
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
5.6.7. Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance and enforcement is currently being conducted on an as-needed basis, and there are no
known issues with this approach.
5.6.8. Moderate Risk Waste Plan Preparation
RCW 70A.300 requires local governments to prepare hazardous waste plans. The County has incorporated the hazardous waste plan update process into the plan update process to maintain compliance with the rule.
5.7. Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are being made for MRW:
MRW1) Enhance the public education and outreach program for handling household hazardous waste.
MRW2) Consider implementing the recommendations in the Assessment technical memorandum as appropriate.
MRW3) Consider coordination and promotion of the privately operating oil collection sites.
MRW4) Continue to coordinate the schedule and process for updating the hazardous waste plan with
the solid waste management plan (as is the current practice).
MRW5) Consider implementing a fee-based program to accept SQG waste at the Pasco Transfer
Station HHW Facility.
Page 82 of 402
Chapter 6. Solid Waste Collection
78 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
6. Solid Waste Collection
6.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses existing MSW collection services in the County and the participating cities and towns, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and evaluates alternative collection strategies.
6.2. Background
This section provides information regarding legal authority as well as information on incorporated and
unincorporated areas within the County.
6.2.1. Legal Authority
Ecology, WUTC, the County, cities, and towns share the legal authority for solid waste collection.
RCW 70A.205 assigns primary responsibility for solid waste handling (management) to local government. Private industry’s role in waste management is reflected in the following legislative language: “It is the intent of the legislature that local governments are encouraged to use the expertise of private industry and to contract with the same to the fullest extent possible to carry out solid waste recovery and recycling programs” (RCW 70.95A.205).
For information regarding establishment of collection and disposal districts as allowed by RCW 36.58A, refer to Chapter 10.0 – Administration and Enforcement.
Refer to Chapter 9.0 – Miscellaneous Wastes, Section 9.9 - Construction and Demolition Debris for information on the “Sham Recycling Bill” and the Recyclable Materials Transporter and Facility Requirements (WAC 173-345).
6.2.2. Incorporated Areas
Cities and towns have three alternatives for collecting solid waste within their boundaries:
● Municipal collection: Municipal employees collect waste.
● Contract collection: The municipality conducts a competitive procurement process and selects a
private company to provide collection services.
● Permitted solid waste carriers: If a city does not wish to be involved in managing garbage collection within its boundaries, a WUTC certified hauler for the area can provide those services. The city may
pass an ordinance requiring that certain services be provided. A city may also require a permitted
hauler to secure a license from the city. Connell, Kahlotus, and Pasco contract for collection within
their municipality limits. Section 6.3.1 provides additional information on solid waste collection.
Page 83 of 402
Chapter 6. Solid Waste Collection
December 2025 79
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
6.2.3. Unincorporated Areas
Waste collection companies are included as a regulated transportation industry. As such, the WUTC
grants exclusive rights to specific haulers, referred to as “Solid Waste Carriers,” in unincorporated areas.
RCW 81.77.030 allows WUTC to supervise and regulate waste collection companies through the following
activities:
● Fixing and altering its rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations
● Regulating the accounts, service, and safety of operations
● Requiring the filing of annual and other reports and data
● Supervising and regulating such persons or companies in all other matters affecting the relationship
between them and the public which they serve
● Requiring compliance with local solid waste management plans and related implementation
ordinances
● Requiring that certificate holders under RCW 81.77 use rate structures and billing systems consistent
with the solid waste management priorities set forth under RCW 70.95.010 and the minimum levels
of solid waste collection and recycling services pursuant to local comprehensive solid waste
management plans
WAC 480-70 implements RCW 81.77 by establishing standards for public safety; fair practices; just and
reasonable charges; nondiscriminatory application of rates; adequate and dependable service; consumer
protection; and compliance with statutes, rules, and commission orders.
At the time of this writing, there is one company that holds solid waste authority to operate in
unincorporated areas of the County: Basin Disposal, Inc (BDI), G-118.
The County assesses a fee on the collection services of solid waste collection companies operating in the
unincorporated areas of the County. The revenue from the solid waste collection fee is used to fund the
planning, administration, implementation, and enforcement of MSW and MRW programs for the benefit
of the residents. The current fee assessed to the collection companies is 3 percent of the gross annual
revenues.
Page 84 of 402
Chapter 6. Solid Waste Collection
80 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
6.3. Existing Conditions
Residential curbside MSW collection is not mandatory in
the unincorporated areas of the County but is
mandatory within the limits of the cities and towns. In
both incorporated and unincorporated areas, BDI
collects MSW in trucks and delivers it to Pasco transfer
station located at 1721 Dietrich Road, Pasco,
Washington. MSW is long-hauled to Finley Buttes
Landfill, Boardman, Oregon, for final disposal.
More detailed information about the haulers’ service
areas can be found via WUTC’s website:
https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulated-industries/transportation/regulated-transportation-industries/solid-
waste-carriers/solid-waste-service-maps-county
6.3.1. Waste Collection Programs
Table 12 lists the style of residential garbage collection, the approximate number of customers served,
and the rates per household per month in Franklin County.
Table 12. Solid Waste Collection Data.
City, Town,
or Area Population 2022a
Residential
Garbage Cart Size
(gallons)
Collection
Entity
Mandatory
Service
Rate per Household
per Monthb
Connell 4,840 96 BDI Yes $24.61
Kahlotus 145 96 BDI Yes $21.59
Mesa 390 64
96
BDI Yes $25.29
$32.10
Pasco 80,180 96 BDI Yes $24.47
Unincorporated
Area 14,195 64
96
BDI No $25.29
$32.10
a Population information from Table 2.
b Rate per household data provided by BDI current as of June 2025.
The private hauler currently holding the right to operate in the County is BDI. BDI is located at 2021
Commercial Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301 and can be contacted at (509) 547-2476.
Current information on the service area for this company can be found via the link above to the WUTC
web page.
BDI Fleet. Source: Basin Disposal, Inc.
Page 85 of 402
Chapter 6. Solid Waste Collection
December 2025 81
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
There is currently no curbside recycling offered within the County and the participating municipalities. Curbside recycling and regulatory changes are discussed in Chapter 3.0 – Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education.
Bulky Waste Collection Service
Bulky waste collection is available on call, county-wide, through BDI.
Commercial Collection Service
Similar to residential garbage collection, commercial garbage collection is non-mandatory in all jurisdictions and the unincorporated areas of the County. Style and frequency of service as well as rates charged vary by commercial customer.
Disposition of Collected Waste
MSW collected within the County is delivered to BDI’s transfer station located in Pasco at 1721 Dietrich Road, after which it is long hauled to Finley Buttes Landfill for final disposal.
6.4. Status of Previous Recommendations
No recommendations for solid waste collection were made by the 2010 Plan.
6.5. Alternatives and Evaluations
Existing service gaps and other issues connected to the solid waste collections component of solid waste management are discussed below.
6.5.1. Alternatives
Solid Waste Collection
Curbside MSW collection programs appear to be operating satisfactorily in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Franklin County Solid Waste Collection Service Fee
In order to continue funding planning, administration, implementation, and enforcement of MSW and MRW programs for the benefit of residents, the County should review the assessment of the solid waste collection service fee to determine if the current amount is adequate to meet the needs as outlined in Franklin County Code Section 8.36 Solid Waste Collection Service Fee.
Curbside Recycling
There is currently no curbside recycling service offered in the County and the participating municipalities. The relationship of collection and recycling is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 3.0 – Waste
Page 86 of 402
Chapter 6. Solid Waste Collection
82 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Reduction, Recycling, and Education, which includes collection system alternatives to be considered to promote recycling and takes into consideration new regulatory requirements recently adopted.
Collection Contract Compliance with the Plan
In order to ensure that the collection contracts the cities in the County have with BDI comply with the Plan, the cities could implement a contract review process. The County would provide a checklist of items to be reviewed by each city’s contract administrators to verify that the collection contracts are following the requirements in the Plan. The review process could occur at the time of renewals and/or
procurement.
6.6. Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are made for solid waste collection programs:
SWC1) Encourage the use of curbside collection services, when possible, and ensure that collection
services are available to all residents.
SWC2) Review collection contracts to confirm compliance with the Plan.
SWC3) Review the fee on solid waste collection companies, operating in the unincorporated areas,
and make changes to the fee, as necessary, to ensure continued funding for programs.
Page 87 of 402
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
December 2025 83
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
7.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses existing transfer facilities and disposal programs, identifies relevant planning
issues, and develops alternative strategies for transfer and disposal of solid waste.
7.2. Background
This section provides an overview of the County’s waste disposal system, which is regulated by RCW
70.95 Solid Waste Management, WAC 173-350 Solid Waste Handling Standards, and WAC 173-351
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
7.2.1. State Legislation and Regulations
Ecology regulates design and operation of transfer stations and drop boxes under WAC 173-350, Solid
Waste Handling Standards. Counties may site and operate transfer facilities or may contract this service
to a provider. Transfer stations are required to obtain a solid waste permit from the jurisdictional health
district. There is currently one privately owned transfer station located in the County.
In Washington State, landfill design and operations are regulated under WAC 173-351; however, the
County does not currently have an operating landfill. Instead, waste is exported out of state to the Finley
Buttes Landfill located in Morrow County, Oregon. As discussed in Chapter 3.0 Waste Reduction,
Recycling, and Education, Oregon law requires that a city exporting waste in excess of 75,000 TPY or
cities with a population of 4,000 or more people have a certified recycling program that meets the
requirements of the Oregon Administrative Rules as outlined in Chapter 1.0 Background.
Page 88 of 402
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
84 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
7.2.2. Waste Disposal Statistics
As population growth occurs in the towns, cities, and unincorporated areas of the County, the total
tonnage of solid waste also increases. Table 13 summarizes quantities of solid waste received, by county,
at the privately owned Pasco Transfer Station over the last 3 years. Solid waste tonnage for the County
has decreased by 4 percent over a 3-year period 2022 to 2024.
Table 13. Solid Waste Accepted at Pasco Transfer Station (in tons).
County 2022 2023 2024
Franklin 149,090 148,890 142,960
Benton 43,550 41,210 41,590
Walla Walla 17,020 17,410 19,470
Columbia 2,110 2,090 2,110
Total Tons 211,770 209,600 206,130
7.3. Existing Conditions
Figure 5 provides locations of the Pasco Transfer Station and the closed landfill.
Page 89 of 402
Produced by Herrera Environmental Consultants (herrerainc.com) | Sources: USGS, WSDOT, Franklin County, Esri (Imagery, 2025)
Au
t
h
o
r
:
b
B
a
g
n
i
e
w
s
k
i
D
a
t
e
:
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
5
F
i
l
e
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
Y
2
0
2
5
\
2
5
-
0
8
6
4
1
-
0
0
0
\
P
r
o
\
G
I
S
_
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
\
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
\
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
.
a
p
r
x
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
7
.
1
_
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
S
i
t
e
s
u
Pasco Transfer
Station
Pasco Sanitary
Landfill
S n a ke5iver
C o l u mbia 5 i v e r
Pasco
Richland
Walla Walla
Connell
Kahlotus
Mesa
Othello
Washtucna
Franklin
County
Closed/Abandoned
Disposal Facilities
Franklin County Existing
Transfer Stations
0 5 102.5 Miles
Figure .
Franklin County Solid Waste Sites.
Pa
g
e
9
0
o
f
4
0
2
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
86 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
7.3.1. Pasco Transfer Station
The County has one transfer station that accepts waste. The Pasco Transfer Station is operated by Basin
Transfer, LLC, and is located at 1721 Dietrich Road in Pasco, Washington. Waste is collected throughout
the County by BDI and Ed’s Disposal, LLC, the only entity providing collection, and is transported to
Pasco Transfer Station. Residents may self-haul their waste directly to Pasco Transfer Station. Table 14
indicates the tipping fees charged to self-haul customers. Pasco Transfer Station also accepts regional
waste from areas of Benton County, Walla Walla County (primarily from Prescott and Waitsburg), and
Columbia County (primarily from Dayton), where BDI also provides collection service.
Table 14. Transfer Station Tipping Fees (2024).
Material Tipping Fee
MSW $80.00 per ton plus applicable taxes
Yard waste $80.00 per ton plus applicable taxes
White goods / Appliances
White goods / Appliances containing freon
$12.02 per appliance plus applicable taxes
$65.70 per appliance plus applicable taxes
Tires (varies per size of tire) $4.00 per passenger tire (no rim) plus applicable taxes
After trucks complete MSW collection routes, they arrive at the transfer station, provide their route
number, and are weighed. The trucks then unload MSW onto the Pasco Transfer Station tipping floor.
MSW is then loaded into a drop chute for compaction. The compacted waste is transferred into a
covered trailer, which is later hauled to Oregon for disposal.
Pasco Transfer Station, which has a capacity for accepting up to 1,200 tons of waste per day, currently
accepts approximately 810 tons per day. Pasco Transfer Station generally operates 6 days per week, or
about 300 days a year).
The projected County population in 2045 is 141,945 people. Using a calculated waste generation rate of
10.53 pounds per person per day, estimated waste only generation in the County in 2045 will be
approximately 900 tons per day (based on Pasco Transfer Station operating 6 days per week). As shown in Table 13, imported waste from other counties accounts for 31 percent of waste accepted at Pasco Transfer Station. Assuming that imported waste continues to account for 31 percent of the waste, in 2045 the transfer station is projected to accept approximately 1,200 tons of waste per day.
7.3.2. Closed Landfill
The Pasco Sanitary Landfill, which began operating in 1958, was located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Pasco, Washington, near the intersection of Kahlotus Road with United States Highways 12 and 395. Pasco Sanitary Landfill was listed on the federal National Priority List of hazardous waste sites (or
“Superfund List”) in 1990 after groundwater monitoring tests showed that volatile organic compounds
had been released from the facility. Between 1972 and 1974, more than 30,000 drums of bulk chemical
waste were disposed of at the site, which is the suspected source of this groundwater contamination.
Page 91 of 402
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
December 2025 87
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Prior to its closing in 2001, Pasco Sanitary Landfill was divided into waste zones as follows and as shown in Figure 6:
● New Waste Landfill received MSW until closure in 2001. This area is not included in ongoing cleanup
activities.
● Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Area received household and commercial garbage until closure in 1993.
● Balefill/Inert Waste Area received MSW and C&D debris until closure in 1989. Waste was compacted into bales, stacked, and buried.
● Industrial Waste was disposed in five zones, as follows:
o Zone A contains an estimated 35,000 55-gallon drums. The drums hold solvent and paint
sludges, cleaners, and other hazardous waste.
o Zone B contained nearly 5,000 drums of herbicide-manufacturing waste that were excavated and
disposed off site in 2002.
o Zones C and D contain residues from disposing of approximately 3 million gallons of plywood
resin waste, wood treatment and preservative waste, lime sludge, cutting oils, paint and paint
solvent waste, and other bulk liquid waste. These zones were combined in 2002.
o Zone E contains approximately 11,000 tons of sludge from paper manufacturing.
In 2010 and 2011, the original soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was upgraded, and six new SVE wells
were installed to improve contaminant capture beneath the largest drum disposal cell.
In 2013, a new EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-compliant cap was installed over Zone B, the former herbicide waste disposal cell, at the eastern edge of the site.
At the end of 2013, an underground landfill fire was detected in an area where baled waste had been disposed of in the 1980s and early 1990s. In August 2015, an excavation and slurry quench approach was used to extinguish the fire.
In August 2015, a new regenerative thermal oxidation unit was installed to treat the contaminated soil vapors generated by the SVE operations.
In 2019, Ecology completed the Cleanup Action Plan for the site, which identified the proposed and selected cleanup actions for the site. Cleanup construction began in October 2020 with removal of Zone A cover material and excavation of materials for disposal off site. In April 2021, construction of a temporary structure over Zone A and the air-handling system was completed. Contractors have started excavating, segregating, and characterizing drums for offsite disposal.
In 2020, under Ecology oversight, contaminated drum removal began with all drums removed in early June 2022. In total, about 23,500 tons of waste were safely removed and transported to out-of-state
facilities designed for disposal of hazardous waste. Zone A removal work was followed by installation of a
thermal treatment system that was scheduled to operate for approximately 1 year.
Page 92 of 402
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
88 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
In 2024, chemicals being removed for thermal treatment process for contaminated soil were not fully captured by the system and traveled to groundwater. Soil gas samplers were installed to assess contaminant levels in groundwater and samples taken showed groundwater does not pose a risk to air quality in nearby buildings.
In 2025 and beyond, the final cover over Zone A will be constructed after thermal treatment is finished. Cleanup progress will be monitored for the entire site with landfill covers, fencing and signs maintained.
Since the closure of the Pasco Sanitary Landfill, there has not been an operating landfill in Franklin
County.
Additional small, private, solid waste “dumps” were once located in or around the towns and cities of
Mesa, Kahlotus, Basin City, Eltopia, and Road 68 in Pasco. These sites were closed prior to 1994.
Page 93 of 402
Produced by Herrera Environmental Consultants (herrerainc.com) | Sources: WSDOT, HDR
Au
t
h
o
r
:
b
B
a
g
n
i
e
w
s
k
i
D
a
t
e
:
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
5
F
i
l
e
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
Y
2
0
2
5
\
2
5
-
0
8
6
4
1
-
0
0
0
\
P
r
o
\
G
I
S
_
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
\
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
\
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
_
S
o
l
i
d
_
W
a
s
t
e
_
P
l
a
n
.
a
p
r
x
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
7
.
2
_
P
a
s
c
o
_
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
_
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
u
New Waste Landfill,
1993-2001
(not part of cleanup)
Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill Area,
1958-1993
Pasco Sanitary
Landfill
Industrial Waste Zones C & D
Industrial Waste Zone E
Industrial Waste Zone B
Industrial Waste Zone A
Approximate Location
of Former Underground Fire
Balefill/Inert Waste Area, closed in 1989
Burn Trench
Disposal
Areas
Burn Trench
Disposal
Areas
0 500 1,000250Feet
Figure 6.
Pasco Sanitary Landfill Site Layout.
F R A N K L I N
C O U N T Y
Pasco
Sanitary
Landfill
Page 94 of 402
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
90 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
7.3.3. Current Disposal
MSW accepted at the Pasco Transfer Station is exported outside of the County to Finley Buttes Landfill in
Morrow County, Oregon, for disposal. The landfill, which is owned by Waste Connections, is located 10
miles south of the town of Boardman, Oregon (Section 05, Township 2 North, Range 26 East), and can be
accessed by highway, barge, or rail. Waste from the Pasco Transfer Station is long-hauled by transfer
trucks to the landfill, a one-way distance of approximately 55 miles (transfer by truck is generally the
most cost-effective option for distances of less than 100 miles). Finley Buttes Landfill is operated under
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Solid Waste Disposal Permit 394. Finley Buttes Landfill is
currently permitted to have a 90-million-ton MSW capacity. The landfill is estimated to have capacity to
continue to accept MSW for at least the next 20 years.
Residents who self-haul their waste export a small amount of waste from the County. For example, some
residents from the County take waste directly to Horn Rapids Landfill. The amount of waste exported out of County rather than taken to the Pasco Transfer Station is estimated to be small and is therefore not tracked by neighboring counties.
As discussed previously, in order for a city of 4,000 or more people to import waste into Oregon, or for a city to export more than 75,000 tons of waste per year into Oregon, the city must have a certified recycling program according to Oregon law. See Chapter 3.0 - Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education for more information about recycling in the County and compliance with Oregon law.
7.4. Status of Previous Recommendations
No recommendations for Waste Transfer and Disposal were made in the 2010 Plan.
7.5. Alternatives and Evaluations
Existing service gaps and other issues connected to the Waste Transfer and Disposal component of solid
waste management in the County were not identified. Additional detail is provided for transfer and
disposal facilities below.
7.5.1. Transfer Station Facilities
Pasco Transfer Station exceeds operational capacity on peak days and has implemented extended hours of operation to accommodate the additional tonnage. With increasing population growth in Franklin County, the facility will continue to exceed operational capacity on peak days and will need to consider upgrades to address future projected waste streams.In addition, as the facility exceeds operational capacity the ability to segregate various waste streams for recycling will be impacted. Additional information on waste reduction and recycling strategies can be found in Chapter 3.0 – Waste Reduction, Recycling and Education.
Page 95 of 402
Chapter 7. Waste Transfer and Disposal
December 2025 91
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
As noted in Chapter 4.0 – Organics, City of Pasco is in an ORCA and is required to start collection of curbside organics in 2027 or be granted a waiver by Ecology. Separation of organics from the MSW stream is anticipated to reduce the peak tonnage to below the operational capacity.
7.5.2. Landfill Facilities
Waste Connection’s Finley Buttes Landfill has sufficient capacity to handle the County current and
projected waste stream. Due to the costs of siting, permitting, constructing, and operating a landfill
within the County, waste should continue to be exported as the recommended disposal option during
this planning period.
7.6. Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are being made for waste transfer and disposal:
WTD1) BDI, cities and towns and the County should monitor population growth and tonnage and consider transfer facility improvements, expansions or additions, as necessary.
WTD2) Waste should continue to be exported for disposal.
Page 96 of 402
Chapter 8. Energy Recovery
92 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
8. Energy Recovery
8.1. Introduction
This chapter addresses emerging technologies in energy recovery that increase solid waste diversion and decrease disposal.
8.2. Background
Waste processing and conversion technology options can be grouped into the following main
technology classes:
● Thermal Technologies
o Direct Combustion (various forms of traditional waste-to-energy)
o Gasification
o Plasma Arc Gasification
o Pyrolysis
● Biological Technologies
o Aerobic Composting
o Anaerobic Digestion with biogas production for electricity or fuel generation
● Chemical Technologies
o Hydrolysis
o Catalytic and Thermal Depolymerization
● Mechanical Technologies
o Autoclave / Steam Classification
o Advanced Materials Recovery
o Refused Derived Fuel Production
There are also waste conversion technologies that are a combination of two or more technology classes. For example, Mechanical and Biological Treatment Technologies combine mechanical separation and treatment with biological processing, while Waste-to-Fuel Technologies combine mechanical pre-processing with thermal and chemical conversion processes.
Refuse-Derived Fuel Processing Plant
Page 97 of 402
Chapter 8. Energy Recovery
December 2025 93
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
8.3. Existing Conditions
As discussed in Chapter 7.0 – Waste Transfer and Disposal, County MSW is exported to the Waste Connections Finley Buttes Landfill in Morrow County,
Oregon. Energy recovery is not currently used in the
County, and waste exported is not processed by
energy recovery technologies. Finley Buttes Landfill
recovers energy through an installed landfill gas (LFG)
collection and recovery system. This LFG system
allows for the sale of 25 million kilowatts per year to
Pacific Corp and also provides a heat equivalent of
45,000 therms to Cascade Specialties, a local food
processing plant.
Energy recovery from MSW should remain a future
consideration for the County. Changing conditions
such as increasing hauling costs or more stringent regulatory requirements could result in the present waste exportation system becoming less cost-effective. In addition, the introduction of energy recovery technology would provide energy from the County’s waste stream, reduce the volume of waste requiring landfilling, and provide an opportunity to recover recyclable materials during pre-processing.
8.4. Status Of Previous Recommendations
No recommendations were made in the 2010 Plan.
8.5. Alternatives and Evaluations
Existing service gaps and other issues connected to the energy recovery component of solid waste management are discussed below.
8.5.1. Energy Recovery Needs
The County’s waste stream is relatively small for energy recovery and would not economically support
the high capital expenditures required for facility construction of waste processing and conversion
technology alternatives when compared to the existing disposal program. The 2025 MSW tipping fee at the Spokane incinerator is $141.90 per ton. In comparison, the 2025 MSW tipping fee at BDI’s Pasco Transfer Station is $80.00 per ton.
BDI exports waste collected at the Pasco Transfer Station to the Waste Connections-owned Finley Buttes Landfill in Boardman, Oregon. Ample landfill capacity is currently available at Finley Buttes Landfill for the County’s MSW. Detailed information regarding landfill disposal is included in Chapter 7.0 – Waste Transfer and Disposal.
Finley Buttes Landfill Gas Recovery Engines. Source: Waste
Connections
Page 98 of 402
Chapter 8. Energy Recovery
94 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
8.6. Recommended Actions
The following recommendation is made for energy recovery:
ER1) Monitor developments and progress in waste processing and conversion technologies in the event that current conditions change.
Page 99 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 95
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9. Miscellaneous Wastes
9.1. Introduction
This chapter discusses existing programs, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and evaluates alternative strategies for the management of miscellaneous wastes.
9.2. Background
Miscellaneous wastes have some similarities to “normal” MSW and can be managed in a similar fashion
with some additional precautions or special handling procedures. Each type of miscellaneous waste is
governed by slightly different regulations, based on its physical and chemical characteristics and the
degree of environmental, health, or safety risk it poses. This chapter is subdivided into the sections shown
in Table 15 to describe regulations, current programs, and planning issues for each type of miscellaneous
waste.
Table 15. Miscellaneous Wastes.
Section Waste Type
9.3 Agricultural Waste
9.4 Animal Carcasses
9.5 Appliances / White Goods
9.6 Asbestos
9.7 Biomedical/Infectious Waste
9.8 Carpet and Padding
9.9 Construction/Demolition Debris
9.10 Disaster Debris Management
9.11 Electronic Waste
9.12 Junk Vehicles
9.13 Litter and Illegal Dumping
9.14 Mattresses
9.15 Petroleum-Contaminated Soils
9.16 Pharmaceuticals
9.17 Street Sweepings / Vactor Waste
9.18 Tires
Page 100 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
96 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9.3. Agricultural Waste
This section addresses disposal of agricultural waste within the County.
9.3.1. Regulations and Guidelines
WAC 173-350-100 defines agricultural wastes as “wastes from farms resulting from the raising or growing
of plants and animals including, but not limited to, crop residue, manure from herbivores and non-
herbivores, animal bedding, and carcasses of dead animals.” WAC 173-350-230 addresses land
application, the beneficial use of solid waste applied to land for its agronomic value or soil-amending
capability.
9.3.2. Current Practice
As defined above, little of the agricultural waste generated is disposed of within County programs.
Hence, agricultural wastes are not under the purview of this plan. Agricultural wastes, whether crop
residues or animal manures, can be returned to the land where they were generated. An exception is the
disposal of animal carcasses under certain situations, which are addressed below in Section 9.4.
Unusable produce from a food processor, such as a load of rotten produce, is handled as MSW and may
be disposed of at a transfer station.
Note that empty pesticide and herbicide containers may be disposed of as refuse, following triple rinsing.
Full pesticide and herbicide containers may be disposed through the WSDA pesticide collection program.
Additional information can be found at the following website: https://agr.wa.gov/wastepesticide
9.3.3. Planning Issues
Current agricultural waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate and should be
maintained.
Page 101 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 97
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9.4. Animal Carcasses
This section addresses disposal of animal carcasses within the County.
9.4.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Animal carcass disposal requirements generally differ according to cause of death, as follows:
●Animals that die of natural causes (but not an infectious disease) can be buried on site (typically on a farm) in accordance with state and local regulations, taken to a rendering facility, or taken to Pasco Transfer Station for disposal.
●Animals killed by collision with motor vehicles (“roadkill”) may be taken to Pasco Transfer Station for disposal.
●The carcasses of animals that die from an infectious disease must be treated to destroy the disease-
causing agent to prevent it from infecting other animals or humans. This involves coordination with
the Health District.
9.4.2. Current Practice
The County’s policy and procedures for disposal of animals can be summarized as follows:
●Animal carcasses are accepted at the Pasco Transfer Station.
●The Pasco Transfer Station does not accept diseased animals or animals preserved in formaldehyde.
●Customers are charged a fee for animal disposal.
●Customers wishing to dispose of infectious and/or diseased animals are directed to the HealthDistrict for further instructions.
9.4.3. Planning Issues
Because they can potentially infect humans, two of the most important animal diseases are Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and avian flu.
BSE-infected cattle must be buried in a lined landfill. In addition, BSE-infected cattle cannot be disposed
of in a landfill where the leachate goes to a sewage treatment plant, because chlorination does not
deactivate prions. Incineration is also an accepted method of BSE-cow disposal.
Highly Pathogenic Asian Avian Influenza A (H5N1) or “avian flu” is caused by bird influenza viruses. Since
1997, H5N1 has infected and killed humans who had close contact with infected poultry. There is concern
that the H5N1 virus could mutate and eventually acquire the ability to spread easily from one person to
another, without birds as the carriers. Onsite composting has been proven to be an effective mass
disposal method for dead poultry, as the avian influenza virus is deactivated after 10 days of composting
Page 102 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
98 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
at 60° Celsius (140° Fahrenheit). Single birds may also be accepted as MSW if they are double bagged. In larger quantities, the birds are required to be disposed of at a lined landfill or incinerated.
Current animal carcass disposal practices are generally adequate and should be maintained.
9.5. Appliances/White Goods
This section addresses disposal of appliances generated within the County.
9.5.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Major appliances, also known as white goods, are considered to be a miscellaneous waste because their
size makes it difficult to handle them in the “normal” garbage collection system, and because some types of appliances contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, or “Freon”) that must be removed prior to disposal. On the federal level, the Clean Air Act prohibits the release of CFCs, and state law (RCW 70.94, the Washington Clean Air Act) also requires that CFCs be handled in a manner that prevents release into the atmosphere. Furthermore, CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are designated as dangerous wastes under WAC 173-303, although they are exempt from these rules if recycled properly.
9.5.2. Current Practice
Appliances are composed mainly of steel, copper, plastic, and rubber, and are typically
recycled as ferrous scrap metal. As a service to customers, some appliance dealers
recycle the old appliance when a new one is delivered. Appliances are accepted for a
fee at Pasco Transfer Station. The transfer station confirms that CFCs from refrigerators,
freezers, air conditioners, and similar devices are removed. Industrial-sized appliances
must have Freon and oil removed prior to delivery to Pasco Transfer Station.
Various companies are contracted to haul and recycle appliances based on price and availability.
9.5.3. Planning Issues
Current appliance management and disposal practices are generally adequate and should be maintained.
9.6. Asbestos
This section addresses asbestos disposal within the County.
9.6.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Asbestos is a naturally occurring crystalline material that breaks down into small particles that float in air,
and once inhaled, these particles can become lodged in a person’s lungs and cause cancer. Several
federal laws address asbestos removal and disposal, including the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
Page 103 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 99
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. There are also several state laws that address asbestos through worker training and protection requirements as well as disposal rules under the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303).
9.6.2. Current Practice
Customers with asbestos-containing materials are referred to regional landfill facilities for disposal.
9.6.3. Planning Issues
Current asbestos waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate and should be maintained.
9.7. Biomedical/Infectious Waste
This section addresses disposal of biomedical waste generated within the County.
9.7.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Washington State’s definition of biomedical waste includes the following waste types:
● Animal waste: animal carcasses, body parts, and bedding of animals that are known to be infected with, or that have been inoculated with, pathogenic microorganisms infectious to humans. See Section 9.4 Animal Carcasses for additional information.
● Biosafety level 4 disease waste: contaminated with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions from
humans or animals who are isolated to protect others from highly communicable infectious
diseases that are identified as pathogenic organisms assigned to biosafety level 4 by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
● Cultures and stocks: wastes infectious to humans, including specimen cultures, cultures and stocks
of etiologic agents, wastes from production of biologicals and serums, discarded live and
attenuated vaccines, and laboratory waste that has come into contact with cultures and stocks of
etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes, but is not limited to, culture dishes,
blood specimen tubes, and devices used to transfer, inoculate, and mix cultures.
● Human blood and blood products: discarded waste human blood and blood components, and materials containing free-flowing blood and blood products.
● Pathological waste: human source biopsy materials, tissues, and anatomical parts that emanate
from surgery, obstetrical procedures, and autopsy. Does not include teeth, human corpses, remains,
and anatomical parts that are intended for interment or cremation.
● Sharps waste: hypodermic needles, syringes and intravenous tubing with needles attached, scalpel blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile packaging.
Page 104 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
100 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The WUTC regulates transporters of biomedical wastes. Its regulations also allow regular solid waste haulers to refuse to haul wastes that they observe to contain potentially infectious wastes as defined by the WUTC.
9.7.2. Current Practice
There are a number of state-licensed firms that collect and properly dispose of biomedical / infectious
wastes in the County. Due to privacy considerations, these firms do not provide information about where
these wastes are generated.
Sharps, when properly prepared, are currently accepted for disposal by the local waste collection companies operating in the County and at the community recycling centers. A list of sharps disposal options can be found at via the following link: www.safeneedledisposal.org
9.7.3. Planning Issues
The list of potential generators of biomedical waste includes medical and dental practices, hospitals and clinics, veterinary clinics, and farms and ranches, as well as individual residences. Some of these may not always dispose of biomedical wastes properly. There is no definitive estimate of the quantity of syringes and other biomedical wastes that are improperly disposed of locally, but haulers in other areas report seeing syringes sticking out of garbage bags. This problem is expected to increase due to an aging population and additional medications delivered via syringe that have become available for home use, such as for human immunodeficiency virus, arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, weight control, and psoriasis.
9.8. Carpet and Padding
This section addresses carpet and padding disposal within the County.
9.8.1. Regulations and Guidelines
In 2019, the Washington State Legislature passed HB 1543 concerning sustainable recycling and directing Ecology to create a recycling development center to research, incentivize, and develop new markets and expand existing markets for recycled commodities and recycling facilities. One of the materials that can be investigated for potential recycling opportunities is carpet and padding.
9.8.2. Current Practice
Customers with carpet and padding are referred to the transfer station for disposal. There are currently
no carpet recycling facilities operating in the County.
9.8.3. Planning Issues
Current carpet and padding waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate and should be maintained. The County could consider supporting extended producer responsibility (EPR)
Page 105 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 101
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
legislation for recycling of carpet and padding to eliminate this bulky waste stream from disposal in the landfills and to preserve valuable landfill space.
9.9. Construction and Demolition Debris
This section addresses disposal of C&D debris within the County.
9.9.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Construction, demolition, and land-clearing wastes are a solid
waste resulting from the construction, renovation, and demolition
of buildings, roads, and other manmade structures. Construction wastes generally include wood scraps, drywall scraps, and excess concrete, as well as cardboard boxes and other packaging used to hold materials or products prior to installation. Demolition wastes typically contain concrete, brick, wood, drywall, and other materials. Land-clearing debris (tree stumps, brush, and soil) is often included with C&D wastes, but not all of this material is sent to disposal facilities. Another component of C&D wastes is reusable building materials, which are salvaged materials from construction or demolition that would otherwise be landfilled.
C&D wastes are generated by construction companies, homeowners, and others. Large amounts of C&D wastes generated by construction companies and contractors are more likely to be collected separately from normal garbage and brought to special disposal sites. Homeowners are more likely to bring small, mixed loads containing both C&D wastes and garbage to Pasco Transfer Station.
WAC 173-350-400 allows many types of C&D wastes to be disposed in limited purpose landfills. Washington state law prohibits the open or unregulated burning of “treated wood, metal and
construction debris.”
Ecology released a waste and toxics reduction plan in June 2015. The Moving Washington Beyond Waste
and Toxics focuses on reducing C&D waste through design and recycling. Moving Washington Beyond
Waste and Toxics plan provides the following goals pertaining to C&D waste:
● Waste generation will be reduced throughout the system by both businesses and residents (GOAL SWM 4).
● Advance building salvage and building material reuse to reduce construction and demolition waste
by promoting design for deconstruction principles, sharing model contract language that requires
salvage, and other related efforts.
The state legislature passed the “Sham Recycling Bill” in 2005, requiring transporters of recyclable
materials to register with Washington, and requiring certain recycling facilities to notify the state before commencing operation. A state rule, the Recyclable Materials Transporter and Facility Requirements (WAC 173-345), was developed in response to this legislation. Although originally directed at C&D recycling issues, the new rule covers all types of recyclable materials (all materials designated as
Example of construction and demolition debris.
Page 106 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
102 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
recyclable in this plan). The new rule prohibits delivery of recyclable materials to transfer stations and landfills. The rule does not apply to several entities, including self-haulers, cities and city contractors, and charities.
9.9.2. Current Practice
There are no operational C&D debris processing facilities in the County at the time of publication. C&D
debris is currently accepted at Pasco Transfer Station. C&D waste is segregated, where practical, and then
reloaded into trailers and hauled to the Finley Buttes Landfill for disposal, where practical.
9.9.3. Planning Issues
C&D waste volume at Pasco Transfer Station is experiencing growth due to population increases and new construction in Pasco and the surrounding area. Management practices may need to be modified to include construction of a separate area for handling of specific recyclable C&D streams in the future.
9.10. Disaster Debris Management
This section addresses management and disposal of wastes generated during disasters within the County.
9.10.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Natural and man-made disasters can result in a surge
of unanticipated debris that can inhibit or obstruct
emergency services and overwhelm normal Franklin
County Department of Public Works capabilities. Clearing debris immediately after a disaster to allow emergency vehicles to respond to life-threatening situations is critical. Once the debris is cleared from the right-of-way and vehicle access is achieved, the removal and disposal of debris are important for the community’s recovery from a disaster.
Being prepared with a plan to address the increased quantity and potential types of disaster debris can help protect the health and safety of the community. Successful implementation of that plan can positively affect speed and cost of recovery, and the ability to obtain financial assistance for the recovery efforts.
Numerous resources that provide guidance for the development of disaster debris management plans (DDMPs) are available. The EPA updated Planning for Natural Disaster Debris (EPA 2019) as a tool for local communities to create such a plan. Another guidance tool is the Federal Emergency Management
FEMA disaster debris clean-up
Page 107 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 103
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, (FEMA 2020). Both of these documents are available online and provide guidance that could assist the County in developing a DDMP.
9.10.2. Current Practice
The County has an Emergency Management Department that has prepared an Emergency Management
Plan (EMP).
From January 2000 to June 2024, three federally declared disasters affected the County (not including fire
management assistance) according to FEMA’s website:
●Severe winter storms, winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides (2020 to 2024)
●Covid-19 pandemic (2020)
●Wildfires (2021)
The County is historically at risk primarily for storm, high winds, and flood disasters. However, wind-borne
ash from the 1980 volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens affected the County. Table 16 summarizes the types
of disasters most likely to occur in or near the County and the types of debris likely to be generated.
Evaluation of potential disasters and resultant debris can help prepare for disaster response and
recovery.
Table 16. Potential Disasters and Resultant Debris.
Debris
Biodisaster/
Epidemic High Winds Floods Wildfires
Winter
Storms Volcanoes
C&D Material: concrete, asphalt, metal, wallboard, brick, glass, wood X XX X X X X
Personal Property: appliances, e-waste, MRW, furniture, other personal belongings X XX X X
Vehicles and vessels X X X
Vegetative Debris: trees, yard debris,
woody debris XX XX X XX X
Animal carcasses, bedding, manure, contaminated items XX X X X
Displaced Sediments: sand, soil, rock,
sediment XX X X
Mixed other debris X X X X X
Note: X = small quantity; XX = significant quantity
Planning for debris management enables the County to consider and evaluate alternative debris
management options before a natural disaster occurs. Adequate preparation assists with making disaster
Page 108 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
104 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
debris management more cost-effective and meeting community concerns, which typically include the
following:
● Public health and safety
● Prioritization of response activities to target resources in an appropriate manner
● Preservation of property and the environment
● Minimal impact or disruption of normal solid waste services
● Cost
● Compliance with regulations governing specific waste streams such as asbestos and hazardous waste
● Availability of facilities permitted to accept specific waste streams
● Ability to recycle portions of the waste stream
● Eligibility for cost-recovery funds through FEMA or other government programs
9.10.3. Planning Issues
In an emergency, timely response, saving lives, and minimizing property damage are the primary goals. Following the initial response, disaster debris handling becomes important. A DDMP can be used to coordinate between emergency responders and County agencies that provide various services.
Adherence to the DDMP during and after an emergency is likely to allow for a speedier response and
recovery and to assist in reducing the financial impact. The DDMP serves as a supplement to the EMP by
elaborating on debris clearance and demolition activities. Following are issues the DDMP could address:
● Forecast of type and quantity of debris
● Types of equipment required to manage debris
● Description of critical local accessibility routes
● Plan for public debris collection and removal, and debris removal from private property
● Plan for informing the public regarding debris handling
● Health and safety requirements for emergency workers
● List of environmental considerations and regulatory requirements
● Temporary debris management sites and disposal locations, including any necessary permits or
variances
● Potential resources, such as contractors or County staff, and their responsibilities
● Plan for monitoring debris removal and disposal operations
Page 109 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 105
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9.11. Electronic Waste
This section addresses disposal of electronic and electronic equipment waste, commonly referred to as “e-waste,” generated within the County.
9.11.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Electronic products contain heavy metals and other chemicals at hazardous
levels that make them difficult to dispose of safely. The Electronic Product
Recycling law (RCW 70.95N) requires manufacturers of computers,
monitors, laptops, and portable computers to provide recycling services throughout the state at no cost to households, small businesses, small local governments, charities, and school districts. This law led to the E-Cycle Washington program developed by Ecology.
9.11.2. Current Practice
The E-Cycle Washington program allows for the collection and recycling of televisions, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, e-readers, portable video disc players, and computer monitors. However, peripherals such as keyboards, mice, and printers are not covered by the program.
More than 330 collection sites (statewide) have been established since January 2009. Since inception,
E-Cycle Washington has collected more than 460 million pounds of discarded electronics.
Names and locations of collection sites can be obtained by calling 1-800-RECYCLE or at the following
link: www.ecyclewashington.org.
9.11.3. Planning Issues
Based on the E-Cycle Washington statistics, the statewide program is working well.
9.12. Junk Vehicles
This section addresses disposal of junk vehicles within the County.
9.12.1. Regulations and Guidelines
RCW 70A.200.060 prohibits the abandonment of junk vehicles upon any property located in an
unincorporated area. Abandoned vehicles are also regulated under RCW 46.55, which establishes rules
for removal and disposal of junk vehicles. If a junk vehicle is abandoned in violation of RCW 70A.200.060,
RCW 46.55.230 governs the vehicle’s removal, disposal, and sale, as well as the penalties that may be
imposed against the registered owner of the vehicle.
Source: Washington Department of Ecology
Page 110 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
106 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9.12.2. Current Practice
The County does not accept any licensed vehicles for disposal at Pasco Transfer Station due to
Washington State rules and regulations. Junk vehicles may be taken to an auto recycling center for
disposal. There are currently three auto recyclers located in the County.
9.12.3. Planning Issues
Current junk vehicle waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate and should be maintained.
9.13. Litter and Illegal Dumping
This section addresses litter and illegal dumping within the County.
9.13.1. Regulations and Guidelines
The Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Model Litter Control Act (RCW 70.93) is the primary law that guides
and directs litter programs in Washington State. Originally passed by the Washington State Legislature in
1971 as the Model Litter Control Act, the law was the first of its kind anywhere. Voters ratified the law in
the 1972 general election as an alternative to beverage container deposits. Amendments in 1979 added a
youth employment program and public awareness activities concerning recycling.
Concern over the litter problem increased in 1997, after which Ecology convened a Litter Task Force to
examine the effectiveness of litter control in Washington State. The Litter Task Force made several
recommendations for improving the existing system and moving toward a standard of zero litter. These
recommendations formed the basis of the 1998 Litter Act (Second SHB 3058), amending RCW 70.93 (now RCW 70.A.200). The 1998 Litter Act included several changes. Most significantly, it put Ecology in a leadership role, overseeing funds from the Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Litter Control Account.
9.13.2. Current Practice
Current practices for litter and illegal dumping vary in the County and are described below.
Litter
The County relies on the Ecology Litter Program for litter pickup. The program is funded with grant money from a dedicated account, the Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Model Litter Control Account (RCW 70A.200.140). Money is raised from a tax on industries whose products tend to contribute to the litter problem. In the budget that began July 1, 2013, funds were transferred from this dedicated account
to Washington State Parks to meet other priorities. Beginning in 2018, half of the funds were redirected
away from the litter grants; however, funding was fully restored in 2019.
Page 111 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 107
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Additional information on this program can be found via the following link: https://ecology.wa.gov/getattachment/4e50ea6f-c734-4bd7-8226-54518dfe6561/2023-Eastern-Region-Litter-Pickup-Report.pdf
Illegal Dumping
The Health District receives and investigates illegal dumping and nuisances throughout the County. Additional information regarding the Health District investigation and enforcement program can be found in Chapter 10– Administration, Financing, and Enforcement.
9.13.3. Planning Issues
Currently, funding for litter cleanup in the County comes from funding and programming through
Ecology. If funding is reduced, the Litter Control Program will have to look to other funding sources or
discontinue the program. In addition, funding for the Health District enforcement program comes from
grant funding from Ecology.
9.14. Mattresses
This section addresses mattress disposal within the County.
9.14.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Mattresses represent a small part of the waste stream but can be problematic due to their bulk and size.
9.14.2. Current Practice
Residents and businesses with mattresses are referred to Pasco Transfer Station for disposal.
9.14.3. Planning Issues
Current mattress management and disposal practices are generally adequate and should be maintained. Additional opportunities for recycling of mattresses should be considered if they become available, including EPR legislation to eliminate this bulky material from disposal in the landfills and to preserve valuable landfill space.
9.15. Petroleum-Contaminated Soils
This section addresses disposal of petroleum-contaminated soils (PCS) within the County.
Page 112 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
108 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9.15.1. Regulations and Guidelines
PCS can contain fuel oil, gasoline, diesel, or other volatile hydrocarbons in concentrations below
dangerous waste levels, but greater than cleanup levels established by Ecology. Depending on the
contamination levels, PCS may be disposed of as a solid waste in an approved landfill. If contamination
levels are too high, PCS may need to be treated by a process that removes, destroys, or at least lowers
the contamination level prior to disposal. Treatment processes include aeration, bioremediation, thermal
stripping, and incineration.
9.15.2. Current Practice
The County refers PCS to regional landfill facilities for disposal.
9.15.3. Planning Issues
Current management and disposal practices are generally adequate to handle the volume of PCS
generated within the County.
9.16. Pharmaceuticals
This section addresses disposal of pharmaceuticals within the County.
9.16.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Generally, two types of pharmaceuticals are of interest to the County waste management: (1) controlled substances (prescription drugs and illegal drugs) and (2) over-the-counter, nonprescription substances (e.g., aspirin, vitamins, other health supplements, cold medicines). Controlled substances are covered by their own regulations, which do not address disposal other than to prevent their reuse. Over-the-counter substances are not specifically addressed by solid waste regulations.
9.16.2. Current Practice
RCW 69.48, The Drug Take-Back Program,
created a unified, statewide medications
return program for the collection of covered
drugs in 2020. Administered by the
Washington State Department of Health and
funded by pharmaceutical producers,
Washington State’s Drug Take-Back Program
became the first statewide EPR program for
residential medications in the nation. A list of drop-off locations is available online at the following link:
https://medtakebackwashington.org/
Source: Washington State Department of Health
Page 113 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 109
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The County encourages people to give pharmaceutical waste to community drug take-back programs to provide proper disposal rather than mixing it with trash.
9.16.3. Planning Issues
Currently, the EPA lists pharmaceuticals and personal care products as “contaminants of emerging
concern”. For household pharmaceuticals, the EPA’s interim recommendation is to not flush medications
to the sewer or septic tank. Rather, the EPA recommends that residents double-bag medications and
place them directly into exterior garbage cans to avoid children or pets accessing them.
Current pharmaceutical waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate.
9.17. Street Sweepings and Vactor Waste
This section addresses disposal of wastes generated from maintaining paved areas within the County.
9.17.1. Regulations and Guidelines
Street sweepings and vactor wastes may be contaminated with a variety of materials, depending on the locale, unauthorized or accidental discharges, and frequency of cleaning. Both street sweepings and vactor waste may contain small amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons from motor oil that leaks from vehicles traveling on paved streets. Currently, vactor wastes can be classified as clean fill, solid waste, or
dangerous wastes, depending upon the level of contamination.
9.17.2. Current Practice
Street sweepings and vactor waste are currently accepted at Pasco Transfer Station.
9.17.3. Planning Issues
Current waste management and disposal practices for street sweepings and vactor waste are generally adequate.
9.18. Tires
This section addresses tire disposal within the County.
9.18.1. Regulations and Guidelines
WAC 173-350-100 defines waste tires as any tires that are no longer suitable for their original intended
purpose because of wear, damage, or defect. WAC 173-350-350 imposes restrictions on outdoor piles of
more than 800 tires.
Page 114 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
110 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
9.18.2. Current Practice
Many tire shops and auto repair shops recycle the tires they replace (typically for a fee). Waste tires are
also accepted at Pasco Transfer Station for a fee.
9.18.3. Planning Issues
Recycling and disposal practices for tires are generally adequate. The areas of primary concern are large tire stockpiles, loads of tires that are illegally dumped on public or private property, and small quantities of tires stored by residents and businesses for disposal at some indeterminate future date. There are emerging concerns over leachate associated with tires. A chemical called 6PPD is used in tires to prolong their lifecycle, but when exposed to air, it can have harmful impacts to coho salmon populations and contaminate water systems.
9.19. Status of Previous Recommendations
No recommendations were made regarding Miscellaneous Wastes in the 2010 Plan.
9.20. Alternatives and Evaluations
Existing service gaps and other issues connected to the Miscellaneous Waste component of solid waste
management are discussed below.
9.20.1. General Alternatives
Collection programs may be required or desired in the future for materials that cannot be fully anticipated at this time. As these needs arise or are identified, options should be evaluated, and feasible cost-effective solutions should be implemented, as necessary. Possible steps that could be taken include the following:
● Increased education: Additional education for generators who are the sources of the waste stream
could be conducted to promote safe handling and disposal practices.
● Collection programs: Additional or new collection programs could be developed or existing ones expanded to include additional materials or sources.
● Product stewardship: New product stewardship programs could be considered or supported to
address specific waste materials.
9.20.2. Construction and Demolition Debris Alternatives
There are currently few opportunities in the County for C&D debris recycling, although specific types of C&D materials (such as clean wood, cardboard, metals, and reusable building materials) can be diverted
Page 115 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
December 2025 111
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
to various recovery operations. In general, reuse and recycling options for C&D wastes could include the following:
● Salvage for onsite and offsite reuse: This option generally applies to demolition projects, although
small amounts of reusable materials and products are also generated at construction sites. To be
effective, salvaging requires pre-demolition removal of reusable materials and hence requires
additional time and steps in a project’s schedule. Offsite reuse could be accomplished through a variety of means, including reuse stores and private efforts.
● Onsite crushing and grinding for reuse and recycling: This generally applies to concrete and asphalt,
which could be crushed to serve as road base or replace other basic materials, although in some
cases wood and other materials could also be handled on site.
● Source-separation for offsite processing: Source separation at C&D sites could allow recycling of wood, cardboard, and other materials.
● Mixed C&D processing off site: This option would require a significant investment in one or more
facilities that are properly equipped and operated to process and market C&D waste.
● Central site for recycling and reuse: An ideal option could be a facility, or a series of local facilities, which combine reuse and recycling as appropriate for the material. These facilities could sell salvaged products (such as doors, windows, and cabinets), as well as crush or grind other materials (such as concrete and wood) for use as aggregate or hog fuel.
● Collection depots at transfer and disposal facilities: Collection containers for reusable and recyclable C&D materials at Pasco Transfer Station could allow these materials to be transferred to a central processing or salvage facility. Transportation costs can be a barrier, however, since the recovered materials typically have only a low monetary value.
The County could partner with the Tri-County Partners Habitat for Humanity ReStore to salvage and divert recyclable materials received at Pasco Transfer Station. Materials that could be recycled and resold through the Habitat for Humanity ReStore could be set aside for pickup, or customers could be redirected to the Habitat for Humanity ReStore.
Contractors and homeowners could benefit from more information about the potentially hazardous materials that can be uncovered during demolition activities. Information could include proper handling and disposal, as well as potential health impacts. Disposers of C&D waste can most easily identify potential hazards if they separate their demolished waste. Others can learn about the hazards to which they are exposing themselves with County-provided brochures. Contractors and homeowners could be given a brochure when they apply for a permit.
9.20.3. Disaster Debris Management Alternatives
Franklin County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division, could coordinate with the Franklin
County Emergency Management Department to determine details regarding debris removal and disposal
activities that could provide better guidance for disaster debris management activities and preparedness.
A portion of the details should describe critical lines of communication related to debris removal and
Page 116 of 402
Chapter 9. Miscellaneous Wastes
112 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
disposal. This would facilitate a quicker response and reduce the number of decisions needed during a disaster while the extent of damage and possible options for addressing the damage were being assessed. Any revisions to the EMP would best be done on the normal schedule for updating this document.
The County can develop a separate DDMP. In this case, both the EMP and a DDMP together would be used for guidance in the event of a disaster. The DDMP could either be a separate plan or be added as an appendix to the EMP. The DDMP could provide the detail for critical lines of communication specific
to debris management activities, identify disasters that would most likely impact the solid waste system
and the type of debris that would be generated from each one, address the need for temporary staging
areas including potential locations, contain forms and brochures that could be easily modified for use in
such an event, and identify reuse and recycle activities that would minimize disposal in landfills. The level
of detail could range from simple plans, consisting largely of checklists and an outline of procedures, to
more complex plans that would be reviewed and approved by FEMA.
9.20.4. Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
For the most part, management practices for miscellaneous wastes in the County are adequate. Emerging regulations and guidance regarding pharmaceutical waste may require future action.
9.21. Recommended Actions
The following recommendations are being made for miscellaneous wastes:
SW1) Continue to manage and recycle or dispose of miscellaneous wastes through a cooperative effort with the Health District, Waste Hauler, Pasco Transfer Station, the County, and Ecology.
SW2) Monitor recycling opportunities for miscellaneous wastes such as mattresses, carpet, and others, and implement programs as they become available and fiscally responsible.
SW3) Promote proper reuse, recycling, and disposal of C&D debris.
SW4) Partner with private organizations such as the Tri-County Partners Habitat for Humanity
ReStore to promote recycling and reuse of C&D wastes and building materials.
SW5) Develop an internal plan for handling disaster debris, in coordination with the Franklin County
Emergency Management Department, Basin Disposal, Health District, and the County.
Page 117 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
December 2025 113
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
10. Administration, Financing, and
Enforcement
10.1. Introduction
This chapter addresses the administrative and enforcement activities related to solid waste and MRW.
10.2. Background
The County, the cities, towns, and several other organizations and agencies are responsible for providing
enforcement of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that guide the planning, operation, and
maintenance of the region’s solid waste management system. This local enforcement authority checks
that the County solid waste management system meets applicable standards for the protection of human
health and environmental quality in the region.
10.3. Existing Conditions
Administrative responsibility for solid waste handling in the County is currently divided among several
agencies and jurisdictions in local, county, and state government. Organizations involved in the County
solid waste management system are described below.
10.3.1. Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division
The Washington State Solid Waste Management Act, RCW 70A.205, assigns local government the
primary responsibility for managing solid waste. Solid waste handling, as defined in RCW 70A.205,
includes the “management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and final
disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, the recovery
of energy resources from solid wastes or the conversion of the energy in solid wastes to more useful
forms or combinations thereof.”
RCW 36.58 authorizes the County to develop, own, and operate solid waste handling facilities in
unincorporated areas, or to accomplish these activities by contracting with private firms. The County also
has the authority and responsibility to prepare comprehensive solid waste and MRW waste management
plans for unincorporated areas and for jurisdictions that agree to participate with the County in the
planning process.
Page 118 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
114 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
The County interlocal agreements with incorporated cities and towns are included as Appendix B. These
agreements address the plan participation.
The County exercises its solid waste responsibilities through the Department of Public Works Solid Waste
Division. The specific administrative functions performed include the following activities:
● Administering and staffing public education programs for waste reduction and recycling.
● Administering contracts.
● Maintaining the Plan as adopted relating to public health, safety, and sanitation, and providing
regulations to govern the storage, collection, transfer, transportation, processing, use, and final
disposal of solid waste.
● Providing staff support for the SWAC.
Figure 7 illustrates the County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division organizational structure.
The County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division is currently staffed by one part-time
employee who handles coordination, education, and outreach activities.
Figure 7. Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division Organizational Structure.
The Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division is funded by the fees collected from an assessment
on curbside garbage collection in the unincorporated areas of the County. The County also receives
grant monies from Ecology for solid waste management planning activities, litter cleanup, and pilot
projects. Table 17 provides the current budget (2024) for the Department of Public Works Solid Waste
Division.
Page 119 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
December 2025 115
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 17. Franklin County Solid Waste 2024 Budget.
Type 2024 Budget
Revenues
LSWFA Grant $176,647
LSWFA Grant Overhead $32,972
Cities LSWFA Grant Match $22,450
Solid Waste Sales and Services $70,000
Other Revenue $100
Beginning Fund Balance $5,000
Total Revenues $307,169
Expenses
General Solid Waste Utility $232,169
Capital Expense $70,000
Total Expenses $302,169
Total Balance (Deficiency) $5,000
10.3.2. Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Per RCW 70A.205, the Board of County Commissioners has appointed the SWAC to help develop solid
waste handling programs and policies. The SWAC has adopted bylaws that can be amended by the SWAC at any time, subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The term of each SWAC member is three (3) years, and members can be reappointed by the Board of County Commissioners to serve up to three (3) consecutive terms. The current SWAC consists of a minimum of 15 members, each with one vote, and membership is outlined in the bylaws to include citizens, public interest groups, businesses, the waste management industry, agriculture, and local elected officials.
10.3.3. Incorporated Cities
RCW 35.21.152 empowers cities to develop, own, and operate solid waste handling systems and to
provide for solid waste collection services within their jurisdictions. There are four incorporated cities and
towns in the County.
Three of the four municipalities contract for collection programs, and one private hauler currently
operates in the unincorporated areas of the County and in the City of Mesa. Fees charged for the service
cover the expenses of the system. Information about collection in individual cities is included in
Chapter 6 – Solid Waste Collection.
10.3.4. Benton Franklin Health District
The Health District works with the public, cities, counties, and state agencies to develop and implement plans for the safe storage, collection, transportation, and final disposal of solid waste. The Health District
Page 120 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
116 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
works to ensure compliance with RCW 70A.205 and Chapter 173-304 WAC - Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Facilities. The Health District is responsible for the following activities:
● Permitting solid waste facilities operating in the County
● Ensuring that permits are consistent with the Plan, local ordinances, and appropriate Washington State and Federal regulations
● Oversight of existing permitted facilities
● Responding to complaints regarding improper storage and disposal of solid waste
● Investigating illegal dumping and non-permitted dump sites
Solid waste facility permits are required in accordance with WAC 173-303, 173-350, and 173-351. Facilities are required to obtain solid waste handling permits from the Health District.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. In order to determine if an EIS is necessary, an environmental checklist must be completed. For this planning document, a SEPA checklist has been completed and is included as Appendix F.
Applicants for new solid waste permits within the County will notify the Health District. The applicant will submit a permit application and a SEPA checklist to the Health District, which forwards such applications to the County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division.
The County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division will then request a meeting of the SWAC for the purpose of reviewing the permit application for conformance to the Plan. SWAC will review the
documents and will return its findings to the Health District, which will consider and include those
findings in its final decision.
The Health District will forward such findings and comments, along with the SEPA checklist and permit
application, to the Benton Franklin County Board of Health. Final approval or disapproval of the
application shall rest with the Health District, which shall issue its approval/disapproval of the application
within 90 days after its receipt, pursuant to RCW 70A.205.
10.3.5. Washington State Department of Ecology
RCW 70A.205 provides for a comprehensive, statewide solid waste management program and assigns primary responsibility for solid waste handling to local governments. This regulation gives each county, in cooperation with its cities, the task of setting up a coordinated solid waste management plan that places an emphasis on waste reduction and recycling programs. Enforcement and regulatory responsibilities are assigned to cities, counties, or jurisdictional health departments (like the Health District), depending on the specific activity and local preferences, but Ecology issues permits for land application of biosolids.
Page 121 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
December 2025 117
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Ecology has promulgated WAC 173-350, Solid Waste Handling Standards, which addresses the operational and other requirements for recycling and composting facilities as well as inert and special purpose landfills. WAC 173-351, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, contains the current standards for MSW landfills.
The Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (RCW 70A.205) prohibits depositing garbage on any property not properly designated as a disposal site. There is also a “litter fund” that has been created through a tax levied on wholesale and retail businesses, and the monies from this fund are used for education,
increased litter cleanup efforts, and contracts to eligible county entities for illegal dump cleanup activities.
Under the Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70A.300), grants are available to local governments for solid
waste management plans and programs, hazardous waste management plans and programs, and
remedial actions to clean up existing hazardous waste sites. Prior to 2018, solid and hazardous waste
planning and programs were funded through the CPG program administered by Ecology’s Solid Waste
and Financial Assurance Program. The grant name has been updated to LSWFA. The state rule that
governs this program is WAC 173-312 – Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance.
10.3.6. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
The WUTC regulates privately owned utilities that provide public services such as electric power, telephone, natural gas, private water, transportation, and refuse collection. WUTC’s authority over solid waste collection is established in RCW 81.77. This authority does not extend to companies operating under contract with any city or town, or to any city or town that undertakes solid waste collection. WUTC regulates solid waste collection companies by granting “certificates of convenience and necessity” (G-certificates) that permit collection companies to operate in specified service areas. WUTC also regulates solid waste collection, under the authority of RCW 81.77.030, by performing the following functions:
● Fixing collection rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations
● Regulating accounts, service, and safety of operations
● Requiring annual reports and other reports and data
● Supervising collection companies in matters affecting their relationships with their customers
● Requiring collection companies to use rate structures consistent with Washington State waste management priorities
The WUTC requires G-certificate holders to provide the minimum levels of solid waste collection and recycling services established by a local solid waste management plan and enacted through an ordinance. Solid waste companies operating in the unincorporated areas of a county must comply with the local solid waste management plan (RCW 81.77.040).
At its option, the County may notify the WUTC of its intention to have the G-certificate holder bid on the collection of source-separated recyclable materials from residences in unincorporated areas. Commercial recycling is also regulated by the WUTC under laws that apply in general to motor freight carriers (RCW
Page 122 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
118 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
81.80), although their oversight is limited to requiring a permit (at $100 per year) and also to requiring companies to carry insurance, conduct drug testing of employees, and conduct a few other activities.
This plan contains a cost assessment (see Appendix G) prepared according to the WUTC Cost Assessment Guidelines for Local Solid Waste Management Planning (WUTC 2019). RCW 70A.205 grants the WUTC 45 days to review the plan’s impact on solid waste collection rates charged by solid waste collection companies regulated under RCW 81.77, and to advise the County and Ecology of the probable effects of the Plan’s recommendations on those rates.
10.3.7. United States Environmental Protection Agency
At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended by the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 6901-6987), is the primary body of legislation
addressing solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non-hazardous solid waste disposal and requires
the development of a state comprehensive solid waste management program that outlines the authorities of local, state, and regional agencies. Subtitle D requires the state program to prohibit “open dumps” and to verify that solid waste is handled in an environmentally sound manner.
10.4. Status of Previous Recommendations
The status of the recommendations made by the 2010 Plan is shown in Appendix D.
10.5. Alternatives
Existing service gaps and other issues connected to Administration and Enforcement components of solid waste management are discussed below.
10.5.1. Long-Term Funding Needs
Financial resources are necessary to provide for the continuation of recycling and hazardous waste
diversion and education programs and for compliance with new and more stringent rules and regulations
governing solid waste management. These resources may be provided by taxes, solid waste tipping fees,
grants, or any combination of these sources. Solid waste funding for recycling, MRW, and educational programs in the County are currently reliant on LSWFA funding and the fee assessed on the unincorporated curbside collection of garbage (See Chapter 6.0 – Solid Waste Collection, Section 6.2.3 Unincorporated Areas for additional information). The Washington State budget for LSWFA grant funding has been fluctuating and does not provide stable long-term funding for projects and programs. Potential additional funding options (grouped by category) and the associated implementation entity are presented in Table 18.
Page 123 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
December 2025 119
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 18. Potential Funding Methods for Solid Waste Management.
Possible Funding Methods
Potential Implementation Entity
City County State Private Sector
User Fees, Rates, Surcharges
1. Cost-of-Service-Based Rates X X X
2. Other Volume-Based Rates X
3. Fixed Per-Customer Service Rates X X
4. Collection Rate Surcharges X (x)
5. Planning Fees X
6. Weight or Volume-Based Disposal Fees X X X
7. Fixed Per-Customer Disposal Fees X X X
8. Disposal Surcharges X X
Taxes
9. MTCA Funds, Hazardous Substance Tax (x) X
10. State Litter Tax (x) X
11. Disposal District Excise Tax X
12. Mandatory Collection X
13. Franchise Fees X X
Other
14. Enforcement Fines/Penalties X X
15. Sales of Recyclable Materials X X X
16. Recycling Fees/Charges X X X
17. Sales of Recovered Energy X X
18. Utility Tax X
19. General Fund Revenues X X
20. Bond Financing X (x)
21. Public Works Assistance Accounta X X
Note: X = Implementing authority, (x) = potentially benefits from funding method but cannot implement it.
a Public Works Assistance Account, commonly known as the Publics Works Trust Fund, was established by RCW 43.155 to be used by the
Public Works Board to finance local government infrastructure loans.
10.5.2. Staffing
Adequate funding should be provided to increase staff at county and city levels as needed for departments having primary responsibility for solid waste management and for the Health District to monitor, permit, and enforce solid waste facilities and programs.
Page 124 of 402
Chapter 10. Administration, Financing, and Enforcement
120 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
10.5.3. Permit Review
The SWAC should be included in the review of all new solid waste facility permit requests within Franklin
County, although final approval shall continue to reside with the jurisdictional Health District. Such permit
requests, after review by the SWAC, will be forwarded to the Health District with comments. This review
will ensure adherence to the Plan, RCW 70A.205.
10.6. Recommended Actions
The following options were selected by the SWAC for recommended implementation:
AE1) Consider pursuing some of the additional funding strategies listed in Table 18 that can be
implemented by the County directly and independently from other alternatives.
AE2) Negotiate agreements with each of the cities and towns for contributions towards maintaining solid waste recycling and educational programs.
AE3) Provide adequate funding to maintain or increase staff at county and city levels, as needed.
AE4) Include the SWAC in the review of new solid waste facility permit requests.
Page 125 of 402
Chapter 11. Implementation Plan
December 2025 121
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
11. Implementation Plan
This chapter of the Plan provides information about the cost and schedule for implementing the recommendations made in this plan. Information is also provided on monitoring progress and maintaining the Plan.
11.1. Recommended Strategies, Implementation
Schedule, and Budget
The recommendations made in previous chapters of this plan are repeated below for convenient
reference. Table 19 provides the approximate budget for plan recommendations that incur additional
costs above and beyond current status quo costs and programs, proposed implementation schedule, and
primary responsibility. More details about specific recommendations can be found in the respective
chapters.
Issues may arise during implementation of this plan that could directly impact local solid and hazardous
waste management programs. These may include the introduction of new state, federal, and
international government regulations and policies, advancements in technology, and changes in product use and design. Consequently, the recommendations in this plan may need to be adjusted or new action items be added to the implementation strategy to effectively address them before the Plan is updated again in 2031. When these issues arise, the Plan may need to be amended or revised using the process defined in 11.5 and will be referenced in the next plan update in 2031.
Page 126 of 402
Chapter 11. Implementation Plan
122 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 19. Recommendations, Implementation Schedule, Responsibility, and Budget.
Recommendation Implementation
Responsibility
Projected
Implementation Costs
Implementation
Schedule
3.0 Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Education
WWR1) Adopt the updated list of designated materials (Table 9)
and maintain it through periodic review and updates.
County $0 2026–2031
WWR2) Monitor regulatory implementation of Senate Bill 5284
and assist in implementation as appropriate for County residents.
County $0 2026-2031
WWR3) Update and expand the education and promotion
program.
County, Cities/
Towns, and Waste
Hauler
$10,000 Ongoing
WWR4) Support private sector programs, forums, or other
methods, such as existing reuse and reusable materials exchange
programs, to facilitate material exchanges.
County and
Cities/Towns
$0 Ongoing
WWR5) Increase promotion of existing recycling and reuse
programs through newsletters, community reuse events,
guidebooks, and community-based social marketing.
County, Cities/
Towns, and Waste
Hauler
$10,000 Ongoing
WWR6) Work cooperatively with County, city and hauler staff to
create and implement recycling contamination reduction
campaigns for drop-box recycling programs.
County, Cities/
Towns, and Waste
Hauler
$5,000 Ongoing
WWR7) Work cooperatively with cities and towns to establish
standards that promote residential waste reduction.
County and
Cities/Towns
$0 2026–2031
WWR8) Review and implement actions pertaining to the CROP as
needed during this plan cycle.
County, Cities/
Towns, and Waste
Hauler
$0 2026–2031
4.0 Organics
O1) Develop and distribute educational materials related to organics and food waste management as programs are established and implemented.
County, Cities/ Towns, and Waste Hauler
To Be Determined (TBD) if Implemented 0
As Implemented
O2) Consider options for organics collection and composting and implement as feasible and financially viable in compliance with rules and regulatory requirements.
County, Cities/ Towns, and Waste Hauler
TBD if Implemented As Implemented
O3) Evaluate supporting food waste collection programs through educational efforts on the County and cities and towns websites as appropriate.
County and Cities/Towns $1,000 2026-2031
O4) Develop and promote educational materials for at-home composting including adding information on the County website. County and Cities/Towns $2,500 2026-2031
5.0 Moderate Risk Waste
MRW1) Enhance the public education and outreach program for handling household MRW.
County and Cities/Towns and BDI
$5,000 Ongoing
MRW2) Consider implementing the recommendations in the Household Hazardous Waste Handling Assessment technical memorandum as appropriate.
County, Cities/ Towns, and Waste Haulers
TBD if Implemented As Implemented
MRW3) Consider coordination and promotion of the privately
operating oil collection sites.
County and
Cities/Towns
$0 2026-2031
MRW4) Continue to coordinate the schedule and process for
updating the MRW Plan with the solid waste management plan (as
is the current practice).
County $0 Ongoing
MRW5) Consider implementing a fee-based program to accept
SQG waste at the Pasco Transfer Station HHW facility.
BDI TBD if
Implemented
As Implemented
Page 127 of 402
Chapter 11. Implementation Plan
December 2025 123
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
Table 19 (continued). Recommendations, Implementation Schedule, Responsibility, and Budget.
Recommendation Implementation Responsibility
Projected Implementation Costs Implementation Schedule
6.0 Solid Waste Collection
SWC1) Encourage the use of curbside collection services, when
possible, and ensure that collection services are available to all
residents.
County, Cities/
Towns, and Waste
Hauler
$0 Ongoing
SWC2) Review collection contracts to confirm compliance with the
Plan.
Cities and Towns $0 Ongoing
SWC3) Review the fee on solid waste collection companies
operating in the unincorporated areas, and make changes to the
fee, as necessary, to ensure continued funding for programs.
County $0 Ongoing
7.0 Transfer and Disposal
WTD1) BDI, cities and towns and the County should monitor population growth and tonnage and consider transfer facility improvements, expansions or additions, as necessary.
County, Cities/ Towns, and BDI $0 Ongoing
WTD2) Continue to export waste for disposal. County $0 Ongoing
8.0 Energy Recovery
ER1) Monitor developments and progress in waste processing and conversion technologies in the event that current conditions change.
County $0 Ongoing
9.0 Miscellaneous Wastes
SW1) Continue to manage and recycle or dispose of miscellaneous
wastes through a cooperative effort with the Health District, waste
hauler, transfer station, the County, and Ecology.
County, Cities/
Towns, Health
District, Ecology,
Private Industry,
and BDI
$0 Ongoing
SW2) Monitor recycling opportunities for miscellaneous wastes
such as mattresses, carpet, and others, and implement programs
as they become available and fiscally responsible.
County, Cities/
Towns and BDI
$0 Ongoing
SW3) Promote proper reuse, recycling, and disposal of C&D debris. County, Cities/
Towns and BDI
$0 Ongoing
SW4) Partner with private organizations such as the Tri-County
Partners Habitat for Humanity ReStore to promote recycling and
reuse of C&D wastes and building materials.
County, Cities/
Towns and BDI
$0 Ongoing
SW5) Develop an internal plan for handling disaster debris, in
coordination with the Franklin County Emergency Management
Department, BDI, Health District, and the County Solid Waste
Division.
County $50,000 2026-2031
10.0 Administration, Financing and Enforcement
AE1) Consider pursuing some of the additional funding strategies listed in Table 18 that can be implemented by the County directly and independently from other alternatives.
County $0 2026–2031
AE2) Negotiate agreements with each of the cities and towns for contributions towards maintaining solid waste recycling and educational programs.
County and Cities/ Towns $0 2026
AE3) Provide adequate funding to maintain or increase staff at county and city levels, as needed. County and Cities/Towns TBD if Implemented 2026–2031
AE4) Include the SWAC in the review of new solid waste facility permit requests. County $0 2026-2031
Total $83,500
Page 128 of 402
Chapter 11. Implementation Plan
124 December 2025
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
11.2. State Environmental Policy Act
Ecology requires that the potential impacts of this plan be evaluated according to the SEPA process. The SEPA checklist has been prepared to fulfill that requirement and is included as Appendix F. The SEPA checklist is a “non-project proposal” intended to address new programs recommended by the Plan. As a
non-project proposal SEPA checklist, it is unable to fully address the potential impacts of facilities
proposed in this plan. Any new facility will need to undergo its own SEPA review process.
The County issued a determination of non-significance that the recommendations in the Plan will not
have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. A copy of this determination is included
as Appendix F.
11.3. Twenty-Year Implementation Program
Solid waste management in the County will continue to evolve based on changes in population;
demographics; the local, state, and national economies; regulations; and advancements in waste
handling and recycling. Fortunately, the County’s current solid waste management system is functioning
effectively.
The current process of funding solid waste programs through tipping fees, grants, and other facility permit fees provides adequate funding. If, in the future, it becomes advisable to seek additional sources of funding, Chapter 10 – Administration, Financing, and Enforcement provides a list of potential funding sources.
11.4. Draft Plan Review
Then County provided the draft plan for review to stakeholders. Comments were received from Ecology, WSDA, WUTC, and stakeholders. Comments received and County responses to those comments are included as Appendix H.
11.5. Procedures for Amending the Plan
The Solid Waste Management-Reduction and Recycling Act (RCW 70A.205) requires local governments
to maintain their solid waste plans in current condition. Plans must be reviewed and revised, if necessary,
at least every 5 years. This plan should be reviewed in 2031. Before that time, the Plan can be kept in
current condition through amendments. An “amendment” is defined as a process that is simpler than a
revision. If there is a significant change in the solid waste system, however, a revision may be necessary
before the 5-year period is done.
Changes in the Plan may be initiated by the County, working with the SWAC to develop and review
proposed changes, or by outside parties. For the latter, individuals or organizations wishing to propose
plan amendments before the scheduled review must petition the County’s Public Works Director in
writing. The petition should describe the proposed amendment and its specific objectives and should
Page 129 of 402
Chapter 11. Implementation Plan
December 2025 125
DRAFT Franklin County Comprehensive Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan | For Years 2026 to 2031
explain why immediate action is needed prior to the next scheduled review. The Public Works Director will investigate the basis for the petition and prepare a recommendation.
If the Public Works Director determines that the petition warrants further consideration, the petition will be referred to the SWAC for review and recommendation. The Public Works Director will draft the proposed amendment together with the SWAC. Whether the proposed amendment has been initiated by the County or an outside party, the proposed amendment must be submitted to the legislative bodies of all participating jurisdictions and Ecology for review and comment. Adoption of the proposed
amendment will require the concurrence of all affected jurisdictions.
The Public Works Director may develop reasonable rules for submitting and processing proposed plan
amendments and may establish reasonable fees to investigate and process petitions. All administrative
rulings of the Public Works Director may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
Minor changes may occur in the solid waste management system, whether due to internal decisions or
external factors. These can be adopted without going through a formal amendment process. If there is
uncertainty about whether or not a change is “minor,” it should be discussed by the SWAC, and a
decision should be made based on the consensus of that committee.
Implicit in the development and adoption of this plan is the understanding that in the future, the County
may need to take emergency action for various reasons and that these actions can be undertaken
without the need to amend this plan beforehand. In that case, the Public Works Director will endeavor to
inform the SWAC and other key stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible but not necessarily before new actions are implemented. If the emergency results in permanent and significant changes to the solid waste system, an amendment to this plan will be prepared in a timely fashion. If, however, the emergency actions are undertaken only on a temporary or short-term basis, an amendment may not be necessary. Questions about what actions may be considered “temporary” or “significant” should be brought to the SWAC for its advice.
Similar to the allowance for emergency action discussed above, the County will need to make operational decisions and expenditures to comply with future regulatory changes and update permit requirements as applicable. Plan update and coordination with the SWAC will not be required or initiated for these future actions, as they are considered operational activities.
Page 130 of 402
Appendix A
Solid Waste Advisory Committee Bylaws and
Meeting Procedures
Page 131 of 402
Solid Waste Advisory Committee Franklin County
Bylaws - 1 - February 14, 2024
Franklin County
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
(SWAC)
BYLAWS AND MEETING PROCEDURES
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
The Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) has been appointed by the Board of
County Commissioners in accordance with 70A.205.110 RCW. The statute requires the SWAC to "assist
in the development of solid waste handling programs and disposal and to review and comment upon
proposed rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption. These Bylaws will become a part of the
County Solid Waste Plan by reference and will define the SWAC function and rules.
The scope and duties of the Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall be to:
A. Advise Franklin County on all aspects of solid waste management planning
B. Assist Franklin County in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste
handling, and solid waste recovery and/or recycling, preventing land, air, and water pollution, while
conserving the natural, economic, and energy resources of Franklin County
C. Review and comment on proposed solid waste management rules, policies, or ordinances prior to
their adoption.
D. Actively assist and participate in the review, revision or amendment of both a comprehensive solid
waste (CSWMP) and hazardous waste management plan (HWMP)
E. Follow RCW 70A.205.115 to conduct specific stakeholder and review meetings during the
development of the waste reduction and recycling element of the CSWMP.
II. MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS
A. SWAC Members: The SWAC shall be composed of a minimum of nine (9) members and shall
represent a balance of interests including, but not limited to, citizens, public interest groups,
business, the waste management industry, agriculture, and local elected public officials. The
members shall be appointed by the county legislative authority. Members shall provide on-going
public input, coordination and information exchange between the groups.
B. Appointment: Members shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners.
C. Terms: Members shall serve a term of three (3) years or until their successor is appointed and
confirmed as provided in the SWAC by-laws. The terms of office shall be staggered. Members may
be reappointed to serve consecutive terms. Members will be allowed to serve more than (3)
consecutive terms only if the County advertises widely and an applicant meeting the criteria in
Section II.A of these bylaws does not apply. Reappointment shall be subject to confirmation by
the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 132 of 402
Solid Waste Advisory Committee Franklin County
Bylaws - 2 - February 14, 2024
D. Vacancies: Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the term of the vacant position in the
manner described in the initial appointment.
E. Participation: Members of the Committee are needed to advise on matters of public policy
formulation and their regular attendance is essential. While in person attendance is preferred,
electronic attendance will be made available. The Chair may recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners replacement of a member if three (3) consecutive meetings are missed, or half the
meetings in a given year are missed.
F. Training: Members should make themselves available to participate in training workshops pertinent
to current solid waste issues as they become available.
G. Substitution: An appointed member may have a person representing the absent member's interest,
attend meetings and vote in the member's place for two meetings per year.
III. MEETINGS
SWAC Meeting: The committee shall adopt no recommendation, except in a meeting open to the
public and then only at a meeting, the date of which has been publicly noticed in accordance with
RCW 42.30 the Open Public Meetings Act and include the RCW 42.30 by notifying press and radio
in the county, and by such other means as may now or hereafter be provided. The committee may
adopt recommendations and take other means as necessary, by a majority vote of the members
present at the meeting. The committee shall hold at least one meeting each quarter. The time and
place of the regular meetings shall be set by the Chair in a manner acceptable to the Committee. The
Chair may cancel a meeting.
Technical Advisory Committee Workshops: The Chair, or in the Chair's absence, the Vice Chair,
may call a workshop for one specific purpose, provided that proper notice is provided to each
member and other interested parties describing the purposes at least twenty-four hours prior to the
time scheduled for the workshop. TAC members are appointed by their own political subdivision
and may or may not be associated with the SWAC.
IV. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
A. Chair: A majority of the committee shall elect one of its members as Chair. The term of the Chair
shall be for one (1) year. The Chair shall be elected at the first meeting of the year and shall serve
for a term of one year. The election year and the term of the Chair will begin at the first meeting of
each year.
B. Vice Chair: A majority of the committee shall elect one of its members as Vice Chair. The term of
the Vice Chair shall be for one (1) year. The Chair shall be elected at the first meeting of the year
and shall serve for a term of one year. The election year and the term of the Vice Chair will begin
at the first meeting of each year.
Page 133 of 402
Solid Waste Advisory Committee Franklin County
Bylaws - 3 - February 14, 2024
V. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
A. Roberts Rules of Order: The parliamentary rules known as Roberts Rules of Order shall apply to
and govern the procedures of all meetings of the Committee; provided that the Chair may elect to
allow a more informal discussion format so long as business is conducted in good order and
participation of all members is assured. Consensus of the members is the preferred means to resolve
all questions before the Committee. Consensus is hereby defined as the absence of any no votes by
members. If consensus is not reached, a majority vote of members present will prevail.
B. Minutes/Agendas: Minutes of all meetings shall be kept and distributed to the members within one
week after a meeting. Meeting minutes will be approved by a majority vote of members present.
Agendas will be prepared, with verbal approval of the Chair, and distributed to the members at least
seven days in advance of any regularly scheduled meeting.
C. Public Access: All meetings shall be open to the public in accordance with the public meetings act
RCW 42.30. All efforts will be made to provide electronic access for each meeting. If available,
video recordings of each meeting shall be posted on Franklin County’s Solid Waste Page. Provision
shall be made for public comment at each meeting. Approved meeting minutes shall be available to
the public on request.
VI. AMENDMENTS
To the extent that such an amendment would not conflict with the purpose for which the Committee was
established, any of these bylaws may be amended or repealed, and new bylaws may be adopted, by
majority vote of the entire SWAC. Members will be provided with proposed amendments at least two
weeks before action is taken to amend these bylaws.
VII. TOPICS OF REVIEW
A. County Solid Waste Plan: Formulation of the Plan, including major updates, recommendations,
amendments and addenda to the Plan.
B. Moderate Risk Waste Plan: Formulation of the Plan, including major updates, recommendations,
amendments and addenda to the Plan.
C. Legislative Proposals: Regulations adopted by the Board of Health, and by the Board of County
Commissioners affecting solid waste management and related issues will be assigned to the
Committee for review and comment prior to their adoption.
D. Other Issues: Additional questions pertaining to Franklin County's waste management program may
be addressed to the Committee by the Board of County Commissioners as deemed appropriate.
Page 134 of 402
Appendix B
Interlocal Agreements
Page 135 of 402
Page 136 of 402
Page 137 of 402
Page 138 of 402
Page 139 of 402
Page 140 of 402
Page 141 of 402
Page 142 of 402
Appendix C
Resolution of Adoption
Page 143 of 402
The contents of this appendix will be provided
in a subsequent draft.
Page 144 of 402
Appendix D
Status of 2010 Plan Recommendations
Page 145 of 402
Appendix D – Status of Previous Plan Recommendations
December 2025 D-1
Franklin County Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Management Plan
Table D-1. Status of Previous 2010 Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations.
Recommendations Status
Overall Recommendations
No new programs or capital added unless there is the Ecology match (75%) and a local match
(25%). Ongoing
Programs and capital spending will decrease if Ecology funding is lower than anticipated. Ongoing
25% local match will be restructured based on population and incrementally implemented over
the next 5 years. Not Implemented
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Drop box recycling will increase with population. Ongoing
Litter cleanup and education will continue. Ongoing (No Education)
Program promotions (e.g., website, community events) will continue. Ongoing
Public education will be enhanced. Ongoing
Planning will continue through the SWAC. Ongoing
Administration will continue through Franklin County Public Works. Ongoing
Moderate Risk Waste
Small quantity generator collection will be enhanced. Not Implemented
Collection events will continue. Ongoing
On-site audits will be enhanced. Not Implemented
Public education will continue. Ongoing
Planning will continue through the SWAC. Ongoing
Administration will continue through Franklin County Public Works. Ongoing
Organics
Home composting will continue. Ongoing
Public education will continue. Ongoing
Planning will continue through the SWAC. Ongoing
Administration will continue through Franklin County Public Works. Ongoing
Capital Projects
A study will be conducted in all cases 2 years before a capital project is to be undertaken to
assess the feasibility and financial success of the facility. If any money is to be required by a
local match, it must be secured before the study and project are started.
Not Implemented
Expect that the local match will be more for the jurisdiction where the project is planned (if not
all the local match). Not Implemented
The Plan desires partnerships with private sector businesses. Not Implemented
Page 146 of 402
Appendix E
Household Hazardous Waste Handling Assessment
Page 147 of 402
1 September 2025
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: September 5, 2025
To: Shirley Jones, Franklin County Solid Waste Program Manager
From: Wendy Mifflin, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Subject: Task 5 – Household Hazardous Waste Handling Assessment
Introduction
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to assess household hazardous waste (HHW) facilities and
operations located in Franklin County (County) and provide options and recommendations for future
operations, facilities, collection programs, and education and outreach opportunities that can be incorporated
as recommendations for implementation in the Franklin County Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan.
Regulatory Requirements
In Washington, municipalities are primarily responsible for the planning, collection, and disposal of municipal
solid waste (MSW) and moderate risk waste (MRW) within their jurisdictions, as outlined by the Revised Code
of Washington 70A.205. This includes developing comprehensive solid waste and MRW management plans,
promoting waste reduction and recycling, and ensuring proper disposal methods like recycling, energy
recovery, or landfilling.
In Washington State, MRW includes HHW and Small Quantity Generator (SQG) waste from businesses. The
term MRW refers to waste generated in small volumes, both HHW and SQG wastes. These small volumes pose
a lower individual threat to human health and the environment. However, MRW waste is still potentially
harmful if handled and disposed of incorrectly. For this reason, it is safest when managed separately from
MSW and sent to either a permitted treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility, or a recycling facility.
Local governments in Washington must plan for the management of MRW generated within their jurisdictions.
While the law allows for disposal of MRW into MSW streams, most local governments and some private solid
waste facilities collect MRW in separate facilities for management at TSD facilities. Local governments may also
incorporate restrictions on where it can be disposed. These restrictions may include ordinances against the
disposal of MRW into garbage.
The Washington State Association of Counties Solid Waste Managers Group (WACSWM) recognized that
counties have a duty under state law to manage the proper collection and disposal of wastes, including
recycling. To achieve these outcomes, counties should work to encourage recycling and waste reduction while
properly disposing of remaining wastes, including HHW. County solid waste programs are a critical public
service that protects the environment and human health.
With this in mind, WACSWM developed HHW Program core principles that include:
1. Every county should provide disposal options for a standardized list of HHW items that are relatively
easy to collect and manage.
2. A permanent HHW collection facility should operate in every county.
Page 148 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
2 September 2025
3. Counties should be responsible for managing the standardized list of HHW items from households and
SQGs.
Additional information on WACSWM HHW program guidance can be found at the following link:
https://wsac.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/HHW-Guidance-Outline-Final.pdf
Existing Conditions
This section provides an overview of existing conditions regarding management of MRW in the County
including contractual obligations and facility ownership and operations.
Franklin County
The County and Basin Disposal, Inc. (BDI) entered into an agreement in November 1995 under which the
County agreed to pay BDI for the cost of transportation and disposal of HHW from County residents received
at the BDI HHW facility through December 31, 1997.
The agreement also noted that the County would assume responsibility for the cost of any tailgate collection
events of HHW from the cities of Connell, Mesa, and Kahlotus. The agreement also noted that in the event of
closure of the BDI HHW facility, any remaining material would be removed, transported, and disposed by an
environmental firm contracted by the County and the County would pay for the services.
The County has authorized and paid an environmental disposal firm to collect HHW from the BDI HHW facility
once per year. Beginning in August 2025, the County has contracted with Clean Harbors, under the State of
Washington contract, to transport and dispose of HHW on a quarterly basis.
There is not a current contract in place between the County and BDI for management of HHW.
Limited residential MRW education and outreach is provided at the County’s website, available at the
following link: https://www.franklincountywa.gov/470/Household-Hazardous-Waste-Disposal
City of Pasco
In 2015, the City of Pasco (City) entered into a comprehensive solid waste collection agreement with BDI. The
agreement provides for an HHW Program as follows:
• BDI will accept HHW from customers residing in residences in the City service area whose accounts
are in good standing.
• BDI will comply with all applicable State of Washington statutes and regulations including
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) statutes and regulations.
• At least once per week, on a day approved by the City, for a minimum of eight (8) consecutive
hours, BDI shall accept without charge HHW at a facility licensed and approved by the City.
• BDI shall transport and dispose of collected HHW to an appropriate disposal site.
Page 149 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
3 September 2025
• BDI shall regularly publish brochures concerning the HHW program including the facility locations
and hours of service.
• The County and BDI also acknowledged that the HHW program is conditioned upon and subject to
the continuing effectiveness of the agreement between BDI, the City, and the County, pursuant to
which the County has delegated to BDI the County’s duties under Washington State law to
implement and administer a HHW program. (Contract is unable to be located at the time of
technical memorandum publication).
• The costs of the HHW service is included in the service rates set for curbside collection in the City.
• If obligations under the agreement between the City, County, and BDI are terminated, then the
HHW program is terminated. HHW is then deemed to be unacceptable waste for collection and
service rates for curbside collection will be adjusted.
The City is not currently providing MRW education and outreach to residents.
Basin Disposal, Inc.
In 1996, a permanent MRW facility was built, by BDI, at its Transfer Station site on Dietrich Road in Pasco,
funded by a charge on Pasco residents’ garbage bills. The MRW facility is owned and operated by BDI with
operations hours as follows:
Summer: April 1st – October 31st Monday-Friday: 7:00 am to 4:30 pm
Saturday: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
Sunday: Closed
Winter: November 1st – March 31st Monday-Friday: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
Saturday: 9:00 am to 4:30 pm
Sunday: Closed
BDI accepts MRW from residential customers, located in the County, free of charge for up to 10 gallons per
household. SQG Wastes are not accepted at the facility. Figure 1 provides a view of the MRW Facility and
Figure 2 provides the customer unloading area and interior view of the facility.
Page 150 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
4 September 2025
Figure 1 - BDI MRW Facility View
Figure 2 - BDI MRW Facility Operations View
Page 151 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
5 September 2025
The BDI MRW Facility was inspected by the Benton-Franklin Health District on June 4, 2025. The inspection
noted that the MRW Facility had the following compliance items for correction:
• Lack of trained staff in the facility during operating hours.
• Excess MRW materials on site.
• Incompatible wastes not properly segregated.
• MRW materials improperly labeled and/or packaged.
• Secondary containment was contaminated with debris and spilled materials.
• Intake and exhaust fans were obstructed with dirt and debris.
• Uncertainty around the identification, storage, and handling of unknowns.
• MRW collected not shipped in a timely manner.
On August 20, 2025, staff from Herrera, BDI and the County toured the MRW facility. During that tour, Herrera
staff noted the following which were discussed with BDI staff:
• The explosive gas monitoring system was reading -2% and -13% on the Beacon Gas Monitor.
These readings did not change when the storage container doors were opened. Discussed that the
system needed to be calibrated or the sensors are damaged.
• Noted that there were no first aid supplies at the facility.
• Discussed the damaged concrete on the floor being a potential trip hazard, issue for the cart used
to move materials, and noted that the floor does not have an epoxy coating to prevent spills from
leaking.
• The facility is not participating in the PaintCare program or LightRecycle Washington which could
provide savings from disposal costs.
BDI has been diligently working to correct the inspection non-compliance items as noted from the June 2025
inspection. Of note, the inability to ship MRW in a timely manner is the result of not having a current contract
between the County and BDI for facility operational requirements with the County only contracted for MRW
shipments once per year. In August 2025, the County completed a contract with Clean Harbors which allows
for shipment on a quarterly basis from the BDI MRW Facility and provides assistance with identification of
unknown chemicals.
BDI is currently providing limited education and outreach to residential customers.
MRW Options
The following presents MRW options for County consideration.
Page 152 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
6 September 2025
MRW Collection Events
The purpose of a MRW collection event is to provide a limited time, typically one-day, event for the safe
collection, transport, and disposal of MRW. Collections can be offered annually, semiannually, or on an
ongoing basis. A collection event can be a community organized event. Sponsors usually include health
departments, public works, fire departments, water and sewer utilities, and environmental organizations.
Wastes that are brought in are recycled if possible, and the rest are sent to a hazardous waste treatment or
disposal facility.
MRW collection events require dedicated staff to organize the event, hiring a licensed disposal firm to operate
the event and collect waste from residents and a targeted education and outreach program.
Collection events can also offer SQGs opportunities to bring hazardous waste for proper recycling and disposal.
SQGs can be charged a fee for this service.
Table 1 presents MRW Collection Event benefits and limitations.
Table 1 - MRW Collection Event Benefits and Limitations
Benefits Limitations
• Removes HHW from homes and residential
trash, thereby reducing the potential for
HHW exposure and injury to homeowners,
firefighters, and refuse workers.
• Reduces the potential of HHW being
released into the environment.
• Provides HHW disposal to citizens seeking
disposal information and options.
• Provides SQGs with an opportunity for
proper disposal of hazardous materials
• Increases public awareness of the integral
role each consumer plays in overall
hazardous waste problems and solutions.
• May safeguard against liability under the
federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) for hazardous waste
going into municipal landfills.
• MRW collection events are eligible for
Ecology grant funding.
• Event locations can vary meaning that a
wider range of residents may have access to
proper HHW disposal.
• Costs can be unknown for an event and are
dependent on the quantities and types of
materials accepted.
• Resident convenience and accessibility are
limited as events are usually held for a
single day on a weekend.
• Certain hazardous materials may be
prohibited due to specialized handling
requirements and due to safety concerns.
• Requires dedicated staff to plan a
collection event with intensive education
and outreach efforts conducted.
• Need a dedicated site to conduct a
collection event such as a large parking lot
or open area with traffic access.
• May need to limit size and quantity of
containers and materials accepted.
• Future grant funding availability is not
guaranteed.
• If too many customers show up for the
event, some may need to be turned away
due to space or other constraints.
Page 153 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
7 September 2025
Costs for collection events are based on pounds and types of materials received, length of the event, and
contractor staff required. Costs range from $15,000 to $50,000 per event.
Municipal MRW Facility Construction
The County could consider owning and operating a permanent MRW facility to service residents and applicable
businesses on a year-round basis. A permanent MRW facility would allow residents and potentially SQGs to
drop-off their wastes at their convenience which prevents stockpiling of hazardous chemicals.
The County and their City partners could work cooperatively to site, construct, and operate an MRW facility
that is available for all residents and SQGs. Recently, Douglas County, Washington constructed an MRW facility
to service residents in the County. Douglas County issued a request for proposals in 2024 for a pre-qualified
design-build team to complete a technical and price proposal to design, permit, and construct a new MRW
facility. The new MRW facility was approximately 700 square feet and included a canopy to allow customers to
drive under cover to drop items off. Figure 3 provides the conceptual design of the Douglas County MRW
Facility.
Figure 3 - Douglas County MRW Facility Conceptual Design
The cost for the Douglas County MRW Facility was estimated at $1,500,000 with County operational staff
trained and utilized from the current recycling staff. The facility was constructed on property owned by
Douglas County and so property acquisition costs are not part of the $1,500,000.
Table 2 presents Municipal MRW Facility Construction benefits and limitations.
Page 154 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
8 September 2025
Table 2 – Municipal MRW Facility Construction Benefits and Limitations
Benefits Limitations
• Encourages proper disposal of hazardous
chemicals on an ongoing basis.
• Provides convenient year-round disposal
options for residents and SQGs.
• Reduces public health risks by preventing
hazardous waste contamination due to
improper disposal and stockpiling these
materials.
• Minimizes curbside collection workers’
exposure to toxic materials.
• Provides permanent jobs for County
residents.
• Supports a reuse economy.
• Meets Washington State requirements for
County responsibility for waste handling and
disposal.
• MRW facility construction costs are eligible
for Public Works Trust Fund Loans and
Ecology grant funding.
• Operational costs are eligible for Ecology
grant funding.
• Construction and continued operational
costs are higher than other options.
• Permitting can be complex and time
consuming.
• Rezoning may be required, depending on
where the facility is sited.
• Site design and limitations can limit the
capacity of materials that can be accepted.
• Trained, permanent staff are required with
ongoing training requirements likely.
• Continuous education and outreach are
required to inform residents and SQGs of
available MRW services.
• Public and political justification and
support are needed.
• Long-Term o perational funding would need
to be assured.
• Future grant funding availability is not
guaranteed.
Agreement with Private Firm for MRW Collection Services
Prior to 1997, the County and BDI had a contract in place for HHW services. That contract expired and there is
not currently a contract between the County and BDI, however, the County has continued to provide a
licensed disposal firm to package, transport, and dispose of HHW collected at the BDI HHW facility. BDI does
not currently accept hazardous wastes from SQGs. The City of Pasco has a current contract with BDI that
addresses MRW collection services as they relate to City residents (See Existing Conditions, City of Pasco).
In discussion with BDI, they have expressed interest in working with the County and City of Pasco to continue
operations of the HHW facility at the Pasco Transfer Station to provide this needed service to residents in the
County. The County could consider contracting with BDI to handle MRW collection with an agreement that
addresses the following:
• Days and hours of operations.
• MRW materials accepted.
• How SQG waste will be facilitated.
Page 155 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
9 September 2025
• Washington State programs that the facility will participate in (PaintCare, LightRecycle, etc.) and who
will contract for these services.
• Contracting with a licensed disposal firm and how wastes will be shipped.
• Minimum MRW facility operational staff and training standards.
• Future facility capital needs and costs for implementation.
• Education and outreach responsibilities.
• Compliance with rules, regulatory requirements, and permits.
• Financing responsibilities.
Table 3 presents Agreement with BDI benefits and limitations.
Table 3 - Agreement with BDI Benefits and Limitations
Benefits Limitations
• Promotes a partnership between
municipalities and the privately owned
and operated waste collection and
disposal company.
• The BDI MRW facility is currently
operational and available to provide
services.
• BDI has expressed interest in continuing
this public/private partnership.
• A negotiated agreement between BDI, the
County and the municipalities provides for
long-term operational stability and
services to the public.
• Appropriate education and outreach could
be addressed.
• Costs may be lower than other options
due to an existing facility and staff already
experienced at HHW collection.
• Grant funding may be available to the
County from Ecology.
• Negotiations of a long-term contract may be
time-consuming and not provide services
desired by the County.
• SQG waste is not currently accepted at the
BDI HHW facility, and the facility may not be
sized appropriately to accept this waste.
• Fee assessment for SQG waste, if accepted,
would need to be negotiated.
• Costs for facility capital needs and future
expansion may be prohibitive.
• Staff training and facility compliance
deficiencies identified by the Benton-Franklin
Health District need to be addressed.
• Operational costs may be prohibitive if a
long-term contract cannot be negotiated.
• Determination of who will contract for MRW
material disposal services with costs for
disposal potentially increasing if BDI is
responsible for disposal.
• Long-Term operational funding would need
to be assured.
• Future grant funding availability is not
guaranteed.
Cost reimbursements would need to be negotiated between BDI, the County, and municipalities and are
unknown at this time.
Page 156 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
10 September 2025
Contracting with Benton County for HHW Collection Services
The Benton County Moderate Risk Waste Facility is located at 1709 S Ely Street in Kennewick. The facility
opened in August 2025. Currently, Benton County residents can drop off HHW items such as paints, pesticides,
cleaners, and automotive fluids during operating hours, which are Wednesday through Saturday, 8:00 am to
5:00 pm.
The County could consider contacting Benton County to determine if an interlocal agreement could be
negotiated to allow County residents the opportunity to dispose of MRW at their facility. The Benton County
MRW Facility is not currently accepting SQG wastes and so would not be an option for County businesses.
Table 4 presents Contracting with Benton County for MRW Collection Services benefits and limitations.
Table 4 - Contracting with Benton County for MRW Collection Services Benefits and
Limitations
Benefits Limitations
• The Benton County MRW facility is new
and operational with staffing in place.
• Costs to County residents could be
negotiated based on participation.
• Education and outreach could be
coordinated between the counties.
• Interlocal agreements are typically easier
to negotiate between municipalities.
• Grant funding would be available to the
County from Ecology.
• Benton County may not be interested in
accepting MRW from Franklin County.
• The facility may not be sized appropriately to
accept the County MRW waste stream.
• Future grant funding availability is not
guaranteed.
The County would need to reach out to Benton County staff to determine if this option is feasible. Costs and
services would need to be negotiated.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following are the HHW handling assessment conclusions for County consideration:
The County, by regulatory authority, is responsible for the planning, collection, and disposal of MRW within its
jurisdiction. The County has not delegated this authority through County Code, contractual agreements, or the
previous County Solid Waste Management Plan (2010 SWMP) which was completed in 2010.
The 2010 SWMP recommended that corresponding with the next plan update in January 2013, Franklin County
and participating cities will conduct a comprehensive review of existing services and programs. At that time,
they will consider the need for additional collection services or facilities to support both SQG and HHW
programs. Services may include conducting additional collection events, enlarging the permanent facility, or
contracting services to private enterprise. The County will also evaluate results annually and adjust program
efforts as appropriate. This recommendation was not implemented, and annual evaluations of facilities and
programs was not conducted.
Page 157 of 402
Technical Memorandum (continued)
HHW Handling Assessment
11 September 2025
BDI owns and operates the only permanent MRW facility in the County. Since there has not been a contract
between the County and BDI since 1997, the parties should immediately open discussions regarding facilities,
programs, and education and outreach efforts to gain an understanding of what items would need to be
addressed to continue this public/private partnership and contained in a mutually acceptable contract.
If BDI and the County cannot agree on contract terms, the County should consider holding HHW collection
events to address the appropriate disposal of MRW for both residents and SQGs in the unincorporated areas of
the County and potentially the other municipalities located within the County.
If BDI and the County agree to a contract, the County should consider holding events in the northern portion of
the County to serve residents of Connell, Kahlotus, and Mesa as well as residents of the unincorporated areas.
Page 158 of 402
Appendix F
State Environmental Policy Act Information
Page 159 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 1
(WAC 197-11-960)
SEPA Environmental Checklist
Purpose of checklist
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or
compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact
statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer
each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an
agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or “does not apply”
only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach
or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions
often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time
or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its
environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or
provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Instructions for lead agencies
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the
existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist
is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate
threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the
completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts
of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all
questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as
"proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-
projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of
the proposal.
Page 160 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 2
(WAC 197-11-960)
A. Background
1.Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Franklin County Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
2.Name of applicant:
Franklin County
3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Shirley Jones, Project Manager
Frankin County Public Works
3416 N Stearman Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
Phone: (509) 545-3514 Ext. 2836
4.Date checklist prepared:
October 31, 2025
5.Agency requesting checklist:
Franklin County Public Works
6.Proposed timing of schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
This checklist is submitted for a non-project proposal intended to update the Franklin
County long-range plan for solid waste management, recycling, and disposal. The proposed
Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan is undergoing public review and
comment. A final copy of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan is
anticipated to be approved by cities and towns in Franklin County, the Franklin County
Board of Commissioners, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) in
2026.
7.Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Ecology’s guidelines (Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plans and Plan Revisions) require solid waste and hazardous waste
management plans to be reviewed and, if necessary, updated periodically.
8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Does not apply.
9.Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No, this SEPA Checklist is intended to address only programs and activities specifically
recommended in the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Any new private
Page 161 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 3
(WAC 197-11-960)
or public facilities will need to complete a separate, specific SEPA review process as
appropriate.
10.List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
State Law (Revised Code of Washington 70A.200) and guidelines issued by Ecology require a
public review period for this plan for a minimum of 30 days, require that the Solid Waste
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan be reviewed by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of Agriculture, and
require Ecology to examine and comment on the preliminary draft of the Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Board of County Commissioners and the cities and
towns must also adopt the final draft of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management
Plan. After adoption by Franklin County and cities, Ecology must approve the Solid Waste
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan before it becomes effective.
11.Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you
to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information
on project description.)
Franklin County is required by Washington State law to maintain a solid waste management
plan in a “current and applicable condition.” The existing solid waste management plan
was completed in 2010 and is outdated in multiple areas. In addition to updating the
discussion of current facilities and programs, the proposed new Solid Waste and Hazardous
Waste Management Plan contains a number of recommendations. Many of these
recommendations represent refinements to existing policies and programs, based on the
goal of decreasing reliance on landfills (by increasing waste reduction, recycling, and
composting) and reducing environmental impacts caused by existing activities. The
recommendations proposed in the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
can be found in Chapter 11 – Implementation Plan.
12.Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
The Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan addresses activities and programs
that occur throughout Franklin County.
Page 162 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 4
(WAC 197-11-960)
B.Environmental Elements
1.Earth
a.General description of the site:
Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
The facilities and programs addressed by the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan recommendations are inclusive of the entire Franklin County and
include all of the above.
b.What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c.What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal
results in removing any of these soils.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If
so, describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
e.Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected
area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
f.Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
h.Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 163 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 5
(WAC 197-11-960)
Air
a.What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe
and give approximate quantities if known.
No significant emissions are anticipated as a result of the recommendations made by
this Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
b.Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If
so, generally describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3.Water
a. Surface:
1.Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If
yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Page 164 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 6
(WAC 197-11-960)
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b. Ground:
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes?
If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate
quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater?
Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals…; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number
of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number
of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the
site? If so, describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 165 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 7
(WAC 197-11-960)
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and
drainage pattern impacts, if any:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
4.Plants
a.Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
☒deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
☒evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
☒shrubs
☒grass
☒pasture
☒crop or grain
☒orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops.
☒wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
☒water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
☒other types of vegetation
b.What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d.Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
5.Animals
a.List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site.
Page 166 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 8
(WAC 197-11-960)
Examples include:
• Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
• Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
• Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
All of these types of birds and animals can be found in Franklin County.
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
6. Energy and natural resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Several of the activities recommended in the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan will require small additional amounts of electrical power to support
normal, everyday activities.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If
so, generally describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 167 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 9
(WAC 197-11-960)
7.Environmental health
a.Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this
proposal? If so, describe.
No, although the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan discusses
the Household Hazardous Waste Facilities and increased education and outreach
for those facilities, these activities should help prevent these types of
environmental health issues in future. Additional information can be found in
Chapter 5 – Moderate-Risk Waste.
1.Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past
uses.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2.Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3.Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the
operating life of the project.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
4.Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
5.Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b.Noise
1.What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2.What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)?
Page 168 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 10
(WAC 197-11-960)
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
3.Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
8. Land and shoreline use
a.What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b.Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so,
describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance
will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have
not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be
converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
1.Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest
land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the
application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c.Describe any structures on the site.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d.Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
e.What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 169 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 11
(WAC 197-11-960)
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so,
specify.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
i.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
j.Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of
long-term commercial significance, if any:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
9. Housing
a.Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
Page 170 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 12
(WAC 197-11-960)
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Does not apply.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
11. Light and glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Page 171 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 13
(WAC 197-11-960)
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
13. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over
45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation
registers? If so, specifically describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material
evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any
professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic
resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and
the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys,
historic maps, GIS data, etc.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may
be required.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so,
generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 172 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 14
(WAC 197-11-960)
c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so,
generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of
the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What
data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural
and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
15. Public services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
Does not apply.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 173 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 15
(WAC 197-11-960)
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity
which might be needed.
Does not apply; there is no specific site being addressed by this Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Page 174 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 16
(WAC 197-11-960)
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
X
Type name of signee: Shirley Jones, Project Manager
Position and agency/organization: Franklin County Solid Waste Manager
Date submitted:
Page 175 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 17
(WAC 197-11-960)
D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions
Do not use this section for project actions.
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with
the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate
than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
By providing for secure disposal of solid wastes and increased waste reduction and
recycling activities, the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan is expected
to decrease impacts and discharges to water and air, and to provide for more secure
handling of toxic or hazardous substances that may be part of the solid waste stream. No
substantial increases or decreases in noise levels are expected as a result of the Solid
Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan’s recommendations
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Does not apply.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
No impacts to plant, animal, fish, or marine life are expected.
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Does not apply.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
A small amount of energy and materials will be needed to implement the
recommendations in the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, but
this is expected to be more than offset by the energy and resources conserved as the
result of increased waste prevention, recycling, and composting recommended by the
Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Does not apply.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Page 176 of 402
SEPA Environmental checklist November 2025 Page 18
(WAC 197-11-960)
No substantial impacts, either positive or negative, to environmentally sensitive or other
protected areas are expected to result from the recommendations in the Solid Waste and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
• Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Does not apply.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
No substantial impacts, either positive or negative, to land and shoreline use are expected
to result from the recommendations in this Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management
Plan.
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Does not apply.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Minor changes are proposed for public services and to several aspects of the waste
collection system.
• Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
None.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan was prepared in response to State
requirements for the proper management of solid waste. This Plan is intended to comply
with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and requirements regarding protection of
the environment.
Page 177 of 402
Appendix G
Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission Cost Assessment Questionnaire
Page 178 of 402
COST ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
FOR LOCAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Version 4
Third Edition, Revised October 2019
Page 179 of 402
Page 1 of 29
Table of Contents
1.Process Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Purpose of the cost assessment guidelines .................................................................................. 3
1.2. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission .......................................................... 3
1.3. Relationship with the Washington Department of Ecology ......................................................... 4
2.UTC Rate Setting Process ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Rate Setting Process ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. How the UTC Sets Rates ................................................................................................................ 5
3.Cost Assessment Information ............................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Information Needed...................................................................................................................... 5
3.2. Planning Numbers and Rate Data ................................................................................................. 6
3.3. Direct and Indirect System Costs .................................................................................................. 6
4.UTC Cost Assessment Review ............................................................................................................... 7
4.1. The Internal Process ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.Solid Waste Cost Assessment Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 7
COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................... 8
General Information ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Years .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.Demographics ....................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Population ..................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. References and Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 9
2.Waste Stream Generation .................................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Tonnage of Solid Waste Disposed ................................................................................................. 9
2.2. Tonnage of Recyclable Materials with a Market ........................................................................ 10
2.3. Tonnage of Recyclable Materials without a Market ................................................................... 10
2.4. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 11
3.Collection Programs ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.1. Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs ............................................................................... 11
3.2. Cost & Funding for Solid Waste Programs .................................................................................. 12
3.3. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 13
4.Waste Reduction (Recycling and Organics) ........................................................................................ 13
4.1. Recycling ..................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2. Other Waste Reduction Programs (Organics, such as Yard Waste and Food Waste) ................ 16
Page 180 of 402
Page 2 of 29
4.3. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 18
5.Disposal ............................................................................................................................................... 18
5.1. Energy Recovery & Incineration (ER&I) Disposal Programs ........................................................ 18
5.2. Land Disposal Program ............................................................................................................... 20
5.3. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 23
6.Administration Program...................................................................................................................... 23
6.1. Costs & Funding for Administration Programs ........................................................................... 23
6.2. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 24
7.Other Programs ................................................................................................................................... 24
7.1. Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 24
7.2. Costs & Assumptions of Other Programs .................................................................................... 24
7.3. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 25
8.Funding Mechanisms .......................................................................................................................... 25
8.1. Facility Inventory ......................................................................................................................... 26
8.2. Tip Fee Component ..................................................................................................................... 27
8.3. Tip Fee Forecast .......................................................................................................................... 28
8.4. References and Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 29
8.5. Surplus Funds .............................................................................................................................. 29
Page 181 of 402
Page 3 of 29
1. Process Overview
1.1. Purpose of the cost assessment guidelines
The purpose of the cost assessment guidelines is to help local governments prepare cost assessments
for their solid waste management plans (SWMP). Counties or cities should prepare their cost
assessments so that impacts on solid waste haulers and their ratepayers are easy to determine. If a local
government does not have Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC)-regulated
collection companies in its jurisdiction, the commission will not review the plan. Instead, the
Washington Department of Ecology will consider in its review whether or not the plan adequately meets
the cost assessment requirements.
Every local government with a UTC-regulated collection company within its jurisdiction must complete a
cost assessment pursuant to these guidelines and state law.1
The cost assessment:
•is a comprehensive, system-wide review of a solid waste plan’s costs,
•considers the dollar impact on ratepayers of the plan’s recommendations, and
•provides sufficient information to estimate future rate levels over the plan period.
The cost assessment is beneficial to:
•local elected officials and staff who may use the cost assessment process as an evaluation tool
for selecting preferred solid waste management system alternatives,
•UTC commissioners and staff who use cost assessments to obtain information about probable
future rate increases and policy directions set by local governments,
•solid waste advisory committee members who can use cost assessments to evaluate solid waste
systems and estimate costs of implementing proposed plans,
•UTC-regulated solid waste collection companies that can use assessments to plan for future
capital and operating expenditures, and
•citizens who pay for solid waste management systems through solid waste collection bills and
tipping fees and can use cost assessments to estimate future expense levels. This information
can help the public provide input to local officials about their solid waste program preferences.
The information can also further citizen understanding of the rate setting process.
1.2. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
The UTC is composed of three commissioners who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the
Senate to six-year terms. The commissioners are supported by a staff of accountants, economists,
engineers, consumer program specialists, and special investigators.
The commission regulates privately owned utility companies, including energy, telecommunications,
natural gas, water, and transportation companies, including low-level nuclear waste, solid waste, and
medical waste companies. The commission is primarily an economic regulator, but it also regulates the
airporter, solid waste hauling, railroad, and oil and gas pipeline industries for safety.
Chapter 81.77 RCW sets forth the UTC’s role in solid waste management. The commission grants
authority to operate, approves rates, prescribes accounting formats, and requires regulated companies
1 RCW 70.95.090(8) and RCW 70.95.096
Page 182 of 402
Page 4 of 29
to file annual reports. However, RCW 81.77.22 provides exemptions from regulation for a municipality,
or any solid waste or recycling company providing solid waste collection service under contract for a
municipality. In addition, any recycling company providing service solely to commercial customers are
federally exempt.
The commission’s responsibility to approve rates makes the UTC directly accountable to ratepayers. The
commission’s goals are to ensure that rates charged by regulated companies are fair, just, reasonable,
and sufficient. Cost assessments prepared according to these guidelines provide the commission with
information it needs to understand how proposed changes to a local SWMP will affect future rates.
1.3. Relationship with the Washington Department of Ecology
The Washington Department of Ecology’s Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste
Management Plans2 and the UTC’s Cost Assessment Guidelines are mutually supportive. Ecology’s
guidelines help a local government prepare its SWMP, while the UTC’s guidelines help assess the costs
of various alternatives considered in the plan.
The UTC reviews the draft local SWMPs autonomous of reviews performed by other parties. Once the
UTC review is complete, staff prepares a letter with its recommendations for the commission to
consider at an open meeting. Once the letter’s recommendations are acknowledged at the open
meeting, it is sent to the county or city and Ecology.
2.UTC Rate Setting Process
2.1. Rate Setting Process
UTC-regulated collection companies must file with the commission in order to change rates. The
company must file its rate changes in a proposed tariff that the commission must receive at least 45
days before the proposed effective date. Commission staff reviews the company’s justification to
support the proposed rates as well as the company’s books and records. After staff completes the audit
and analysis, staff prepares a memorandum to the commissioners explaining findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
The commissioners consider the proposed rates at an open meeting, after reviewing staff’s
memorandum. The company, customers, and other interested parties may address their concerns to the
commissioners in writing or during the open meeting.
Commissioners may approve proposed rates to become effective as scheduled or issue an order
suspending the proposed rates in order to look further into whether the request is reasonable.
Suspended rates do not become effective as requested, instead, the rates in effect at the time of filing,
remain in effect until the commission approves a change.
If rates are suspended, the matter may require a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. This
is a quasi-judicial proceeding with attorneys and witnesses providing sworn testimony. The
administrative law judge issues a decision, based on the record. Parties can appeal to the commissioners
for review, at the end of which the three commissioners issue their own decision. Additional appeals of
the commission’s decision would go through the court system.
2 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1007005.html
Page 183 of 402
Page 5 of 29
2.2. How the UTC Sets Rates
When requesting revised or new rates, a company must file a revised tariff along with detailed financial
and operational data to demonstrate its proposed rates are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient. Rates
are set to recover the costs of providing service to customers. Although companies are entitled to
recover appropriate expenses and earn reasonable returns, they are not entitled to recover imprudent
or nonservice related costs.
The rate setting process allocates total company expenses to regulated activities (i.e., garbage service in
an unincorporated county), by different service categories (e.g., garbage, recycling, organics), by
different service levels (e.g., residential customers with mini cans or commercial customers with 32-
gallon cans). The allocations may take place in several different levels.
In determining the company’s gross revenues, an adjusted historical test period is used to forecast the
period rates will be in effect. Staff adjusts the company’s income statement for the test year in two
ways: 1) Restating adjustments correct errors and departures from regulatory accounting practice; and
2)Pro forma adjustments revise historical amounts for known and measurable changes in revenue and
expenses.
3.Cost Assessment Information
For the reasons outlined above, the UTC reviews the local SWMP's cost assessment and advises the local
government of the probable effect the alternatives may have on rates charged by companies regulated
by the UTC. This section identifies the information the UTC requires to accurately analyze the cost and
rate impacts. UTC staff looks for evidence that the planning jurisdiction:
•considers solid waste management from a comprehensive, system-wide perspective,
•considers the cost impact of its decisions on ratepayers, and
•provides information sufficient to estimate future rate levels.
3.1. Information Needed
To determine the probable effect a SWMP will have on rates, the UTC requires the following
information:
•current population and solid waste disposal quantities,
•detailed description of the existing comprehensive solid waste management system(s), including
selected alternatives,
•proposed changes in the present solid waste management system(s),
•estimated cost requirements for each component of the solid waste management system(s) for
years one through six, including the component costs of recycling programs,
•all sources of funding to be utilized to operate and pay for the system(s),
•the role of the UTC-regulated solid waste collection company(s), and
•information on all the solid waste collection companies in its area.
Factors impacting solid waste rates include population and the number of businesses, the weight of
material collected, and collection time required for routes. In addition, the cost of local government
programs and supporting infrastructure, and facilities also impact rates.
Expected cost variances over the plan period are important elements needed for assessing rate impacts.
RCW 70.95.090(3) requires the local SWMP to contain:
Page 184 of 402
Page 6 of 29
•a six-year construction and capital acquisition program for solid waste handling facilities 3, and
•a plan for financing both capital costs and operating costs of the proposed solid waste
management system.4
The cost data should address capital costs and associated financing options for years one through six.
For proper assessment of rate impacts, costs should include both direct and indirect cost information for
each component of the solid waste facilities and system(s). All assumptions used to develop the cost
data should also be included.
The questionnaire in Section Five outlines the information the UTC needs to assess changes in rates.
Completing this questionnaire is not mandatory. We provide it as a tool to help ensure that each plan
provides UTC staff the necessary information to complete their analysis. Local governments may use the
questionnaire provided or submit comparable information in another form.
3.2. Planning Numbers and Rate Data
The SWMP guides decisions about future activities. Any plan that involves forecasting is subject to
uncertainty. Population changes, economic growth or decline, housing construction, fluctuating interest
rates, enforcement actions by state or local authorities, changes in state and federal law, and
participation levels in recycling programs are just some of the variables in the solid waste equation that
will vary between planning and implementation of solid waste programs.
These guidelines are intended to be flexible while assisting local governments in calculating rates based
on assumptions outlined in their plan. To provide a clear rationale for its decisions, a local
comprehensive SWMP should contain a statement of the county’s goals, objectives, and policies. The
plan should also contain explicit information on local conditions, various assumptions, and information
on existing operations used to support the plan’s cost conclusions. During its review, the UTC staff will
use these same assumptions, along with current solid waste collection company statistics and data, to
estimate changes in rates to customers the plan may cause.
3.3. Direct and Indirect System Costs
During its review, the UTC looks at both direct costs and indirect costs.
An example of a direct cost is a recycling program provided by a UTC-certificated hauler. In this case, the
company recovers its program operation costs directly from ratepayers through collection rates. An
example of an indirect cost is a surcharge or city tax. The SWMP should provide sufficient information
for UTC staff to determine the probable rate impact such as the number of participating households,
type and volume of materials collected, frequency of collection, the processing facility to which
materials will be taken, and expected markets for recycled materials or costs of disposing
nonmarketable recyclable materials.
3 RCW 70.95.090(3)(c)
4 RCW 70.95.090(3)(d)
Page 185 of 402
Page 7 of 29
4.UTC Cost Assessment Review
4.1. The Internal Process
State law requires local governments to submit preliminary draft SWMPs to Ecology for review.5 The
commission reviews plan assessments of the impact solid waste collection costs will have on rates
charged by solid waste collection companies regulated under 81.77 RCW. Commission staff must
complete the review within 45 days of receiving the plan from Ecology.6
When the UTC receives a draft plan for review, staff assigns a docket number and schedules it for an
open meeting. Once review is complete and the commission has acknowledged the staff
recommendations, the review letter is sent to the local government and Ecology.
If UTC cannot make a cost assessment because of missing, imprecise, or unclear information, UTC staff
will first contact the local government planner or, if necessary, the Ecology reviewer for clarification. If
the local government planner or Ecology reviewer clarifies the information, the commission reviewer
will make an assessment. If the commission reviewer still cannot make a cost assessment, the
commission will state so in its review letter.
5.Solid Waste Cost Assessment Questionnaire
While the UTC prefers the local government submit information in the provided format, RCW 70.95.090
does not mandate the use of this questionnaire. The local government may provide the requested
information in any format it chooses, but it is mandatory that a cost assessment is prepared. Complete
and accurate responses will facilitate a quality cost assessment. If the local government does not have
the information or does not know the answer, explaining that this information is unavailable is an
acceptable response and allows the reviewer to understand areas that call for closer analysis and study.
Each major section of the questionnaire concludes with a subsection titled “References and
Assumptions” that allows the local government a place to note sources and references the UTC should
know about in preparing the cost assessment. In these sections, the county or city should also report
any assumptions made while compiling questionnaire responses.
Once the cost assessment is complete, it may be included with the SWMP as a separate section or an
appendix.
5 RCW 70.95.094
6 RCW 70.95.096
Page 186 of 402
Page 8 of 29
COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
General Information
Plan prepared for the County of Franklin
Plan prepared for the City of N/A
Prepared by Wendy Mifflin, Herrera Environmental Consultants
Contact telephone 509-929-3868
Contact email wmifflin@herrerainc.com
Date December 1, 2025
Years
Throughout this document:
Year 1 (Base Year) shall refer to 2026
Year 2 shall refer to 2027
Year 3 shall refer to 2028
Year 4 shall refer to 2029
Year 5 shall refer to 2030
Year 6 shall refer to 2031
Each year shall refer to (check one):
♦Calendar year January 1 – December 31
Fiscal year Such as July 1 – June 30
Page 187 of 402
Page 9 of 29
1.Demographics
1.1. Population
1.1.1. Provide the total population of your County (excluding cities choosing to develop their
own SWMP) for the base year and each of the following five years.
Table 1.1.1.a.
Year 1 107,592
Year 2 109,420
Year 3 111,251
Year 4 113,080
Year 5 114,907
Year 6 116,690
1.2. References and Assumptions
These population estimates are from the Washington State Office of Financial Management, Growth
Management Act Supplemental Projections of the Total Residential Population for Growth Management
2022 GMA Projections – Middle Series
2.Waste Stream Generation
Provide the information below related to solid waste and recycling. Disposal refers to those tons
disposed of at a landfill, incinerator, transfer station, or any other form of disposal you may be using. If
other, please identify.
2.1. Tonnage of Solid Waste Disposed
2.1.1. Provide the total tonnage of solid waste disposed of in the base year and each of the
following five years.
Table 2.1.1.a.
Year 1 154,766
Year 2 161,275
Page 188 of 402
Page 10 of 29
Year 3 166,759
Year 4 169,501
Year 5 172,239
Year 6 174,912
2.2. Tonnage of Recyclable Materials with a Market 7
2.2.1. Provide the tonnage of recyclable materials recycled in the base year and each of the
following five years.
Table 2.2.1.a.
Year 1 45,488
Year 2 46,261
Year 3 47,035
Year 4 47,808
Year 5 48,580
Year 6 49,334
2.3. Tonnage of Recyclable Materials without a Market
2.3.1. Provide the tonnage of recyclable materials disposed of in the base year and each of the
following five years.
Table 2.2.1.a.
Year 1 0
Year 2 0
Year 3 0
Year 4 0
7 RCW 70.95.090(7)(c)
Page 189 of 402
Page 11 of 29
Year 5 0
Year 6 0
2.4. References and Assumptions
These figures are based on recycling dropped off at the Lewis County Central Transfer Station and the
East Lewis County Transfer Station in 2022 (assume a 0.6% annual increase for solid waste and a 2%
annual increase for recycling based on data from additional years). The recyclable materials with a
market include cardboard, glass and scrap metal. The recyclable material without a market is
commingled.
3. Collection Programs
3.1. Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs
Provide information for each UTC-regulated solid waste collection company operating in your
jurisdiction for the base year and each of the following five years.
Table 3.1.a.
Basin Disposal, Inc. UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #G-118
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential #
of customers
Tonnage
collected
Commercial #
of customers
Tonnage
collected
3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140 3,140
560 560 560 560 560 560
4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840 4,840
13,620 13,620 13,620 13,620 13,620 13,620
Page 190 of 402
Page 12 of 29
Table 3.1.b.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential/Commercial
# of customers
Tonnage collected
Table 3.1.c.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
Commercial
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
3.2. Cost & Funding for Solid Waste Programs
Provide information for solid waste programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include
costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Table 3.2.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Funding Page #
Page 191 of 402
Page 13 of 29
Cost for funding Solid
Waste Programs is included
in curbside fees approved
by WUTC and City Contracts N/A N/A
Table 3.2.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
3.3. References and Assumptions
These are actual costs from the 2022 Solid Waste Utility budget for both operational and
export/disposal costs.
4.Waste Reduction (Recycling and Organics)
4.1. Recycling
4.1.1. Regulated Recycling Collection Programs8
8 RCW 70.95.090(7)(c)
Page 192 of 402
Page 14 of 29
Provide information for each UTC-regulated recycling company operating in your jurisdiction for the
base year and each of the following five years.
Table 4.1.1.a.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name Basin Disposal, Inc.
G-Certificate #G-118
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential/Commercial
# of customers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tonnage collected 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 4.1.1.b.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
Commercial
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
Table 4.1.1.c.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Page 193 of 402
Page 15 of 29
Residential
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
Commercial
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
4.1.2. Recyclable Materials
Provide a list of recyclable materials to be collected in accordance with the SWMP. For each item,
indicate if there is an active market and if the revenues exceed the cost of processing.
* Recyclables collected through drop-box sites.
Table 4.1.2.a.
Recyclable Material Active Market Revenues > Processing Costs
Cardboard X Yes No X Yes ΔNo
Paper X Yes No X Yes ΔNo
Aluminum X Yes No X Yes Δ No
Scrap Metal X Yes No X Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Page 194 of 402
Page 16 of 29
4.1.3. Costs & Funding for Recycling
Provide information for recycling programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include costs
and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Table 4.1.3.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Page #
Recycling N/A
Funding
Collection
Table 4.1.3.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
4.2. Other Waste Reduction Programs (Organics, such as Yard Waste and Food Waste)
4.2.1. Regulated Organics Collection Programs
Provide information for each UTC-regulated company collecting organics operating in your jurisdiction
for the base year and each of the following five years.
Chapter 3
Page 195 of 402
Page 17 of 29
Table 4.2.1.a.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name N/A - No Organics Collection Implemented
G-Certificate #
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential/Commercial
# of customers
Tonnage collected
Table 4.2.1.b.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Residential
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
Commercial
# of customers
Tonnage
collected
4.2.2. Costs & Funding for Organics Collection Programs
Provide information for programs for collecting organics that have been implemented and/or proposed.
Include costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide
the page number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Page 196 of 402
Page 18 of 29
Table 4.2.2.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Funding Page #
Organics Collection N/A Curbside Fee
Chapter
4,
Organics
Table 4.2.2.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
4.3. References and Assumptions
The costs and funding for recycling includes outreach/education related to organics as well. The costs
for hauling recycling commodities and yard waste material are within the operations program.
5. Disposal
5.1. Energy Recovery & Incineration (ER&I) Disposal Programs
5.1.1. ER&I Facilities:
Page 197 of 402
Page 19 of 29
Table 5.1.1.a.
Facility Facility
Name N/A
Location
Owner
Operator
5.1.2. Amount Landfilled
For each facility, provide the estimated amount of ash or materials that cannot be processed for the
base year and each of the following five years.
Table 5.1.2.a.
Facility
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
5.1.3. Costs & Funding for ER&I Programs
Provide information for ER&I programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include costs and
proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page number
in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Table 5.1.3.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Funding Page #
Page 198 of 402
Page 20 of 29
Table 5.1.3.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
5.1.4. Ash Disposal Expense
Provide the expected costs ash disposal.
Table 5.1.4.a.
Amount of Ash Cost
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
5.2. Land Disposal Program
Page 199 of 402
Page 21 of 29
5.2.1. Land Disposal Facilities
Provide the following information for each land disposal facility in your jurisdiction that receives garbage
or refuse generated in the county.
Table 5.2.1.a.
Facility Facility
Name N/A
Location
Owner
Operator
5.2.2. Regulated Disposal
Provide the tonnage disposed of at each facility by UTC-regulated haulers.
Table 5.2.2.a.
Facility
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
5.2.3. Non-Regulated Disposal
Provide the tonnage disposed of at each facility by other (non-regulated) haulers and other contributors.
Table 5.2.3.a.
Facility
Page 200 of 402
Page 22 of 29
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
5.2.4. Costs & Funding for ER&I Programs
Provide information for land disposal programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include
costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Table 5.2.4.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Funding Page #
Table 5.2.4.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
Page 201 of 402
Page 23 of 29
5.3. References and Assumptions
6.Administration Program
6.1. Costs & Funding for Administration Programs
Provide information for administration programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include
costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Table 6.1.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Page #
Administration $302,169
Funding
Grants Chapter
10
Table 6.1.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
Page 202 of 402
Page 24 of 29
6.2. References and Assumptions
7.Other Programs
7.1. Programs
For each program in effect or planned that does not readily fall into one of the previously described
categories please fill in the following table.
Table 7.1.a.
Program N/A
Page #
Owner/Operator
UTC Regulations Yes No Yes No Yes No
Anticipated Yearly
Costs
7.1.1. UTC Regulation Involvement
If UTC regulation is involved, please explain the extent of involvement.
7.2. Costs & Assumptions of Other Programs
Provide information for other programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include costs
and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Table 7.2.a.
Implemented
Program Cost Funding Page #
Page 203 of 402
Table 7.2.b.
Proposed
Program Cost Funding Page #
7.3. References and Assumptions
Costs were drawn from the 2024 Solid Waste Division budget and Basin Disposal 2024 revenues.
8. Funding Mechanisms
This section relates specifically to the funding mechanisms currently in use and the ones that will be
implemented to incorporate the recommended programs in the draft plan. Because the way a program
is funded directly relates to the costs a resident or commercial customer will have to pay, this section
is crucial to the cost assessment process. Please fill in each of the following tables.
Page 25 of 29
Page 204 of 402
8.1. Facility Inventory
Table 8.1.a.
Facility Inventory
Facility Name Type of Facility Tip Fee per Ton Transfer Cost Transfer Station
Location
Final Disposal
Location
Total Tons
Disposed
Total Revenue
Generated (Tip
Fee x Tons)
Pasco Transfer
Station
Transfer
Station $80 N/A Pasco, WA Finley Buttes
Landfill 36,260 (2024) $2,900,800
Pasco Transfer
Station Transfer
Station $59.53 N/A Pasco, WA Finley Buttes 106,700 (2024)
Landfaill
$6,351,851
contract rate
public rate
Pa
g
e
2
0
5
o
f
4
0
2
Page 27 of 29
8.2. Tip Fee Component
Table 8.2.a.
Tip Fee Components
Tip Fee by
Facility
Surcharge City Tax County Tax Transportation
Cost
Operational Cost Administration
Cost
Closure Costs
Pasco Transfer
Station N/A N/A N/A
Pa
g
e
2
0
6
o
f
4
0
2
Page 28 of 29
8.3. Tip Fee Forecast
Table 8.3.a.
Tip Fee Forecast
Tip Fee per Ton by Facility Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Pasco Transfer
Station $80 $ $ $ $ $
$59.74 $6$ $$ $
80 80
Pasco TransferStation
808080
Pa
g
e
2
0
7
o
f
4
0
2
8.4. References and Assumptions
Please provide any support for the information you have provided. An annual budget or similar
document would be helpful.
8.5. Surplus Funds
Provide information about any surplus or saved funds that may support your operations.
There are no reserve funds available.
Page 208 of 402
Appendix H
Regulatory and Stakeholder Comments
Page 209 of 402
The contents of this appendix will be provided
in a subsequent draft.
Page 210 of 402
Franklin County
Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan Update
City of PascoCouncil Meeting
January 20, 2026
Pa
g
e
2
1
1
o
f
4
0
2
Regulatory Background
v RCW 70A.205 requires local government to maintain current solid waste
management plans. Plans must be reviewed and revised every five years.
v Franklin County and the City of Pasco executed an Interlocal Agreement in 2025
to cooperatively prepare a Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
v Franklin County established a Solid Waste Advisory Committee to assist with
updating the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
v SWMP review by Washington State Departments of Ecology and Agriculture and
WUTC.
v Adoption by participating Cities and Towns and Franklin County.
Pa
g
e
2
1
2
o
f
4
0
2
Implement
and
Maintain
SWMP
Initiate SWMP
revision
Create SWMP
mission and
vision
Stakeholder
Engagement
and develop
preliminary
draft Plan
Begin public
comment
period &
Ecology
review
Review public
and Ecology
comments
Respond to
Ecology
comments
Re-submit to
Ecology, if
needed
County and
Cities adopt
Plan;
Final Ecology
Approval
Franklin County SWMP Development Process
July 2025
July 2025 –
November 2025
December 2025
April 2026
Steps Involving SWAC
Pa
g
e
2
1
3
o
f
4
0
2
Mission Statement
The Mission Statement for the Franklin County Solid
Waste and Hazardous Waste Management Plan is:
“Franklin County and participating jurisdictions ensure that
the citizens continue to have efficient and effective solid
waste collection, handling, recycling, and disposal services
with stable rates as low as reasonably possible, while
protecting and preserving human health, environmental
quality, and natural resources.”
Pa
g
e
2
1
4
o
f
4
0
2
Goals of the SWMP
In summary, the draft goals for the Plan are as follows:
Infrastructure and System - Flexible and adaptable, properly managed, cost
effective and provide recycling opportunities.
Economic Sustainability – Waste is managed as a resource and the system
has a sustainable funding mechanism.
Education – People and businesses make responsible choices about
consumption, waste generation and disposal.
Outside Influences – Promote product stewardship programs and regulatory
changes that increase recycling and diversion opportunities that meet the needs
of Franklin County citizens.
Pa
g
e
2
1
5
o
f
4
0
2
SWMP Strategy Highlights
•Waste prevention, reduction and recycling are continuing priorities
through harmonization and promotion of education and outreach
initiatives, working cooperatively with municipal and private
partners.
•Evaluation, system enhancements, and compliance for recyclables,
moderate risk waste, and organics to enhance citizen
environmental safety while meeting new regulatory requirements
implemented at the State level.
•Continued proper collection, handling and disposal of municipal
solid waste.
Pa
g
e
2
1
6
o
f
4
0
2
Next Steps
Regulatory Review and Comment: Dec 2025 – April 2026
City and County Plan Adoption: May 2026 – July 2026
Final Ecology Review: August 2026
Pa
g
e
2
1
7
o
f
4
0
2
Questions?Pa
g
e
2
1
8
o
f
4
0
2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council December 18, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 1/12/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Hills Rocky for Ordinance - Judicial Quasi of Introduction Item
Management LP "Wilson Estates" Rezone from R-T to R-1 (Z2025-009)
(5 minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance
Exhibit A Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Exhibit B
Exhibit C Public Comments
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Informational Presentation
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background – How Quasi-Judicial Decisions Are Handled in Pasco:
Staff typically does not hold workshops with City Council on quasi-judicial items
before the decision meeting. This is because quasi-judicial matters are formally
reviewed and developed through a public hearing process conducted by the
Hearing Examiner, rather than through Council discussion. However, because
there are several new Councilmembers, staff is proposing this workshop to
explain what a quasi-judicial action is, how the process works, and what
Council’s role is under Pasco’s procedures and state law.
A quasi-judicial action is a land use decision that applies existing laws and
policies to a specific property or application. These decisions require a public
hearing before the Hearing Examiner. After the public hearing, the Hearing
Examiner prepares a written recommendation to the City Council pursuant to
Page 219 of 402
PMC 25.210.060(2). This recommendation includes formal findings of fact and
conclusions of law and is based entirely on the record created during the
hearing process.
Once the Hearing Examiner issues a recommendation, and until the City
Council makes a final decision, Councilmembers are prohibited from engaging
in ex parte communications. Ex parte communication means having
other or neighbors, applicant, the the proposal about discussions with
interested parties outside of the official hearing record. During this time,
Council must base its decision only on the materials included in the Council
packet.
The official record is created by the Hearing Examiner and includes the
application staff and report the applicant, the by submitted materials
recommendation, and all public testimony provided either verbally at the public
hearing or in writing before or during that hearing. Council may not consider
information that is not part of this established record.
For controversial land use proposals, members of the public may try to contact
Councilmembers directly to share concerns or request assistance. While this is
understandable, Councilmembers should not respond or engage in discussion
about the proposal. Doing so could be considered ex parte communication and
may require the Councilmember to recuse themselves from participating in the
decision. If a Councilmember is unsure how to handle a contact related to a
land use application, they should contact the City Manager, City Attorney,
and/or the Community & Economic Development Director for guidance.
After the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation is issued, there is a ten (10)
calendar-day appeal period. During this time, the applicant or affected property
owners may file an appeal. If no appeal is filed, the City Council may, by
majority vote, decide whether additional review is necessary.
If an appeal is filed, or if the City Council determines by majority vote that
further review is needed, the matter must be considered at a closed record
hearing. A minimum of fourteen (14) days’ notice is required before this
hearing. A closed record hearing is limited in scope. No new evidence or
testimony provided previously individuals who introduced. be may Only
testimony or submitted written comments during the Hearing Examiner hearing
may participate, and their comments must be limited to summarizing
information already in the record.
At the conclusion of the closed record hearing, the City Council must enter
findings of fact and take one of the following actions:
• Approve the reclassification, with or without modification
• Enter into a concomitant agreement with the petitioner, as provided in PMC
Page 220 of 402
25.210.100
• Deny the reclassification
Staff welcomes clarifying questions related to the application or to the quasi-
judicial process itself. However, Councilmembers should not indicate how they
may vote on the application or express political opinions about the proposal at
this time. Any deliberation or discussion of Councilmember positions must
occur at the decision meeting after the public hearing has concluded and the
record has been closed.
City staff and the City Attorney are available to assist Council with these
complex land use matters and will be present during meetings to provide
guidance and help ensure the proper process is followed.
Background:
In September 2020, the City adopted a Non-Project EIS for its Comprehensive
Plan that expanded the Urban Growth Area using Alternative 3, which
emphasized higher-density development through limited UGA expansion and
increased infill and redevelopment. The subject site was outside the UGA prior
to this action but was annexed into the City in May 2022 and later zoned R-T in
February agricultural for used has been the Historically, 2023. property
purposes since at least 1985.
On September 26, 2025, Big Sky North, LLC, with written authorization from
Rocky Hills Management LP, submitted an application to rezone Parcel No.
115180030.
Public notice was mailed on October 22, 2025, to property owners within 300
feet of the proposed site and published in the Herald on October 26, 2025.
Following this notice, the proposal drew significant attention from neighboring
properties, which provided verbal public comment at the hearing and in writing
prior to the hearing. These comments are labeled “Exhibit C” and are provided
below.
On November 12, 2025, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing to
review the request to rezone the parcel from R-T to R-1, as illustrated on the
proposed map zoning (Exhibit B). In accordance with PMC Subsection
25.210.060(2), the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone on
November 26, 2025, finding it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
forwarded the recommendation to the City Council for final consideration.
It is worth noting that on November 13, 2025, under Auditor File No. 2005941,
the original 156-acre parcel was divided into two parcels through a north–south
split. Parcel 1 (the southern parcel) is approximately 51.28 acres in size, and
Parcel 2 (the northern parcel) is approximately 104.74 acres.
Page 221 of 402
Recent communication with the Franklin County Assessor’s Office indicates
that the new parcels will not be formally created in the assessment records
until after the new year. Should this occur prior to the anticipated City Council
meeting on January 20, 2026, the Ordinance will be updated accordingly to
reflect the current legal description and parcel numbers.
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North: R-T Residential Transition/Agricultural
East: RR-5 Franklin County- (Rural Residential)/Single Family Homes
South: RS-20/R-1 Franklin County- (Suburban)/Single Family Homes/Low
Density Residential/Agricultural/Irrigation Pond
West: RS-40 Franklin County- (RS-40)/Single Family Homes
Impact (other than fiscal):
The rezone application is non-project in nature and establishes a framework for
future residential development consistent with the City’s long-range planning
objectives. The proposed zoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan and
supports are they where utilities the of extension future currently City
unavailable. Any future development will be subject to project-level review for
compliance and potential mitigation.
V. DISCUSSION:
Conclusion & Recommendation:
Staff and the Hearing Examiner find that the requested rezoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal supports orderly growth, aligns
with long-term development objectives, and provides a framework for future
residential development while ensuring that any future projects will be reviewed
for compliance and potential mitigation.
Accordingly, both Staff and the Hearing Examiner recommend that the City
Council approve the requested rezones through the associated Ordinance.
Constraints (Time or other considerations):
While the PMC Title 25 Zoning does not specify a time frame for processing
applications, Title 4, which is applicable to Title 25, provides that “the Director
shall issue a notice of final decision on a project permit application within 120
days The is application the complete.” applicant the notifying after that
applicant was issued a Notice of Complete Application on October 9, 2025.
Although respectfully the statutory deadline has not yet arrived, staff
recommends that the City Council proceed with a timely review and processing
of the application to ensure orderly consideration and to serve the best
interests of the community.
Page 222 of 402
Staff Analysis & Hearing Examiner Findings:
Following the conclusion of an open record hearing on the properties rezone
petition, the Hearing Examiner shall issue findings and conclusions based on
the record, pursuant to PMC Subsection 25.210.060(1)(a) through (e), applying
the initial review criteria set forth in PMC Section 25.210.030. The findings and
conclusions are as follows:
(a) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential. The
requested zoning is consistent with this designation and supports policies
promoting and City of infrastructure, future the development, extension
balanced residential growth.
(b) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be materially
detrimental
The proposed zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. While
existing surrounding development patterns differ from the minimum lot sizes
allowed in the requested zone, the density remains within the range of 3 to 6
dwelling units per acre, consistent with city standards. Future development will
be required to comply with City regulations for buffering, traffic, and setbacks,
ensuring that potential impacts are minimized.
(c) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole
Applying zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan creates opportunities
for housing development, supports the efficient extension of infrastructure, and
promotes balanced growth. The proposal advances the City’s long-term goals.
(d) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal
No conditions are necessary as part of this rezone request. The application, as
well as any future development, will be subject to the applicable provisions of
the Design Standards. Construction and Pasco City the and PMC of
Subsequent project actions, including Preliminary Plat review, SEPA, and TIA
evaluation, will assess potential significant adverse impacts. Accordingly, the
imposition of conditions at this stage is not warranted.
(e) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and, if so, the terms and condition of such an agreement
A concomitant agreement is not necessary for this proposal. The requested
rezoning complies with all applicable City standards and requirements without
the need for additional terms or conditions beyond those already provided in
the no PMC and adopted development regulations. Accordingly, further
conditions or commitments are warranted through a concomitant agreement.
Page 223 of 402
Next Steps:
If the Ordinance is adopted, the City Clerk’s Office will record it with the
Franklin County Auditor, and staff will issue a Notice of Decision to all affected
parties.
Alternatives:
In accordance with PMC Section 25.210.080, if the City Council determines by
majority vote that further review is warranted, a closed record hearing is
required, and at least 14 days’ notice shall be given prior to the hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Council may approve the reclassification with or
without modifications, enter into a concomitant agreement with the petitioner,
or deny the reclassification. The Council may adopt the Hearing Examiner’s
findings and conclusions or formulate alternative findings to support its decision
to approve, modify, or deny the application.
Page 224 of 402
Ordinance Rezone Z 2025-009 - 1
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
Attn: City Clerk
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF BURNS ROAD, WEST OF BROADMOOR
BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF FUTURE DENT ROAD, AND EAST OF FUTURE
DENT/FRASER ROAD IN PASCO, FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
FROM R-T (RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION) TO R-1 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, Big Sky North, LLC, the petitioner seeks to rezone Parcel No. 115180030,
located north of Burns Road, west of Broadmoor Boulevard, south of future Dent Road, and east
of future Dent/Fraser Road in, Pasco, Washington; and
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification meeting
the requirements of Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Section 25.210.030 was received by the City of
Pasco (City) and, after notice was issued under PMC Section 25.210.040, an open record hearing
was conducted by the Pasco Hearing Examiner upon such petition on November 12, 2025; and
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner that: (a)
the proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (b) the
effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity is not materially detrimental; (c) there is merit and
value in the proposal for the community as a whole; (d) any impacts of the rezone application and
anticipated development will be mitigated by the regulations and requirements of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the City of Pasco Design and Constructions Standards; (e) a concomitant
agreement is not required under these circumstances; and (f) the proposal is consistent with and
satisfies all criteria in PMC Section 25.210.060; the Hearing Examiner has recommended to
approve the rezone, which findings and recommendation are hereby adopted by the City Council,
and the Hearing Examiner Report is hereby incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.
Page 225 of 402
Ordinance Rezone Z 2025-009 - 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the
Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from
R-T (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) for the real property as shown in
the Exhibit B attached hereto and described as follows:
Short Plat 2009-16 Lot 2
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this ordinance should be held to the invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase or word of this ordinance.
Section 3. Corrections. Upon approval by the city attorney, the city clerk or the code
reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including scrivener’s errors
or clerical mistakes; reference to other local, state, or federal laws, rules, or regulations; or
numbering or referencing of ordinances or their sections and subsections.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days
after approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of January,
2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 226 of 402
Exhibit "A"
Page 227 of 402
Page 228 of 402
Page 229 of 402
Page 230 of 402
Page 231 of 402
Page 232 of 402
Page 233 of 402
"Exhibit B"Applicant(s):Big Sky North,LLC
File #2 22025-009
a’
Item:Rocky Hills Management LP "Wilson Estates"Rezone R-T to R-l A
,SITE_'
<1-270 530 1,100 1,600 2,10 M“
Q g
CI:_:I Esri‘Mam Earh—sm 1’
‘n,_J._1,_,a'gmwvHM"County
‘
‘m ”I Assessor and G15FeetE9»
Pa
g
e
2
3
4
o
f
4
0
2
PUBLIC HEARING Z2025-009 COMMENTS FORWARDED 11/12/25
NAME EMAIL RECEIVED EMAIL FORWARDED COMMENT
ADRIAN & JOANNE PEREZ 11/12/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
KC GARZA 11/12/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
OMAR GARZA 11/3/2025; 11/10/25; 11/12/25 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
STEPHEN & CONNIE COALE 11/9/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
CARLOS TOSCANO 11/9/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
TIFFANY ALVISO 11/9/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
JEFF PITTMAN 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
RAY & JESSICA BERNSEN 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
ZENADO & MEAGAN MARTINEZ 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
STEPHANIE CORIA 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
DORA MARTINEZ 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
ANDREW CORIA 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
ZENAIDO MARTINEZ JR 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
STEPHEN MARTINEZ 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
RAYNALDO GARZA 11/10/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
DAVID BARBER 11/11/2025; 11/12/25 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
AARON FABRE 11/12/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
BRETT BROWN 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
BRAD MASON 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
ANGELINE PENA 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
SANDRA SEGER 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
STEPHEN & BELINDA MATTHEWS 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
TERRY & BARBARA FOWLER 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
RANDY HULLINGER 11/11/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
HARRY & SHERYL MARCH 11/5/2025 11/12/2025 OPPOSED
WHITNEY HOTTELL & BRAD BACHUS 10/29/2025 OPPOSED
Exhibit "C"
Page 235 of 402
SEPA comment for SEPA2025-030 Wilson Estates Subdivision
• Subject: SEPA comments for Wilson Estates Subdivision (SEPA2025-030, PP2025-
004, Z2025-009)
• To: City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department
attn. Ivan Barragan
• From: Aaron Fabre, owner of 11413 Easton Dr, Pasco, WA 99301
o Aaroboy21@hotmail.com
o (725) 777-8021
• Date: October 28th 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and voice my concerns on the SEPA
determination for the Wilson Estates Subdivision. The city of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan
is to reflect the community’s vision of the future, and the city of Pasco’s Planning
Department vision is to help create a sustainable, functional, and aesthetically pleasing
community through thoughtful planning. I do not believe the proposed subdivision reflects
the vision of the city of Pasco and I oppose the current plans.
The proposed Wilson Estates Subdivision brings numerous concerns and questions
regarding the environmental impact, maintaining the current identity of the surrounding
neighborhoods, and short and long-term safety and livability of the planned project and
surrounding neighborhoods. This project could negatively affect the quality of life for
residents in the neighboring single-family homes, impacting their property values, privacy,
and ability to enjoy their outdoor spaces.
Proposed Mitigation/Action
Requesting a Full Environmental Impact statement prior to approval.
Proposed zoning reconsidered from R1 Low Density Residential to RS1, RS12, or RS20
suburban to maintain the surrounding neighborhoods in lot sizes and continue with
residential development with large lots and expansive yards.
Page 236 of 402
Specific Concerns
EARTH
Concerns of erosion issues and flooding during clearing, construction, and completed
proposed plan. Are there proposed measures to prevent erosion during all stages of
development?
This proposed project will add impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and
buildings. This will add significant wastewater runoff, and the added urban heat effect will
raise surrounding temperatures. With less land, grass, crops, and native plants it will
disrupt the current carbon footprint.
There are already low spots on the south end of the proposed projects where flooding
occurs during rain and snow. What measures will be taken to prevent this from being
escalated during the land clearing?
AIR
Concerns of emissions from construction equipment and dust air pollution.
With 900 houses, come 900+ cars. What will be done to help with the pollution?
What measures will be in effect to control emissions or impacts on air quality?
WATER
Concerns about the Irrigation water demand – The current irrigation company Big Sky
Irrigation has had a hard time maintaining water supply with the current summer water
demand. In the past two years there have been shutdowns/issues on 4/9, 4/15, and 4/17 in
2025. 4/2, 4/22, and 5/11 in 2024. And two major mid-summer shutdowns in previous July
of 2022 and 2023.
What is the proposed Storm Water runoff method of collection? Will the southern sloped
plans direct waterflow into Archer estates northern properties septic drainage areas? Will
storm drains be installed to prevent this flooding?
This plan alters current drainage patterns of the site reducing ground water absorption.
There is already significant flooding prior to the added runoff from paved streets and
structures.
Concerns of groundwater runoff for the properties with well water zoned RR5 to the east of
the proposed project.
Page 237 of 402
PLANTS
Current permanent crops – Corn, Potatoes, varieties of Field Grass
What is the proposed plan to preserve or enhance the vegetation and maintain the positive
carbon impact?
ANIMALS
Birds – Canadian Geese and Snow Geese annually use this field as a winter and spring
migration route stop.
Numerous species of Hawks, Quail, Sparrow, Starling, Hummingbirds, Finches, Killdeer,
Doves, Robins, Heron, Woodpeckers, Owls, Crows, Seagulls, Pelicans all have been
observed on this land.
Mammals – Deer, Coyotes, Racoon, Skunk, Porcupine
Other animals - Snakes, Lizards, Opossums, Squirrels
Concern of the added road traffic and loss of habitat. In the month of October there were
deer, racoon, and skunk hit by vehicles on Burns and Dent.
What are the proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife?
Concerns that invasive species including moles/voles and mice will relocate into our large
grass lots when they lose their habitat.
ENVIROMENTAL
Numerous years of agricultural use of chemicals/fertilizers in the ground will get kicked up
as dust or wastewater runoff.
Noise – A proposed 10 years construction plan will create ongoing noise in the surrounding
communities from construction equipment and construction traffic. What are the planned
hours of noise disruption that will come from the proposed plan?
Are there proposed measures to reduce noise impacts?
HOUSING
The current plan has 873 homes on 1/10 of an acre lots as small as 4,000 sq ft (avg. size
5,118sq ft.). Surrounding neighborhoods on all developed sides are all county zoned RS-20,
RS40, RR5 and RC1 which range from half acre lots, acre lots, and larger. (21,000+ sq ft
lots). To the north long term Agricultural Land. The proposed planned lot sizes are
significantly smaller than the surrounding neighborhoods. To maintain with the
Page 238 of 402
surrounding neighborhoods attributes, lot sizes should be more comparable in size and
continue with residential development with large lots and expansive yards.
AESTHETICS
Views of the expansive land and hills to the north will be obstructed.
What is the proposed plan and who will maintain the “alleyway/easements” between the
proposed development and the already established northern properties of Archer estates?
LIGHT/GLARE
Concerns of light pollution with so many houses, and proposed streetlights. Many of the
surrounding neighborhoods are without streetlights or have limited street lighting.
RECREATION
A 2-acre park is not adequate for the size of the proposed housing project.
Proximity example of Kohler Estates 2 – it has a 7-acre park for 52 housing lots.
Possibility of incorporating a much larger area designated for community parks, dog parks,
walking trails, or other recreational activities.
TRANSPORTATION
Currently, there is no public transportation or bus routes for the proposed plan.
Dent Rd is not designed for pedestrian walkability or bicycling. There are no sidewalks, the
road shoulders are slanted and difficult to walk on, and there is no lighting. Adding so many
homes and added traffic puts pedestrians in danger, especially any school children that
would be using the roadways to walk home.
The added traffic to the area creates increased risk to the hilled intersection of Burns and
Dent, especially during winter conditions. There is a need for added traffic signals and
crosswalks. Also, a need for a winter road plan especially for this dangerous intersection in
icy conditions.
How many added vehicular trips will be generated during the completed project? What will
be the peak volume times? What data or transportation models were used to make these
estimates?
Current easement between proposed development and current houses in Archer estates is
used for movement of agricultural products and as a community walking/biking trail. This
easement should not be used for construction traffic.
Page 239 of 402
PUBLIC SERVICES
Added Police and Fire protection needed, adding public transportation. Current local
schools are already at capacity for elementary, middle, and High school.
What are the proposed measures to address the impacts on public services?
UTILITIES
Will this development have any effect on current septic systems in surrounding
developments?
What are the proposed services for electricity, natural gas, water, irrigation, refuse services,
telephone, sanitary sewer, and surrounding septic systems?
The city of Pasco continues to grow and build a strong community. The proposed Wilson
Estates Subdivision does not appear to have taken into consideration all the environmental
impacts or current communities that surround the land. Squeezing in as many houses on
small lots as city codes will allow instead of maintaining the distinct character of the
community seemingly goes against the City of Pasco’s Planning Department values. I
strongly oppose this current proposal.
Thank you for taking time to review and address my concerns.
Aaron Fabre
11413 Easton Drive
Pasco, WA 999301
Aaroboy21@hotmail.com
725-777-8021
Page 240 of 402
1
Ivan Barragan
From:Brad Backus <brad@franklincountyirrigation.com>
Sent:Friday, October 10, 2025 10:18 AM
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:RE: Notice of Application-PP2025-004/SEPA2025-030 Wilson Estates Subdivision & Z2025-009 - City
of Pasco
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Can you please continue to give me further information on this subdivision please
Brad Backus
Operations manager
Franklin County Irriagtion Distict
P.O. box 3907
Pasco Wa 99302
(509)547-3831
(509)545-1160 (fax)
Brad@franklincountyirrigation.com
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 4:43 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Notice of Application-PP2025-004/SEPA2025-030 Wilson Estates Subdivision & Z2025-009 - City of Pasco
All,
Please see the attached Preliminary Plat (PP2025-004), SEPA Checklist (SEPA2025-030), and Rezone
Application (Z2025-009) submitted on September 26, 2025, for the subdivision of 873 single-family
residential lots within the proposed R-1 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district. The property, currently
zoned R-T (Residential Transition) under Ordinance No. 4637, encompasses approximately 156 acres.
While the Rezone Application (Z2025-009) is exempt from SEPA, it is being reviewed concurrently with
the Preliminary Plat and this SEPA review. The proposed development consists of single-family detached
homes to be constructed in ten phases. Subdivision improvements will include mass grading,
construction of public roads, and installation of water, sewer, irrigation, communication, and power
infrastructure.
The project also includes multiple public pedestrian pathways to enhance walkability within the
residential blocks and a two-acre park proposed to be maintained by the Homeowners Association
(HOA).
Page 241 of 402
2
The site is located on Parcel No. 115180030 in Pasco, WA 99301, generally north of Burns Road, west of
Broadmoor Boulevard, south of future Dent Road, and east of future Dent/Fraser Road. The proposal is
subject to the applicable regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code.
To reiterate, the Rezone Application (Z2025-009) is exempt from the SEPA process; however, it requires a
Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner and is ultimately a City Council decision.
All pertinent submitted materials can also be found in the SEPA Register.
Please submit comments for the proposed plat and SEPA submittal by 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2025. If
you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying by the public upon
request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 242 of 402
OpposiƟon LeƩer to New Development
SEPA COMMENT SUBMISSION COVER SHEET
Name: John and Kathy Mancinelli
Address: 11201 Mathews Rd., Pasco, WA 99301
Project Title: Wilson Estates Subdivision
File Numbers: PP2025-004 / SEPA2025-030 / Z2025-009
Submission Type: Formal OpposiƟon LeƩer
Summary of OpposiƟon:
I strongly oppose the proposed Wilson Estates Subdivision located north of Burns Road and
west of Broadmoor Boulevard. This development is incompaƟble with the exisƟng
neighborhood and will cause significant and lasƟng impacts including:
• Severe traffic congesƟon and safety hazards on Easton Drive, Burns Road, and Broadmoor
Boulevard.
• Increased flooding and drainage risks to exisƟng homes located downhill from the
development.
• Irreversible loss of neighborhood character and property value due to excessive housing
density.
• Prolonged construcƟon noise, dust, and disrupƟon over a 10-year period.
• Inadequate park space and environmental miƟgaƟon measures.
I respecƞully urge the City of Pasco to issue a DeterminaƟon of Significance (DS) and require a
full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before allowing this project to proceed in any form.
SubmiƩed by: Dr. John Mancinelli and Kathy Mancinelli
Date: October 29, 2025
This cover sheet accompanies a full SEPA opposiƟon leƩer submiƩed for the public record.
Dr. John Mancinelli
Date: October 29, 2025
To: City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department
AƩn: Ivan Barragan, Planner III
525 N. 3rd Avenue
Page 243 of 402
Pasco, WA 99301
Email: barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Subject: Strong OpposiƟon – Wilson Estates Subdivision (PP2025-004 /
SEPA2025-030 / Z2025-009)
Dear Mr. Barragan,
I am wriƟng as a new Pasco resident and property owner at 11201 Mathews Rd., which
borders the southern edge of the proposed Wilson Estates Subdivision. I am submiƫng this
leƩer to express my strong opposiƟon to this development proposal and to urge the City to
deny or substanƟally revise the project before allowing it to move forward. We purchased our house just
months ago with the appreciaƟon of the rural and quiet nature. The home has a very high assessed tax
rate ($110,000 above purchase price). We were willing to pay the high tax rate due to the beauty and
serene nature of the property.
This proposal — encompassing 873 homes on 156 acres — would dramaƟcally alter the
character, safety, and livability of our established community. The scale, density, and
environmental footprint of the project are incompaƟble with surrounding neighborhoods and
represent a significant threat to the quality of life for current residents.
1. Overwhelming Traffic and Road Safety Risks
The traffic impact of adding nearly 900 homes in this area will be severe and unsustainable.
Easton Drive, Burns Road, and Broadmoor Boulevard are already burdened with growing
conges on. This project will add thousands of daily vehicle trips with no corresponding roadway
infrastructure to handle them.
The City should not approve a development of this magnitude without first guaranteeing:
• Major capacity improvements and traffic signals on Burns, Easton, and Broadmoor.
• Safe pedestrian crossings and school zone protectons.
• Enforced phasing condiƟons tying each construcƟon phase to completed traffic miƟgaƟons.
Without these measures, this subdivision would place an unacceptable strain on local roads and
endanger residents, children, and bicyclists.
2. Drainage and Flooding Threats to Adjacent Homes
As a homeowner whose property sits directly downhill of the proposed subdivision, I am gravely
Page 244 of 402
concerned that stormwater runoff from paved streets, roofs, and compacted soils will divert
water toward exisƟng lots on Mathews Rd and Eaton Dr., causing erosion and flooding.
Unless the City can ensure—through independent hydrological studies—that runoff will be fully
contained on-site and maintained indefinitely, this proposal should not move forward.
3. Irreversible Harm to Neighborhood Character
Easton Drive and Mathews Rd. are composed of half-acre and one-acre residenƟal lots that
reflect the low-density rural transiƟon zoning under which we purchased our homes. Allowing a
high-density subdivision of 873 Ɵghtly packed lots would erase the established neighborhood
idenƟty, reduce privacy, and undermine the investments that exisƟng
residents have made in maintaining a peaceful community.
No amount of fencing or landscaping can adequately mitgate the stark difference between this
project’s density and the exisƟng neighborhood form.
4. Years of ConstrucƟon DisrupƟon
Ten planned construcƟon phases mean a decade or more of constant noise, dust, heavy
machinery, and truck traffic. Residents along Easton Drive and Mathews Rd. will bear the brunt of these
disrupƟons, enduring environmental and quality-of-life impacts for years without any benefit.
ConstrucƟon traffic should be strictly prohibited from using Easton Drive or connecƟng
neighborhood streets — and if that cannot be guaranteed, the proposal should be rejected
outright.
5. Environmental and Livability Concerns
The project site currently funcƟons as valuable open space and wildlife habitat. Replacing it
enƟrely with dense housing and asphalt will increase the urban heat effect, reduce groundwater
absorpƟon, and diminish local biodiversity.
The token two-acre park proposed is grossly inadequate for a development of nearly 900 homes
and does not serve as a meaningful environmental miƟgaƟon or community amenity.
6. IncompaƟbility with Pasco’s Long-Term Vision
This project reflects an outdated “mass subdivision” approach rather than the though ƞul,
sustainable growth Pasco residents expect. The community deserves beƩer than an overbuilt,
high-density subdivision that strains public infrastructure, erodes open space, and sacrifices the
Page 245 of 402
rural-suburban balance that makes north Pasco desirable.
Untl the City can demonstrate that adequate infrastructure, environmental protec Ɵon, and
community compaƟbiliƟes are guaranteed, the Wilson Estates Subdivision should be denied.
Conclusion
As a directly affected homeowner, I strongly oppose the approval of SEPA2025-030 and urge the
City of Pasco to issue a DeterminaƟon of Significance (DS) rather than a DeterminaƟon of Non-
Significance (DNS). The environmental, traffic, and community impacts of this proposal are
substanƟal and unavoidable and warrant a full Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
I request to be kept informed of all future acƟons, hearings, and determinaƟons regarding this
proposal.
Thank you for taking these concerns seriously and for standing with exisƟng residents to protect
the safety, livability, and integrity of our community.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Mancinelli and Kathy Mancinelli
11201 Mathews Rd.
Pasco, WA 99301
CC:
Pasco City Council – council@pasco-wa.gov
Pasco Planning Commission – planning@pasco-wa.gov
Page 246 of 402
1
Ivan Barragan
From:David Barber <dkba72@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 12:10 PM
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:Re: Z2025-009 Notice of Public Hearing - Rocky Hills Management LP "Wilson Estates" R-T to R-1
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Ivan,
When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. I have never seen such concentrated housing. I have also
never seen a lot size that is 4000 ft.².
It appears that this would be the smallest single housing lots in all of Pasco hugged right up against 0.5
acre and 1 acre lots.
Is this essentially a rubber stamp project that will be pushed through no matter what? Or, is there any
chance that city council decides to do .25 or .5 acre lots as it was originally zoned for?
Thank you,
David
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 11:56 AM Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:
Please find attached the Notice of Public Hearing, scheduled for November 12, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
This notice will also be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site today and
published in the Tri-City Herald on October 26, 2025, in accordance with Pasco Municipal Code
25.210.040.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I will also be preparing the staff
report, which is due one week prior to the hearing.
Thank you,
You don't often get email from dkba72@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Page 247 of 402
2
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
O: 509-544-4146
barragani@pasco-wa.gov | www.pasco-wa.gov
City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
To help protect your privacy, Micro soft Office
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office
To help protect your privacy, Micro soft Office
To help protect your privacy, Micro soft Office
This e-mail and any response to this e-mail may be a public record under Washington State Law and subject to inspection and copying by the public upon
request. Accordingly, there can be no expectation of privacy.
Page 248 of 402
1
Ivan Barragan
From:Jackie Ansotegui <jackieans@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 4:28 PM
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:Opposition to Wilson Estates Subdivision (PP2025-004 / SEPA2025-030 / Z2025-009)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Opposition
to Wilson Estates Subdivision (PP2025-004 / SEPA2025-030 / Z2025-009)
City of Pasco Community
& Economic Development Department
Attn: Ivan Barragan,
Planner III
525 N. 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Email:
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Dear Mr. Barragan,
We are writing
as a longtime Pasco residents and homeowners on Whetstone Drive, near the area where the Wilson Estates
Subdivision is being proposed. We strongly oppose this project in its current form and want to share why so many
of us in this neighborhood are deeply concerned.
You don't often get email from jackieans@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Page 249 of 402
2
Traffic, Traffic,
and More Traffic
The biggest issue
is traffic — plain and simple. We’re already dealing with major congestion from the 400+ apartments that have
been built (and more still going up). Adding nearly 900 more homes will make things unbearable. Burns Road,
Broadmoor, and Dent Rd can’t handle what
we have now, let alone thousands of new cars every day.
It’s already tough
to turn onto Burns safely, especially during peak hours. Kids ride bikes, families walk dogs, and people are out
jogging — this kind of added traffic puts everyone at risk. Before any new development of this size is approved, the
city needs to make real improvements:
- Additional traffic
lights and turn lanes on Burns and Dent. The work already done on Broadmoor is not sufficient to handle the
added traffic.
- Safe crosswalks
and speed control for pedestrians and school zones.
- Phased construction
tied to completed road upgrades, not promises for “later.”
Without those,
this project will overwhelm our streets and make daily driving downright dangerous.
Developer’s Responsibility
Page 250 of 402
3
and Zoning
The developer
purchased this property knowing exactly what the existing zoning was — low-density residential. Now they’re
trying to push through a massive rezone purely for profit, with no regard for the people who already live here.
Those of us who chose this area did
so because of its quiet, open, low-density feel. We value space, safety, and a slower pace of life. It feels unfair that
someone can come in, ignore that, and try to cash in by cramming in as many houses as possible without
considering the strain it puts on
the rest of us or the infrastructure that simply isn’t built for it.
Drainage and Flooding
Concerns
Those of us downhill
from this property have real worries about where all that stormwater will go once the land is covered with roads
and rooftops. We’ve already seen drainage issues in heavy rain. The city should require a full, independent study
before approving anything.
Neighborhood Character
This area was
designed as a low-density, family-friendly neighborhood. Jamming in 873 small lots changes everything — the
look, the feel, and the peace and quiet that drew us here in the first place. No amount of landscaping will make that
density blend in.
Many Years of
Construction Chaos
Ten phases of
construction means a decade of noise, dust, and truck traffic. Those of us living here shouldn’t have to deal with
that kind of disruption for years on end. At the very least, construction traffic should be kept off Easton Drive and
other existing residential
Page 251 of 402
4
roads.
A Two-Acre Park
Isn’t Enough
For nearly 900
homes, a two-acre park is barely a token gesture. Families here know how much open space matters — we need
realistic green areas that actually support the number of people moving in.
Final Thoughts
We are not against
growth, but this project is way out of scale for what the area can handle right now. It’s going to choke our roads,
change the character of our neighborhood, and make an already busy area nearly impossible to navigate.
We respectfully
ask the City to issue a Determination of Significance (DS) and require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
before letting this move forward.
We also ask city
leaders and the planning commission to prioritize the voices of the people who already live here — the families
who deal with this traffic every day — and protect the character and safety of our existing neighborhoods.
Thank you for
your time and attention to these concerns.
Page 252 of 402
5
Sincerely,
Darwin and Jackie
Ansotegui
6517 Whetstone Dr
Please confirm receipt of this email.
Page 253 of 402
OpposiƟon LeƩer to New Development
SEPA COMMENT SUBMISSION COVER SHEET
Name: John and Kathy Mancinelli
Address: 11201 Mathews Rd., Pasco, WA 99301
Project Title: Wilson Estates Subdivision
File Numbers: PP2025-004 / SEPA2025-030 / Z2025-009
Submission Type: Formal OpposiƟon LeƩer
Summary of OpposiƟon:
I strongly oppose the proposed Wilson Estates Subdivision located north of Burns Road and
west of Broadmoor Boulevard. This development is incompaƟble with the exisƟng
neighborhood and will cause significant and lasƟng impacts including:
• Severe traffic congesƟon and safety hazards on Easton Drive, Burns Road, and Broadmoor
Boulevard.
• Increased flooding and drainage risks to exisƟng homes located downhill from the
development.
• Irreversible loss of neighborhood character and property value due to excessive housing
density.
• Prolonged construcƟon noise, dust, and disrupƟon over a 10-year period.
• Inadequate park space and environmental miƟgaƟon measures.
I respecƞully urge the City of Pasco to issue a DeterminaƟon of Significance (DS) and require a
full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before allowing this project to proceed in any form.
SubmiƩed by: Dr. John Mancinelli and Kathy Mancinelli
Date: October 29, 2025
This cover sheet accompanies a full SEPA opposiƟon leƩer submiƩed for the public record.
Dr. John Mancinelli
Date: October 29, 2025
To: City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department
AƩn: Ivan Barragan, Planner III
525 N. 3rd Avenue
Page 254 of 402
Pasco, WA 99301
Email: barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Subject: Strong OpposiƟon – Wilson Estates Subdivision (PP2025-004 /
SEPA2025-030 / Z2025-009)
Dear Mr. Barragan,
I am wriƟng as a new Pasco resident and property owner at 11201 Mathews Rd., which
borders the southern edge of the proposed Wilson Estates Subdivision. I am submiƫng this
leƩer to express my strong opposiƟon to this development proposal and to urge the City to
deny or substanƟally revise the project before allowing it to move forward. We purchased our house just
months ago with the appreciaƟon of the rural and quiet nature. The home has a very high assessed tax
rate ($110,000 above purchase price). We were willing to pay the high tax rate due to the beauty and
serene nature of the property.
This proposal — encompassing 873 homes on 156 acres — would dramaƟcally alter the
character, safety, and livability of our established community. The scale, density, and
environmental footprint of the project are incompaƟble with surrounding neighborhoods and
represent a significant threat to the quality of life for current residents.
1. Overwhelming Traffic and Road Safety Risks
The traffic impact of adding nearly 900 homes in this area will be severe and unsustainable.
Easton Drive, Burns Road, and Broadmoor Boulevard are already burdened with growing
conges on. This project will add thousands of daily vehicle trips with no corresponding roadway
infrastructure to handle them.
The City should not approve a development of this magnitude without first guaranteeing:
• Major capacity improvements and traffic signals on Burns, Easton, and Broadmoor.
• Safe pedestrian crossings and school zone protectons.
• Enforced phasing condiƟons tying each construcƟon phase to completed traffic miƟgaƟons.
Without these measures, this subdivision would place an unacceptable strain on local roads and
endanger residents, children, and bicyclists.
2. Drainage and Flooding Threats to Adjacent Homes
As a homeowner whose property sits directly downhill of the proposed subdivision, I am gravely
Page 255 of 402
concerned that stormwater runoff from paved streets, roofs, and compacted soils will divert
water toward exisƟng lots on Mathews Rd and Eaton Dr., causing erosion and flooding.
Unless the City can ensure—through independent hydrological studies—that runoff will be fully
contained on-site and maintained indefinitely, this proposal should not move forward.
3. Irreversible Harm to Neighborhood Character
Easton Drive and Mathews Rd. are composed of half-acre and one-acre residenƟal lots that
reflect the low-density rural transiƟon zoning under which we purchased our homes. Allowing a
high-density subdivision of 873 Ɵghtly packed lots would erase the established neighborhood
idenƟty, reduce privacy, and undermine the investments that exisƟng
residents have made in maintaining a peaceful community.
No amount of fencing or landscaping can adequately mitgate the stark difference between this
project’s density and the exisƟng neighborhood form.
4. Years of ConstrucƟon DisrupƟon
Ten planned construcƟon phases mean a decade or more of constant noise, dust, heavy
machinery, and truck traffic. Residents along Easton Drive and Mathews Rd. will bear the brunt of these
disrupƟons, enduring environmental and quality-of-life impacts for years without any benefit.
ConstrucƟon traffic should be strictly prohibited from using Easton Drive or connecƟng
neighborhood streets — and if that cannot be guaranteed, the proposal should be rejected
outright.
5. Environmental and Livability Concerns
The project site currently funcƟons as valuable open space and wildlife habitat. Replacing it
enƟrely with dense housing and asphalt will increase the urban heat effect, reduce groundwater
absorpƟon, and diminish local biodiversity.
The token two-acre park proposed is grossly inadequate for a development of nearly 900 homes
and does not serve as a meaningful environmental miƟgaƟon or community amenity.
6. IncompaƟbility with Pasco’s Long-Term Vision
This project reflects an outdated “mass subdivision” approach rather than the though ƞul,
sustainable growth Pasco residents expect. The community deserves beƩer than an overbuilt,
high-density subdivision that strains public infrastructure, erodes open space, and sacrifices the
Page 256 of 402
rural-suburban balance that makes north Pasco desirable.
Untl the City can demonstrate that adequate infrastructure, environmental protec Ɵon, and
community compaƟbiliƟes are guaranteed, the Wilson Estates Subdivision should be denied.
Conclusion
As a directly affected homeowner, I strongly oppose the approval of SEPA2025-030 and urge the
City of Pasco to issue a DeterminaƟon of Significance (DS) rather than a DeterminaƟon of Non-
Significance (DNS). The environmental, traffic, and community impacts of this proposal are
substanƟal and unavoidable and warrant a full Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
I request to be kept informed of all future acƟons, hearings, and determinaƟons regarding this
proposal.
Thank you for taking these concerns seriously and for standing with exisƟng residents to protect
the safety, livability, and integrity of our community.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Mancinelli and Kathy Mancinelli
11201 Mathews Rd.
Pasco, WA 99301
CC:
Pasco City Council – council@pasco-wa.gov
Pasco Planning Commission – planning@pasco-wa.gov
Page 257 of 402
1
Ivan Barragan
From:Omar Garza <olg007@outlook.com>
Sent:Monday, November 3, 2025 7:14 PM
To:Ivan Barragan
Subject:Re: Z2025-009 Rocky Hills zone concern
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning Request Z2025-009 – Wilson Estates
Dear City of Pasco Hearing Examiner,
I am a nearby homeowner and wish to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Wilson
Estates property (Z2025-009) from R-T to R-1.
This change would allow much higher housing density—around 873 new homes—which
would overwhelm local roads and increase traffic in an area not designed to handle that volume. It
would also change the character of our neighborhood, where homes currently sit on half-acre or
larger lots and average over 2,500 square feet.
Allowing smaller, high-density lots next to our community would likely devalue existing homes and
reduce the quiet, spacious atmosphere that residents have invested in.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the City deny this rezoning request and preserve the current
R-T zoning.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Omar Garza
olg007@outlook.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 3, 2025, at 7:10 PM, Omar Garza <olg007@outlook.com> wrote:
Omar Garza
olg007@outlook.com
You don't often get email from olg007@outlook.com. Learn why this is important
Page 258 of 402
SEPA comment for SEPA2025-030 Wilson Estates Subdivision
• Subject: SEPA comments for Wilson Estates Subdivision (SEPA2025-030, PP2025-
004, Z2025-009)
• To: City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department
attn. Ivan Barragan
• From: Aaron Fabre, owner of 11413 Easton Dr, Pasco, WA 99301
o Aaroboy21@hotmail.com
o (725) 777-8021
• Date: October 28th 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on and voice my concerns on the SEPA
determination for the Wilson Estates Subdivision. The city of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan
is to reflect the community’s vision of the future, and the city of Pasco’s Planning
Department vision is to help create a sustainable, functional, and aesthetically pleasing
community through thoughtful planning. I do not believe the proposed subdivision reflects
the vision of the city of Pasco and I oppose the current plans.
The proposed Wilson Estates Subdivision brings numerous concerns and questions
regarding the environmental impact, maintaining the current identity of the surrounding
neighborhoods, and short and long-term safety and livability of the planned project and
surrounding neighborhoods. This project could negatively affect the quality of life for
residents in the neighboring single-family homes, impacting their property values, privacy,
and ability to enjoy their outdoor spaces.
Proposed Mitigation/Action
Requesting a Full Environmental Impact statement prior to approval.
Proposed zoning reconsidered from R1 Low Density Residential to RS1, RS12, or RS20
suburban to maintain the surrounding neighborhoods in lot sizes and continue with
residential development with large lots and expansive yards.
Page 259 of 402
Specific Concerns
EARTH
Concerns of erosion issues and flooding during clearing, construction, and completed
proposed plan. Are there proposed measures to prevent erosion during all stages of
development?
This proposed project will add impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and
buildings. This will add significant wastewater runoff, and the added urban heat effect will
raise surrounding temperatures. With less land, grass, crops, and native plants it will
disrupt the current carbon footprint.
There are already low spots on the south end of the proposed projects where flooding
occurs during rain and snow. What measures will be taken to prevent this from being
escalated during the land clearing?
AIR
Concerns of emissions from construction equipment and dust air pollution.
With 900 houses, come 900+ cars. What will be done to help with the pollution?
What measures will be in effect to control emissions or impacts on air quality?
WATER
Concerns about the Irrigation water demand – The current irrigation company Big Sky
Irrigation has had a hard time maintaining water supply with the current summer water
demand. In the past two years there have been shutdowns/issues on 4/9, 4/15, and 4/17 in
2025. 4/2, 4/22, and 5/11 in 2024. And two major mid-summer shutdowns in previous July
of 2022 and 2023.
What is the proposed Storm Water runoff method of collection? Will the southern sloped
plans direct waterflow into Archer estates northern properties septic drainage areas? Will
storm drains be installed to prevent this flooding?
This plan alters current drainage patterns of the site reducing ground water absorption.
There is already significant flooding prior to the added runoff from paved streets and
structures.
Concerns of groundwater runoff for the properties with well water zoned RR5 to the east of
the proposed project.
Page 260 of 402
PLANTS
Current permanent crops – Corn, Potatoes, varieties of Field Grass
What is the proposed plan to preserve or enhance the vegetation and maintain the positive
carbon impact?
ANIMALS
Birds – Canadian Geese and Snow Geese annually use this field as a winter and spring
migration route stop.
Numerous species of Hawks, Quail, Sparrow, Starling, Hummingbirds, Finches, Killdeer,
Doves, Robins, Heron, Woodpeckers, Owls, Crows, Seagulls, Pelicans all have been
observed on this land.
Mammals – Deer, Coyotes, Racoon, Skunk, Porcupine
Other animals - Snakes, Lizards, Opossums, Squirrels
Concern of the added road traffic and loss of habitat. In the month of October there were
deer, racoon, and skunk hit by vehicles on Burns and Dent.
What are the proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife?
Concerns that invasive species including moles/voles and mice will relocate into our large
grass lots when they lose their habitat.
ENVIROMENTAL
Numerous years of agricultural use of chemicals/fertilizers in the ground will get kicked up
as dust or wastewater runoff.
Noise – A proposed 10 years construction plan will create ongoing noise in the surrounding
communities from construction equipment and construction traffic. What are the planned
hours of noise disruption that will come from the proposed plan?
Are there proposed measures to reduce noise impacts?
HOUSING
The current plan has 873 homes on 1/10 of an acre lots as small as 4,000 sq ft (avg. size
5,118sq ft.). Surrounding neighborhoods on all developed sides are all county zoned RS-20,
RS40, RR5 and RC1 which range from half acre lots, acre lots, and larger. (21,000+ sq ft
lots). To the north long term Agricultural Land. The proposed planned lot sizes are
significantly smaller than the surrounding neighborhoods. To maintain with the
Page 261 of 402
surrounding neighborhoods attributes, lot sizes should be more comparable in size and
continue with residential development with large lots and expansive yards.
AESTHETICS
Views of the expansive land and hills to the north will be obstructed.
What is the proposed plan and who will maintain the “alleyway/easements” between the
proposed development and the already established northern properties of Archer estates?
LIGHT/GLARE
Concerns of light pollution with so many houses, and proposed streetlights. Many of the
surrounding neighborhoods are without streetlights or have limited street lighting.
RECREATION
A 2-acre park is not adequate for the size of the proposed housing project.
Proximity example of Kohler Estates 2 – it has a 7-acre park for 52 housing lots.
Possibility of incorporating a much larger area designated for community parks, dog parks,
walking trails, or other recreational activities.
TRANSPORTATION
Currently, there is no public transportation or bus routes for the proposed plan.
Dent Rd is not designed for pedestrian walkability or bicycling. There are no sidewalks, the
road shoulders are slanted and difficult to walk on, and there is no lighting. Adding so many
homes and added traffic puts pedestrians in danger, especially any school children that
would be using the roadways to walk home.
The added traffic to the area creates increased risk to the hilled intersection of Burns and
Dent, especially during winter conditions. There is a need for added traffic signals and
crosswalks. Also, a need for a winter road plan especially for this dangerous intersection in
icy conditions.
How many added vehicular trips will be generated during the completed project? What will
be the peak volume times? What data or transportation models were used to make these
estimates?
Current easement between proposed development and current houses in Archer estates is
used for movement of agricultural products and as a community walking/biking trail. This
easement should not be used for construction traffic.
Page 262 of 402
PUBLIC SERVICES
Added Police and Fire protection needed, adding public transportation. Current local
schools are already at capacity for elementary, middle, and High school.
What are the proposed measures to address the impacts on public services?
UTILITIES
Will this development have any effect on current septic systems in surrounding
developments?
What are the proposed services for electricity, natural gas, water, irrigation, refuse services,
telephone, sanitary sewer, and surrounding septic systems?
The city of Pasco continues to grow and build a strong community. The proposed Wilson
Estates Subdivision does not appear to have taken into consideration all the environmental
impacts or current communities that surround the land. Squeezing in as many houses on
small lots as city codes will allow instead of maintaining the distinct character of the
community seemingly goes against the City of Pasco’s Planning Department values. I
strongly oppose this current proposal.
Thank you for taking time to review and address my concerns.
Aaron Fabre
11413 Easton Drive
Pasco, WA 999301
Aaroboy21@hotmail.com
725-777-8021
Page 263 of 402
Page 264 of 402
Page 265 of 402
Pasco City Council
January 12, 2026
Regular Workshop
Pa
g
e
2
6
6
o
f
4
0
2
Introduction of
Ordinance-Rocky
Hills Management LP
“Wilson Estates” R-T
to R-1 Rezone-Z 2025-
009
January 12, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
2
6
7
o
f
4
0
2
Quasi-Judicial Action
PMC
Comp Plan Map
Proposed City Zoning Map
01
02
03
04
Pa
g
e
2
6
8
o
f
4
0
2
How Quasi-Judicial Decisions Are
Handled in Pasco
Quasi-Judicial Process Overview (Why This Workshop)
•Quasi-judicial actions apply existing law to a specific property and require a public hearing
before the Hearing Examiner
•The Hearing Examiner conducts the hearing, creates the official record, and issues a written
recommendation with findings and conclusions
•From issuance of the recommendation until final Council action, ex parte communication is
prohibited; Council may rely only on the hearing record
•A 10-day appeal period follows the recommendation; if appealed—or if Council determines
further review is needed—a closed record hearing is required with at least 14 days’ notice
•Closed record hearings allow no new evidence and limit participation to summaries from prior
commenters
•At the conclusion, City Council must enter findings and either approve (with or without
modification), enter a concomitant agreement, or deny the request
•Staff and the City Attorney are available to assist Council and ensure the proper process is
followed
Pa
g
e
2
6
9
o
f
4
0
2
Rezone -PMC
Requirements for zoning petition (PMC 25.210.030):
•A rezone petition must identify when the current zoning took effect, explain the changed conditions and justification for therequest, address impacts on adjacent properties and the Comprehensive Plan, note the property’s Comprehensive Plan designation, state the effect on the owner if denied, and include any additional information required by the Hearing Examiner.
Hearing Examiner –Findings and recommendations (PMC 25.210.060):
•After an open record hearing on a rezone petition, the Hearing Examiner must issue findings and conclusions addressing whether the proposal aligns with the Comprehensive Plan, avoids material detriment to the vicinity, provides community benefit, requires conditions to mitigate impacts, and/or necessitates a concomitant agreement with the City.
Process Milestones:
•Public Hearing held: November 12, 2025
•Hearing Examiner Recommendation November 26, 2025: Approval of R-1 Zoning
City Council Consideration:
1) Approve the recommended rezoning (with or without modifications)
2) Enter into a Concomitant Agreement (PMC 25.210.100)
3) Deny the proposed rezone
Pa
g
e
2
7
0
o
f
4
0
2
Pa
g
e
2
7
1
o
f
4
0
2
Pa
g
e
2
7
2
o
f
4
0
2
Questions?
Thank you!
Pa
g
e
2
7
3
o
f
4
0
2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 20, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 1/12/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Reimbursement Development 2 and 1 Resolutions - 5 Helena
Agreements with Broetje Orchard LLC and Jubilee Foundation (5 minute
staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolutions
Exhibit-Development Reimbursement Agreements
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion/Presentation only
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.72 and 35.91 authorize municipalities
to enter into agreements with developers who construct utility and street
system improvements at their own expense. These statutes also provide a
mechanism for reimbursement by subsequently benefiting property owners.
As a condition of development, Ralph and Cheryl Broetje, operating as Broetje
Orchard to required were (the developer), Jubilee and LLC Foundation
construct public improvements that also benefit adjacent and future properties.
To recover the portion of costs attributable to these benefiting properties, the
developer (Latecomer) submitted five separate Developer Reimbursement
Agreement applications for utility and street system improvements.
During construction of the Helena 1 and Helena 2 projects, the developer
Page 274 of 402
installed three-quarter-width road improvements along Sprague Ave., Estrella
Dr., and Eureka Ave, meeting the concurrency development standards of PMC
12.36.050(1)(a). The projects also installed domestic water improvements in
Sprague Ave., Estrella Dr., and Eureka Ave, and sanitary sewer improvements
in Sprague Ave. and Estrella Dr., meeting the standards of PMC 12.36.050(2).
Six parcels outside the Helena 1 and Helena 2 plats receive benefit from these
improvements.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council consider approval of the five Developer
Reimbursement Agreements with
Ralph and Cheryl Broetje, operating as Broetje Orchard LLC and Jubilee
Foundation, for utility and street system improvements along Sprague Ave.,
Estrella Drive, and Eureka Ave.
the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 14.25 aligns with these RCWs and
outlines the process by which a developer may enter into a reimbursement
agreement with the City. Once executed, the City may collect proportional
assessments from other properties that directly benefit from the improvements
and reimburse the developer accordingly.
The improvements have been accepted by the City, and staff has reviewed the
final cost documentation submitted by the developer and confirmed it to be
accurate and eligible. If approved, the reimbursement agreements for street
system improvements will remain in effect for 15 years, and the reimbursement
agreements for utility improvements will remain in effect for 20 years.
Alternatives:
Delay decision - All requirements have been met by the developer, and
the City has followed the necessary process. Staff is not aware of
additional information that would be needed to act on this request.
Request modifications to the agreement - The agreement contains the
same terms as previously executed Developer Reimbursement
Agreements. The terms align with the PMC and all applicable RCWs.
The agreements have been reviewed by the City’s legal counsel and
found to be legally sound.
Deny the request to approve the agreements - RCW 35.91 requires
municipalities to enter into such agreements when properly requested
by an owner or developer. Denial could expose the City to legal risk.
Page 275 of 402
Resolution – Helena 1 Sewer DRA (Latecomer) - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING A UTILITY DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT
(LATECOMER) AGREEMENT WITH BROETJE ORCHARDS, LLC, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR HELENA 1,
A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.91 and Section 14.25 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) provides
a statutory framework for developers to enter developer reimbursement agreements when the
developer, as a condition of development, pays the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements;
and
WHEREAS, Broetje Orchards, LLC has submitted a complete and accurate application
for a street system developer reimbursement agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City shall also provide notice of its preliminary assessment
reimbursement area (those to repay the latecomer debt) to provide the property owners within the
preliminary assessment area the opportunity to request the matter be submitted to a public hearing,
within 20 days of date of mailing of the notice, before Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notices of the preliminary assessment and reimbursement to
the property owners within the preliminary reimbursement area on October 29, 2024, and did not
receive in writing a request for a hearing before council; and
WHEREAS, utility improvements include infrastructure projects related to City water,
sewer, and storm sewer which is required to be constructed as a prerequisite of continued
development; and
WHEREAS, utility developer reimbursement agreements shall meet the development
criteria as detailed in the PMC Subsection 14.25.030(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Broetje Orchards, LLC agrees to payment of project costs, including legal
and administrative costs, as set forth in the Developer Reimbursement Agreement, attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Manager is authorized to execute the developer reimbursement agreement
for utility system improvements, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A., and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager be authorized to make minor substantive
changes to the developer reimbursement agreement as needed, and
Page 276 of 402
Resolution – Helena 1 Sewer DRA (Latecomer) - 2
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of January,
2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 277 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 1 of 9
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Developers Tax Parcel No.: Parcel# 113-881-024 AGRMT2024-015s
Legal Description: WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 5 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS PER ORD 4646
CITY OF PASCO
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of___________, 2026,
by and between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter
referred to as “City”, and Broetje Orchards LLC, their successors and assigns, hereinafter referred
to as “Developer”; and
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 35.91 and PMC 14.25 authorize contracts between a
municipality and the owners of real estate within the municipality’s corporate limits or within ten
(10) miles of the municipality’s corporate limits, who construct Utility facilities to serve their own
properties and other properties, whereby such owners and municipalities may be reimbursed by
the owners of other real property who did not contribute to the original cost of the construction of
the facilities, but who later desire to connect their properties to said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Developer has constructed the following described extension of City’s facilities:
The installation of 751 feet of gravity fed 8” PVC sewer pipe commencing
in the intersection of Helena St. and Sprague Ave. connecting to a manhole
and heading south through Sprague Ave. approximately 445 feet, then
heading southwest for approximately 60 feet, then heading west through
Estrella Dr. and connecting at an existing manhole in the intersection of
Estrella Dr. and Eureka Ave and also including all appurtenances.
2. The improvements have been constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by City prior to construction and Developer has supplied City with reproducible
as-built drawings regarding the facilities.
Page 278 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 2 of 9
3. In addition to serving properties owned by Developer at the outset of construction, the
facilities constructed will also serve the following described parcels of real property, and
any subdivisions of such parcels, that did not contribute to the cost of the facilities
construction, hereinafter referred to in aggregate as the "Assessment Area", which is
determined at the sole discretion of the City, and which are identified and legally described
in Exhibit C.
4. As the facilities have been construction in accordance with City Codes and Standards,
applicant obtained all permits required by the City’s Codes and Standards. The work is
physically complete and inspected by the City as required by the Public Works Director,
or his designee. Developer agrees to convey such facilities to City for the consideration and
benefits of City. Upon completion project acceptance by council the City will thereafter
own and operate said facilities subject to all of the laws and regulations, fees and
assessments of City.
5. City and Developer agree that Developer’s contributions to the total project costs is shown
in Exhibit B, which is allowed by statute to include costs for the design, construction
engineering, inspection, construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to
the project.
6. City and Developer agree that the City’s contributions to the total project costs is or will be
valued at $0, which includes costs for the design, construction engineering, inspection,
construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to the project.
7. City and Developer agree that the Total Assessment is attributed to the Assessment Area
is shown in Exhibit A. City and Developer agree that Developer is entitled to a potential
total reimbursement, less any collection charges deducted by the City, of a maximum of
total assessment as shown in Exhibit B.
8. The facilities subject to this Agreement are included within the City's comprehensive utility
plan, and no additional comprehensive plan approval for the utility system improvements
was required.
9. Execution of this Agreement is conditioned upon:
Inspection and approval of the utility system improvements by the City;
A. Full compliance with the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement and with the
City’s rules and regulations with respect to the project described in Section 1.
B. The Developer shall pay all of the City’s costs associated with processing this
latecomer agreement including, but not limited to, engineering costs as set forth in
Chapter 3.35 PMC, and the actual legal, recording, and administration costs.
C. City verification and approval of all contracts and costs related to the utility system
improvements; and
Page 279 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 3 of 9
D. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the completion of the utility system
improvements, Developer must submit the total actual cost of the utility system
improvements to the City.
10. Developer agreements associated with utility system improvements shall be valid for a
period not to exceed 20 years from the effective date of the agreement.
While a developer agreement is valid, any person, firm or corporation now or hereafter
owning benefitted properties described below, or segregated parcels thereof, desiring to
connect to the described facilities, shall first pay their pro-rata share of the total cost of the
facilities (“Total Assessment”). For this project, the Total Assessment is shown in Exhibit
B. The individual Assessment associated with each parcel of benefited property described
in this Agreement shall be charged to the property owner as shown in Exhibit B.
11. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized by City to connect
to or use the referenced facilities during the period of time prescribed in Paragraph 10
above without first paying to City, in addition to any and all other costs, assessments and
charges made and assessed for such tap or use, the amount required by the provisions of
this contract.
12. The City shall deduct from all assessment reimbursement payments it collects; an amount
(collection charge) as designated in Pasco Municipal Code (“PMC”) 3.35.180 to cover its
administrative collection costs. After deduction of the collection charge, each
reimbursement assessment payment will be disbursed to the Developer according to the
terms of this Agreement. Any amounts so collected during the time period in Paragraph
10 above by City and due to Developer, shall be remitted to Developer or assigns within
sixty (60) days of the receipt thereof, in accordance with this Agreement.
13. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any action, claim
or proceeding brought or maintained by any property owner challenging the validity or
enforceability of this Agreement. In turn, the City agrees to cooperate with the Developer
in the course of any such claim, proceeding or action to provide reasonable and lawful
access to City records and witnesses.
14. Any funds collected by City and payable to Developer in accordance with the terms of this
contract shall be remitted to Developer at the following address:
Broejte Orchards LLC
3713 E A Street
Pasco, WA. 99301
15. In accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 14.25.60(2), Developer shall provide to
the City in writing every two (2) years from the date this Agreement was executed,
information regarding the current contact name, address, and telephone number of the
Page 280 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 4 of 9
person, company or partnership that originally entered into the Agreement. If the
Developer fails to comply with the notification requirements within sixty (60) days of the
specified time, then City may collect any reimbursement funds owed to the Developer
under this Agreement, and such funds shall be deposited into the capital expenditure
account of the City’s utility or street fund.
16. If prior to the expiration of one (1) year after the date of conveyance of the facilities by
Developer to City (issuance of Warranty Letter), any work is found to be defective,
Developer shall promptly and without cost to City, either correct such defective work or,
if it has been rejected by City, remove and replace it with non-defective work. If Developer
does not promptly comply with the terms of such instructions, City may have the defective
work corrected or the rejected work removed and replaced and all direct and indirect costs
of such removal and replacement, including compensation for professional services, shall
be withheld from the reimbursement assessment payments that are due to Developer.
17. Developer agrees that once the City has collected all amounts under this Agreement, up to
a maximum as shown in Exhibit B of this Agreement and remitted such amount (less any
collection charges) to Developer, that City shall remit to Developer no further payments
under this contract.
18. Developer hereunder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of City.
19. The contract must be recorded in the appropriate county auditor's office within 30 days of
its final execution.
20. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation, breach or
enforcement of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve
the dispute by themselves or with the assistance of a mediator. The remaining dispute shall
be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, the Mandatory Rules of
Arbitration (MAR), with all parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon de novo review,
with the substantially prevailing party being awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs
against the other.
Page 281 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 5 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
Herald L. Stewart II – City Manager
DEVELOPER – BROETJE ORCHARDS LLC
Ralph Broetje, Co-Founder
ATTEST:
Debra C. Barham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 282 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 6 of 9
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager of the City
of Pasco, Washington, described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of ______________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Ralph Broetje for Broetje Orchards LLC, to be
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of _____________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
Page 283 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT A
Page 284 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 8 of 9
PE
R
M
I
T
#
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
=
[
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Pa
r
c
e
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
[F
T
]
)
/
(
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
)
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[
$
]
=
(
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
)
*
(
T
o
t
a
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
11
3
-
8
8
1
-
0
2
4
BR
O
E
T
J
E
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
,
L
L
C
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
47
0
.
3
1
31
.
7
2
%
14
,
9
9
9
.
8
5
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
0
4
2
JU
B
I
L
E
E
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
30
0
.
9
4
20
.
2
9
%
9,
5
9
8
.
0
4
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
0
9
6
JO
S
E
A
L
M
A
R
A
Z
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
3
21
9
.
5
6
14
.
8
1
%
7,
0
0
2
.
5
4
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
2
1
EL
P
I
D
I
O
&
M
A
R
I
A
G
A
R
C
I
A
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
4
35
6
.
4
9
24
.
0
4
%
11
,
3
6
9
.
7
2
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
1
2
EU
S
T
O
L
I
A
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
5
13
5
.
5
4
9.
1
4
%
4,
3
2
2
.
8
5
$
TO
T
A
L
S
:
14
8
2
.
8
4
10
0
.
0
0
%
22
,
6
9
5
.
1
2
$
22
,
6
9
5
.
1
2
$
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
75
1
L
F
8
"
S
E
W
E
R
BR
O
E
T
J
E
-
H
E
L
E
N
A
#
1
EXHIBIT B
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
AG
R
M
T
2
0
2
4
-
0
1
5
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
14
8
2
.
8
4
F
T
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
o
f
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$4
7
,
2
9
3
.
0
0
Be
n
e
f
i
t
A
r
e
a
Pa
r
c
e
l
#
,
O
w
n
e
r
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
R
E
A
Page 285 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT C
BENEFITTING AREA
Developer Area
113-881-024
WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 5 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS
PER ORD 4646
113-882-042
ALL OF BLOCKS 11 & 12 WASHINGTON ADDITION TOGETHER WITH VACATED
STREETS AND ALLEYS ADJ PER ORD 4646-1973182
Assessment Area
113-882-096
WASHINGTON ADD LOTS 25 TO 32, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
113-882-121
WASHINGTON LOTS 17 TO 24, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
113-882-112
WASHINGTON LOTS 9 THRU 16, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
Page 286 of 402
Resolution – Helena 1 Street DRA (Latecomer) - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING A STREET SYSTEM DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT
(LATECOMER) AGREEMENT WITH BROETJE ORCHARDS, LLC, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR HELENA 1, A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.72 and Section 14.25 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) provides
a statutory framework for developers to enter developer reimbursement agreements when the
developer, as a condition of development, pays the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements;
and
WHEREAS, Broetje Orchards, LLC has submitted a complete and accurate application
for a street system developer reimbursement agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City shall also provide notice of its preliminary assessment
reimbursement area (those to repay the latecomer debt) to provide the property owners within the
preliminary assessment area the opportunity to request the matter be submitted to a public hearing,
within 20 days of date of mailing of the notice, before Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notices of the preliminary assessment and reimbursement to
the property owners within the preliminary reimbursement area on October 29, 2024, and did not
receive in writing a request for a hearing before council; and
WHEREAS, street system improvements include infrastructure projects related to City
transportation network which is required to be constructed as a prerequisite of continued
development; and
WHEREAS, street developer reimbursement agreements shall meet the development
criteria as detailed in the PMC Subsection 14.25.030(2)(b); and
WHEREAS, Broetje Orchards, LLC agrees to payment of project costs, including legal
and administrative costs, as set forth in the Developer Reimbursement Agreement, attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Manager is authorized to execute the developer reimbursement agreement
for street system improvements, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager be authorized to make minor substantive
changes to the developer reimbursement agreement as needed.
Page 287 of 402
Resolution – Helena 1 Street DRA (Latecomer) - 2
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of January,
2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 288 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 1 of 9
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Developers Tax Parcel No.: Parcel#113-881-024 AGRMT#2024-016st
Legal Description: WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 5 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS PER ORD 4646
CITY OF PASCO
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of___________, 2026,
by and between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter
referred to as “City”, and Broetje Orchards LLC, their successors and assigns, hereinafter referred
to as “Developer”; and
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 35.72 and PMC 14.25 authorize contracts between a
municipality and the owners of real estate within the municipality’s corporate limits or within ten
(10) miles of the municipality’s corporate limits, who construct Street facilities to serve their own
properties and other properties, whereby such owners and municipalities may be reimbursed by
the owners of other real property who did not contribute to the original cost of the construction of
the facilities, but who later desire to connect their properties to said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Developer has constructed the following described extension of City’s facilities:
The installation of approximately 8,230 square feet of asphalt commencing
at the intersection of Helena St. and Sprague Ave. heading south through
Sprague Ave. approximately 450 feet then heading West approximately
300 feet through Estrella Dr. ending at the intersection of Estrella Dr. and
Eureka Ave.
2. The improvements have been constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by City prior to construction and Developer has supplied City with reproducible
as-built drawings regarding the facilities.
3. In addition to serving properties owned by Developer at the outset of construction, the
facilities constructed will also serve the following described parcels of real property, and
Page 289 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 2 of 9
any subdivisions of such parcels, that did not contribute to the cost of the facilities
construction, hereinafter referred to in aggregate as the "Assessment Area", which is
determined at the sole discretion of the City, and which are identified and legally described
in Exhibit C.
4. As the facilities have been construction in accordance with City Codes and Standards,
applicant obtained all permits required by the City’s Codes and Standards. The work is
physically complete and inspected by the City as required by the Public Works Director,
or his designee. Developer agrees to convey such facilities to City for the consideration and
benefits of City. Upon completion and project acceptance by council the City will
thereafter own and operate said facilities subject to all of the laws and regulations, fees and
assessments of City.
5. City and Developer agree that Developer’s contributions to the total project costs is shown
in Exhibit B, which is allowed by statute to include costs for the design, construction
engineering, inspection, construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to
the project.
6. City and Developer agree that the City’s contributions to the total project costs is or will be
valued at $0, which includes costs for the design, construction engineering, inspection,
construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to the project.
7. City and Developer agree that the Total Assessment is attributed to the Assessment Area
is shown in Exhibit A. City and Developer agree that Developer is entitled to a potential
total reimbursement, less any collection charges deducted by the City, of a maximum of
total assessment as shown in Exhibit B.
8. The facilities subject to this Agreement are included within the City's comprehensive street
plan, and no additional comprehensive plan approval for the street system improvements
was required.
9. Execution of this Agreement is conditioned upon:
Inspection and approval of the street system improvements by the City;
A. Full compliance with the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement and with the
City’s rules and regulations with respect to the project described in Section 1.
B. The Developer shall pay all of the City’s costs associated with processing this
latecomer agreement including, but not limited to, engineering costs as set forth in
Chapter 3.35 PMC, and the actual legal, recording, and administration costs.
C. City verification and approval of all contracts and costs related to the street system
improvements; and
Page 290 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 3 of 9
D. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the completion of the street system
improvements, Developer must submit the total actual cost of the street system
improvements to the City.
10. Developer agreements associated with street system improvements shall be valid for a
period not to exceed 15 years from the effective date of the agreement.
While a developer agreement is valid, any person, firm or corporation now or hereafter
owning benefitted properties described below, or segregated parcels thereof, desiring to
connect to the described facilities, shall first pay their pro-rata share of the total cost of the
facilities (“Total Assessment”). For this project, the Total Assessment is shown in Exhibit
B. The individual Assessment associated with each parcel of benefited property described
in this Agreement shall be charged to the property owner as shown in Exhibit B
11. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized by City to connect
to or use the referenced facilities during the period of time prescribed in Paragraph 10
above without first paying to City, in addition to any and all other costs, assessments and
charges made and assessed for such tap or use, the amount required by the provisions of
this contract.
12. The City shall deduct from all assessment reimbursement payments it collects; an amount
(collection charge) as designated in Pasco Municipal Code (“PMC”) 3.35.180 to cover its
administrative collection costs. After deduction of the collection charge, each
reimbursement assessment payment will be disbursed to the Developer according to the
terms of this Agreement. Any amounts so collected during the time period in Paragraph
10 above by City and due to Developer, shall be remitted to Developer or assigns within
sixty (60) days of the receipt thereof, in accordance with this Agreement.
13. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any action, claim
or proceeding brought or maintained by any property owner challenging the validity or
enforceability of this Agreement. In turn, the City agrees to cooperate with the Developer
in the course of any such claim, proceeding or action to provide reasonable and lawful
access to City records and witnesses.
14. Any funds collected by City and payable to Developer in accordance with the terms of this
contract shall be remitted to Developer at the following address:
Broetje Orchards LLC
3713 E A Street
Pasco, WA. 99301
15. In accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 14.25.60(2), Developer shall provide to
the City in writing every two (2) years from the date this Agreement was executed,
information regarding the current contact name, address, and telephone number of the
person, company or partnership that originally entered into the Agreement. If the
Page 291 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 4 of 9
Developer fails to comply with the notification requirements within sixty (60) days of the
specified time, then City may collect any reimbursement funds owed to the Developer
under this Agreement, and such funds shall be deposited into the capital expenditure
account of the City’s street fund.
16. If prior to the expiration of one (1) year after the date of conveyance of the facilities by
Developer to City (issuance of Warranty Letter), any work is found to be defective,
Developer shall promptly and without cost to City, either correct such defective work or,
if it has been rejected by City, remove and replace it with non-defective work. If Developer
does not promptly comply with the terms of such instructions, City may have the defective
work corrected or the rejected work removed and replaced and all direct and indirect costs
of such removal and replacement, including compensation for professional services, shall
be withheld from the reimbursement assessment payments that are due to Developer.
17. Developer agrees that once the City has collected all amounts under this Agreement, up to
a maximum as shown in Exhibit B of this Agreement and remitted such amount (less any
collection charges) to Developer, that City shall remit to Developer no further payments
under this contract.
18. Developer hereunder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of City.
19. The contract must be recorded in the appropriate county auditor's office within 30 days of
its final execution.
20. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation, breach or
enforcement of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve
the dispute by themselves or with the assistance of a mediator. The remaining dispute shall
be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, the Mandatory Rules of
Arbitration (MAR), with all parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon de novo review,
with the substantially prevailing party being awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs
against the other.
Page 292 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 5 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
Herald L. Stewart II – City Manager
DEVELOPER – BROETJE ORCHARDS LLC
Ralph Broetje, Co-Founder
ATTEST:
Debra C. Barham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 293 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 6 of 9
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager of the City
of Pasco, Washington, described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of ______________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Ralph Broetje for Broetje Orchards LLC, to be
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of _____________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
Page 294 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT A
Page 295 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 8 of 9
PE
R
M
I
T
#
AR
E
A
O
F
AS
P
H
A
L
T
(
S
F
)
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
=
[
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Pa
r
c
e
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
[F
T
]
)
/
(
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
)
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[
$
]
=
(
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
)
*
(
T
o
t
a
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
11
3
-
8
8
1
-
0
2
4
BR
O
E
T
J
E
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
,
L
L
C
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
51
6
8
.
0
0
54
.
8
2
%
35
,
9
3
5
.
8
3
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
0
9
6
JO
S
E
A
L
M
A
R
A
Z
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
6
28
6
1
.
0
0
30
.
3
5
%
19
,
8
9
4
.
0
4
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
2
1
EL
P
I
D
I
O
&
M
A
R
I
A
G
A
R
C
I
A
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
7
13
9
9
.
0
0
14
.
8
4
%
9,
7
2
7
.
9
8
$
TO
T
A
L
S
:
94
2
8
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
%
29
,
6
2
2
.
0
2
$
29
,
6
2
2
.
0
2
$
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
ST
R
E
E
T
BR
O
E
T
J
E
-
H
E
L
E
N
A
#
1
EXHIBIT B
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
AG
R
M
T
2
0
2
4
-
0
1
6
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
A
r
e
a
8,
2
3
0
S
F
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
o
f
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$6
5
,
5
5
7
.
8
5
Be
n
e
f
i
t
A
r
e
a
Pa
r
c
e
l
#
,
O
w
n
e
r
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
R
E
A
Page 296 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT C
BENEFITTING AREA
Developer Area
113-881-024
WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 5 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS
PER ORD 4646
Assessment Area
113-882-096
WASHINGTON ADD LOTS 25 TO 32, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
113-882-121
WASHINGTON LOTS 17 TO 24, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
Page 297 of 402
Resolution – Helena 1 Water DRA (Latecomer) - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING A UTILITY DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT
(LATECOMER) AGREEMENT WITH BROETJE ORCHARDS, LLC, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR HELENA 1,
A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.91 and Section 14.25 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) provides
a statutory framework for developers to enter developer reimbursement agreements when the
developer, as a condition of development, pays the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements;
and
WHEREAS, Broetje Orchards, LLC has submitted a complete and accurate application
for a street system developer reimbursement agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City shall also provide notice of its preliminary assessment
reimbursement area (those to repay the latecomer debt) to provide the property owners within the
preliminary assessment area the opportunity to request the matter be submitted to a public hearing,
within 20 days of date of mailing of the notice, before Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notices of the preliminary assessment and reimbursement to
the property owners within the preliminary reimbursement area on October 29, 2024, and did not
receive in writing a request for a hearing before council; and
WHEREAS, utility improvements include infrastructure projects related to City water,
sewer, and storm sewer which is required to be constructed as a prerequisite of continued
development; and
WHEREAS, utility developer reimbursement agreements shall meet the development
criteria as detailed in the PMC Subsection 14.25.030(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Broetje Orchards, LLC agrees to payment of project costs, including legal
and administrative costs, as set forth in the Developer Reimbursement Agreement, attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Manager is authorized to execute the developer reimbursement agreement
for utility system improvements, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager be authorized to make minor substantive
changes to the developer reimbursement agreement as needed.
Page 298 of 402
Resolution – Helena 1 Water DRA (Latecomer) - 2
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of January,
2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 299 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 1 of 9
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Developers Tax Parcel No.: Parcel# 113-881-024 AGRMT2024-013w
Legal Description: WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 5 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS PER ORD 4646
CITY OF PASCO
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of___________, 2026,
by and between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter
referred to as “City”, and Broetje Orchards LLC, their successors and assigns, hereinafter referred
to as “Developer”; and
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 35.91 and PMC 14.25 authorize contracts between a
municipality and the owners of real estate within the municipality’s corporate limits or within ten
(10) miles of the municipality’s corporate limits, who construct Utility facilities to serve their own
properties and other properties, whereby such owners and municipalities may be reimbursed by
the owners of other real property who did not contribute to the original cost of the construction of
the facilities, but who later desire to connect their properties to said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Developer has constructed the following described extension of City’s facilities:
The installation of 761 linear feet of 8” ductile iron pipe including all
appurtenances commencing at a tee connection in the intersection of Helena
St. and Sprague Ave. thence running south through Sprague Ave.
approximately 419 feet thence heading to the southwest approximately 40
feet thence heading west for approximately 302 feet through Estrella Dr.
connecting to an 8” tee in the intersection of Estrella Dr. and Eureka Ave.
2. The improvements have been constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by City prior to construction and Developer has supplied City with reproducible
as-built drawings regarding the facilities.
Page 300 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 2 of 9
3. In addition to serving properties owned by Developer at the outset of construction, the
facilities constructed will also serve the following described parcels of real property, and
any subdivisions of such parcels, that did not contribute to the cost of the facilities
construction, hereinafter referred to in aggregate as the "Assessment Area", which is
determined at the sole discretion of the City, and which are identified and legally described
in Exhibit C.
4. As the facilities have been construction in accordance with City Codes and Standards,
applicant obtained all permits required by the City’s Codes and Standards. The work is
physically complete and inspected by the City as required by the Public Works Director,
or his designee. Developer agrees to convey such facilities to City for the consideration and
benefits of City. Upon completion and project acceptance by council the City will
thereafter own and operate said facilities subject to all of the laws and regulations, fees and
assessments of City.
5. City and Developer agree that Developer’s contributions to the total project costs is shown
in Exhibit B, which is allowed by statute to include costs for the design, construction
engineering, inspection, construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to
the project.
6. City and Developer agree that the City’s contributions to the total project costs is or will be
valued at $0, which includes costs for the design, construction engineering, inspection,
construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to the project.
7. City and Developer agree that the Total Assessment is attributed to the Assessment Area
is shown in Exhibit A. City and Developer agree that Developer is entitled to a potential
total reimbursement, less any collection charges deducted by the City, of a maximum of
total assessment as shown in Exhibit B.
8. The facilities subject to this Agreement are included within the City's comprehensive utility
plan, and no additional comprehensive plan approval for the utility system improvements
was required.
9. Execution of this Agreement is conditioned upon:
Inspection and approval of the utility system improvements by the City;
A. Full compliance with the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement and with the
City’s rules and regulations with respect to the project described in Section 1.
B. The Developer shall pay all of the City’s costs associated with processing this
latecomer agreement including, but not limited to, engineering costs as set forth in
Chapter 3.35 PMC, and the actual legal, recording, and administration costs.
C. City verification and approval of all contracts and costs related to the utility system
improvements; and
Page 301 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 3 of 9
D. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the completion of the utility system
improvements, Developer must submit the total actual cost of the utility system
improvements to the City.
10. Developer agreements associated with utility system improvements shall be valid for a
period not to exceed 20 years from the effective date of the agreement.
While a developer agreement is valid, any person, firm or corporation now or hereafter
owning benefitted properties described below, or segregated parcels thereof, desiring to
connect to the described facilities, shall first pay their pro-rata share of the total cost of the
facilities (“Total Assessment”). For this project, the Total Assessment is shown in Exhibit
B. The individual Assessment associated with each parcel of benefited property described
in this Agreement shall be charged to the property owner as shown in Exhibit B.
11. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized by City to connect
to or use the referenced facilities during the period of time prescribed in Paragraph 10
above without first paying to City, in addition to any and all other costs, assessments and
charges made and assessed for such tap or use, the amount required by the provisions of
this contract.
12. The City shall deduct from all assessment reimbursement payments it collects; an amount
(collection charge) as designated in Pasco Municipal Code (“PMC”) 3.35.180 to cover its
administrative collection costs. After deduction of the collection charge, each
reimbursement assessment payment will be disbursed to the Developer according to the
terms of this Agreement. Any amounts so collected during the time period in Paragraph
10 above by City and due to Developer, shall be remitted to Developer or assigns within
sixty (60) days of the receipt thereof, in accordance with this Agreement.
13. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any action, claim
or proceeding brought or maintained by any property owner challenging the validity or
enforceability of this Agreement. In turn, the City agrees to cooperate with the Developer
in the course of any such claim, proceeding or action to provide reasonable and lawful
access to City records and witnesses.
14. Any funds collected by City and payable to Developer in accordance with the terms of this
contract shall be remitted to Developer at the following address:
Broetje Orchards LLC
3713 E A Street
Pasco, WA. 99301
15. In accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 14.25.60(2), Developer shall provide to
the City in writing every two (2) years from the date this Agreement was executed,
information regarding the current contact name, address, and telephone number of the
Page 302 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 4 of 9
person, company or partnership that originally entered into the Agreement. If the
Developer fails to comply with the notification requirements within sixty (60) days of the
specified time, then City may collect any reimbursement funds owed to the Developer
under this Agreement, and such funds shall be deposited into the capital expenditure
account of the City’s utility or street fund.
16. If prior to the expiration of one (1) year after the date of conveyance of the facilities by
Developer to City (issuance of Warranty Letter), any work is found to be defective,
Developer shall promptly and without cost to City, either correct such defective work or,
if it has been rejected by City, remove and replace it with non-defective work. If Developer
does not promptly comply with the terms of such instructions, City may have the defective
work corrected or the rejected work removed and replaced and all direct and indirect costs
of such removal and replacement, including compensation for professional services, shall
be withheld from the reimbursement assessment payments that are due to Developer.
17. Developer agrees that once the City has collected all amounts under this Agreement, up to
a maximum as shown in Exhibit B of this Agreement and remitted such amount (less any
collection charges) to Developer, that City shall remit to Developer no further payments
under this contract.
18. Developer hereunder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of City.
19. The contract must be recorded in the appropriate county auditor's office within 30 days of
its final execution.
20. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation, breach or
enforcement of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve
the dispute by themselves or with the assistance of a mediator. The remaining dispute shall
be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, the Mandatory Rules of
Arbitration (MAR), with all parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon de novo review,
with the substantially prevailing party being awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs
against the other.
Page 303 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 5 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
Herald L. Stewart II – City Manager
DEVELOPER – BROETJE ORCHARDS LLC
Ralph Broetje, Co-Founder
ATTEST:
Debra C. Barham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 304 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 6 of 9
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager of the City
of Pasco, Washington, described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of ______________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Ralph Broetje for Broetje Orchards LLC, to be
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of _____________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
Page 305 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT A
Page 306 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 8 of 9
PE
R
M
I
T
#
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
=
[
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Pa
r
c
e
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
[F
T
]
)
/
(
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
)
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[
$
]
=
(
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
)
*
(
T
o
t
a
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
11
3
-
8
8
1
-
0
2
4
BR
O
E
T
J
E
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
,
L
L
C
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
10
9
.
8
1
9.
8
4
%
7,
1
5
8
.
5
6
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
0
4
2
JU
B
I
L
E
E
F
O
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
29
7
.
9
0
26
.
6
9
%
19
,
4
2
0
.
2
3
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
0
9
6
JO
S
E
A
L
M
A
R
A
Z
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
0
21
9
.
5
6
19
.
6
7
%
14
,
3
1
3
.
2
1
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
2
1
EL
P
I
D
I
O
&
M
A
R
I
A
G
A
R
C
I
A
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
1
35
4
.
7
5
31
.
7
8
%
23
,
1
2
6
.
3
1
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
1
2
EU
S
T
O
L
I
A
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
2
13
4
.
1
1
12
.
0
2
%
8,
7
4
2
.
6
9
$
TO
T
A
L
S
:
11
1
6
.
1
3
10
0
.
0
0
%
46
,
1
8
2
.
2
1
$
46
,
1
8
2
.
2
1
$
76
1
L
F
O
F
8
"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
BR
O
E
T
J
E
-
H
E
L
E
N
A
#
1
EXHIBIT B
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
AG
R
M
T
2
0
2
4
-
0
1
3
Be
n
e
f
i
t
A
r
e
a
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
Pa
r
c
e
l
#
,
O
w
n
e
r
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
o
f
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
11
1
6
.
1
2
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
F
e
e
t
$7
2
,
7
6
1
.
0
0
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
R
E
A
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
Page 307 of 402
Broetje Orchards LLC
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT C
BENEFITTING AREA
Developer Area
113-881-024
WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 5 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS
PER ORD 4646
113-882-042
ALL OF BLOCKS 11 & 12 WASHINGTON ADDITION TOGETHER WITH VACATED
STREETS AND ALLEYS ADJ PER ORD 4646-1973182
Assessment Area
113-882-096
WASHINGTON ADD LOTS 25 TO 32, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
113-882-121
WASHINGTON LOTS 17 TO 24, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
113-882-112
WASHINGTON LOTS 9 THRU 16, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
Page 308 of 402
Resolution – Helena 2 Street DRA (Latecomer) - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING A STREET SYSTEM DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT
(LATECOMER) AGREEMENT WITH JUBILEE FOUNDATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR HELENA 2, A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.72 and Section 14.25 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) provides
a statutory framework for developers to enter developer reimbursement agreements when the
developer, as a condition of development, pays the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements;
and
WHEREAS, Jubilee Foundation has submitted a complete and accurate application for a
street system developer reimbursement agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City shall also provide notice of its preliminary assessment
reimbursement area (those to repay the latecomer debt) to provide the property owners within the
preliminary assessment area the opportunity to request the matter be submitted to a public hearing,
within 20 days of date of mailing of the notice, before Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notices of the preliminary assessment and reimbursement to
the property owners within the preliminary reimbursement area on October 29, 2024 and did not
receive in writing a request for a hearing before council; and
WHEREAS, street system improvements include infrastructure projects related to City
transportation network which is required to be constructed as a prerequisite of continued
development; and
WHEREAS, street developer reimbursement agreements shall meet the development
criteria as detailed in the PMC Subsection 14.25.030(2)(b); and
WHEREAS, Jubilee Foundation agrees to payment of project costs, including legal and
administrative costs, as set forth in the Developer Reimbursement Agreement, attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Manager is authorized to execute the developer reimbursement agreement
for street system improvements, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager be authorized to make minor substantive
changes to the developer reimbursement agreement as needed.
Page 309 of 402
Resolution – Helena 2 Street DRA (Latecomer) - 2
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of January,
2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 310 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 1 of 9
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Developers Tax Parcel No.: Parcel#113-883-022 AGRMT#2024-019st
Legal Description: WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 7 TOG WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ADJ PER ORD#3996
CITY OF PASCO
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of___________, 2026,
by and between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter
referred to as “City”, and Jubilee Foundation, their successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to
as “Developer”; and
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 35.72 and PMC 14.25 authorize contracts between a
municipality and the owners of real estate within the municipality’s corporate limits or within ten
(10) miles of the municipality’s corporate limits, who construct Street facilities to serve their own
properties and other properties, whereby such owners and municipalities may be reimbursed by
the owners of other real property who did not contribute to the original cost of the construction of
the facilities, but who later desire to connect their properties to said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Developer has constructed the following described extension of City’s facilities:
The installation of approximately 2,511 square feet of asphalt commencing
at the intersection of Estrella Dr. and Eureka Ave. heading north
approximately 240 feet through Eureka Ave. ending approximately at the
North property line of parcel 113-882-112.
2. The improvements have been constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by City prior to construction and Developer has supplied City with reproducible
as-built drawings regarding the facilities.
3. In addition to serving properties owned by Developer at the outset of construction, the
facilities constructed will also serve the following described parcels of real property, and
any subdivisions of such parcels, that did not contribute to the cost of the facilities
construction, hereinafter referred to in aggregate as the "Assessment Area", which is
Page 311 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 2 of 9
determined at the sole discretion of the City, and which are identified and legally described
in Exhibit C.
4. As the facilities have been construction in accordance with City Codes and Standards,
applicant obtained all permits required by the City’s Codes and Standards. The work is
physically complete and inspected by the City as required by the Public Works Director,
or his designee. Developer agrees to convey such facilities to City for the consideration and
benefits of City. Upon completion and project acceptance by council the City will
thereafter own and operate said facilities subject to all of the laws and regulations, fees and
assessments of City.
5. City and Developer agree that Developer’s contributions to the total project costs is shown
in Exhibit B, which is allowed by statute to include costs for the design, construction
engineering, inspection, construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to
the project.
6. City and Developer agree that the City’s contributions to the total project costs is or will be
valued at $0, which includes costs for the design, construction engineering, inspection,
construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to the project.
7. City and Developer agree that the Total Assessment is attributed to the Assessment Area
is shown in Exhibit A. City and Developer agree that Developer is entitled to a potential
total reimbursement, less any collection charges deducted by the City, of a maximum of
total assessment as shown in Exhibit B.
8. The facilities subject to this Agreement are included within the City's comprehensive street
plan, and no additional comprehensive plan approval for the street system improvements
was required.
9. Execution of this Agreement is conditioned upon:
Inspection and approval of the street system improvements by the City;
A. Full compliance with the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement and with the
City’s rules and regulations with respect to the project described in Section 1.
B. The Developer shall pay all of the City’s costs associated with processing this
latecomer agreement including, but not limited to, engineering costs as set forth in
Chapter 3.35 PMC, and the actual legal, recording, and administration costs.
C. City verification and approval of all contracts and costs related to the street system
improvements; and
D. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the completion of the street system
improvements, Developer must submit the total actual cost of the street system
improvements to the City.
Page 312 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 3 of 9
10. Developer agreements associated with street system improvements shall be valid for a
period not to exceed 15 years from the effective date of the agreement.
While a developer agreement is valid, any person, firm or corporation now or hereafter
owning benefitted properties described below, or segregated parcels thereof, desiring to
connect to the described facilities, shall first pay their pro-rata share of the total cost of the
facilities (“Total Assessment”). For this project, the Total Assessment is shown in Exhibit
B. The individual Assessment associated with each parcel of benefited property described
in this Agreement shall be charged to the property owner as shown in Exhibit B
11. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized by City to connect
to or use the referenced facilities during the period of time prescribed in Paragraph 10
above without first paying to City, in addition to any and all other costs, assessments and
charges made and assessed for such tap or use, the amount required by the provisions of
this contract.
12. The City shall deduct from all assessment reimbursement payments it collects; an amount
(collection charge) as designated in Pasco Municipal Code (“PMC”) 3.35.180 to cover its
administrative collection costs. After deduction of the collection charge, each
reimbursement assessment payment will be disbursed to the Developer according to the
terms of this Agreement. Any amounts so collected during the time period in Paragraph
10 above by City and due to Developer, shall be remitted to Developer or assigns within
sixty (60) days of the receipt thereof, in accordance with this Agreement.
13. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any action, claim
or proceeding brought or maintained by any property owner challenging the validity or
enforceability of this Agreement. In turn, the City agrees to cooperate with the Developer
in the course of any such claim, proceeding or action to provide reasonable and lawful
access to City records and witnesses.
14. Any funds collected by City and payable to Developer in accordance with the terms of this
contract shall be remitted to Developer at the following address:
Jubilee Foundation
3713 E A Street
Pasco, WA. 99301
15. In accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 14.25.60(2), Developer shall provide to
the City in writing every two (2) years from the date this Agreement was executed,
information regarding the current contact name, address, and telephone number of the
person, company or partnership that originally entered into the Agreement. If the
Developer fails to comply with the notification requirements within sixty (60) days of the
specified time, then City may collect any reimbursement funds owed to the Developer
under this Agreement, and such funds shall be deposited into the capital expenditure
account of the City’s street fund.
Page 313 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 4 of 9
16. If prior to the expiration of one (1) year after the date of conveyance of the facilities by
Developer to City (issuance of Warranty Letter), any work is found to be defective,
Developer shall promptly and without cost to City, either correct such defective work or,
if it has been rejected by City, remove and replace it with non-defective work. If Developer
does not promptly comply with the terms of such instructions, City may have the defective
work corrected or the rejected work removed and replaced and all direct and indirect costs
of such removal and replacement, including compensation for professional services, shall
be withheld from the reimbursement assessment payments that are due to Developer.
17. Developer agrees that once the City has collected all amounts under this Agreement, up to
a maximum as shown in Exhibit B of this Agreement and remitted such amount (less any
collection charges) to Developer, that City shall remit to Developer no further payments
under this contract.
18. Developer hereunder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of City.
19. The contract must be recorded in the appropriate county auditor's office within 30 days of
its final execution.
20. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation, breach or
enforcement of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve
the dispute by themselves or with the assistance of a mediator. The remaining dispute shall
be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, the Mandatory Rules of
Arbitration (MAR), with all parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon de novo review,
with the substantially prevailing party being awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs
against the other.
Page 314 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 5 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
Herald L. Stewart II – City Manager
DEVELOPER – JUBILEE FOUNDATION, LLC
Ralph Broetje, Co-Founder
ATTEST:
Debra C. Barham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 315 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 6 of 9
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager of the City
of Pasco, Washington, described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of ______________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Ralph Broetje for Jubilee Foundation LLC, to
be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of _____________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
Page 316 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT A
Page 317 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT C
PE
R
M
I
T
#
AR
E
A
O
F
AS
P
H
A
L
T
(
S
F
)
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
=
[
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Pa
r
c
e
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
[F
T
]
)
/
(
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
)
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[
$
]
=
(
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
)
*
(
T
o
t
a
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
11
3
-
8
8
3
-
0
2
2
BR
O
E
T
J
E
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
S
,
L
L
C
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
25
1
1
.
0
0
50
.
0
0
%
29
,
7
4
0
.
6
3
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
1
2
EU
S
T
O
L
I
A
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
6
2
25
1
1
.
0
0
50
.
0
0
%
29
,
7
4
0
.
6
3
$
TO
T
A
L
S
:
50
2
2
.
0
0
10
0
.
0
0
%
29
,
7
4
0
.
6
3
$
29
,
7
4
0
.
6
3
$
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
ST
R
E
E
T
BR
O
E
T
J
E
-
H
E
L
E
N
A
#
2
EXHIBIT B
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
AG
R
M
T
2
0
2
4
-
0
1
9
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
TO
T
A
L
A
R
E
A
O
F
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
25
1
1
S
F
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
o
f
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$5
9
,
4
8
1
.
2
5
Be
n
e
f
i
t
A
r
e
a
Pa
r
c
e
l
#
,
O
w
n
e
r
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
R
E
A
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
Page 318 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 9 of 9
BENEFITTING AREA
Developer Area
113-883-022
WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 7 TOG WITH VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS ADJ PER
ORD#3996
Assessment Area
113-882-112
WASHINGTON LOTS 9 THRU 16, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
Page 319 of 402
Resolution – Helena 2 Water DRA (Latecomer) - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING A UTILITY DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT
(LATECOMER) AGREEMENT WITH JUBILEE FOUNDATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR HELENA 2,
A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.91 and Section 14.25 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) provides
a statutory framework for developers to enter developer reimbursement agreements when the
developer, as a condition of development, pays the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements;
and
WHEREAS, Jubilee Foundation has submitted a complete and accurate application for a
street system developer reimbursement agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City shall also provide notice of its preliminary assessment
reimbursement area (those to repay the latecomer debt) to provide the property owners within the
preliminary assessment area the opportunity to request the matter be submitted to a public hearing,
within 20 days of date of mailing of the notice, before Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City mailed notices of the preliminary assessment and reimbursement to
the property owners within the preliminary reimbursement area on October 29, 2024, and did not
receive in writing a request for a hearing before council; and
WHEREAS, utility improvements include infrastructure projects related to City water,
sewer, and storm sewer which is required to be constructed as a prerequisite of continued
development; and
WHEREAS, utility developer reimbursement agreements shall meet the development
criteria as detailed in the PMC Subsection 14.25.030(3)(b); and
WHEREAS, Jubilee Foundation agrees to payment of project costs, including legal and
administrative costs, as set forth in the Developer Reimbursement Agreement, attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Manager is authorized to execute the developer reimbursement agreement
for utility system improvements, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager be authorized to make minor substantive
changes to the developer reimbursement agreement as needed.
Page 320 of 402
Resolution – Helena 2 Water DRA (Latecomer) - 2
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of January,
2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 321 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 1 of 9
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
Developers Tax Parcel No.: Parcel# 113-883-022 AGRMT2024-018w
Legal Description: WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 7 TOG WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ADJ PER ORD#3996
CITY OF PASCO
DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ______________,
2026, by and between the City of Pasco, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington,
hereinafter referred to as “City”, and Jubilee Foundation, their successors and assigns, hereinafter
referred to as “Developer”; and
WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 35.91 and PMC 14.25 authorize contracts between a
municipality and the owners of real estate within the municipality’s corporate limits or within ten
(10) miles of the municipality’s corporate limits, who construct Utility facilities to serve their own
properties and other properties, whereby such owners and municipalities may be reimbursed by
the owners of other real property who did not contribute to the original cost of the construction of
the facilities, but who later desire to connect their properties to said facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Developer has constructed the following described extension of City’s facilities:
The installation of 455 linear feet of 8” ductile iron pipe, including all
appurtenances, commencing at a tee connection in the intersection of
Helena St. and Eureka Ave thence running south through Eureka Ave.
approximately 455 feet connecting to a tee connection in the intersection of
Estrella Drive and Eureka Ave.
2. The improvements have been constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by City prior to construction and Developer has supplied City with reproducible
as-built drawings regarding the facilities.
3. In addition to serving properties owned by Developer at the outset of construction, the
facilities constructed will also serve the following described parcels of real property, and
any subdivisions of such parcels, that did not contribute to the cost of the facilities
Page 322 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 2 of 9
construction, hereinafter referred to in aggregate as the "Assessment Area", which is
determined at the sole discretion of the City, and which are identified and legally described
in Exhibit C.
4. As the facilities have been construction in accordance with City Codes and Standards,
applicant obtained all permits required by the City’s Codes and Standards. The work is
physically complete and inspected by the City as required by the Public Works Director,
or his designee. Developer agrees to convey such facilities to City for the consideration and
benefits of City. Upon completion project acceptance by council the City will thereafter
own and operate said facilities subject to all of the laws and regulations, fees and
assessments of City.
5. City and Developer agree that Developer’s contributions to the total project costs is shown
in Exhibit B, which is allowed by statute to include costs for the design, construction
engineering, inspection, construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to
the project.
6. City and Developer agree that the City’s contributions to the total project costs is or will be
valued at $0, which includes costs for the design, construction engineering, inspection,
construction, administrative, legal and other costs attributable to the project.
7. City and Developer agree that the Total Assessment is attributed to the Assessment Area
is shown in Exhibit A. City and Developer agree that Developer is entitled to a potential
total reimbursement, less any collection charges deducted by the City, of a maximum of
total assessment as shown in Exhibit B.
8. The facilities subject to this Agreement are included within the City's comprehensive utility
plan, and no additional comprehensive plan approval for the utility system improvements
was required.
9. Execution of this Agreement is conditioned upon:
Inspection and approval of the utility system improvements by the City;
A. Full compliance with the Developer’s obligations under this Agreement and with the
City’s rules and regulations with respect to the project described in Section 1.
B. The Developer shall pay all of the City’s costs associated with processing this
latecomer agreement including, but not limited to, engineering costs as set forth in
Chapter 3.35 PMC, and the actual legal, recording, and administration costs.
C. City verification and approval of all contracts and costs related to the utility system
improvements; and
Page 323 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 3 of 9
D. Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the completion of the utility system
improvements, Developer must submit the total actual cost of the utility system
improvements to the City.
10. Developer agreements associated with utility system improvements shall be valid for a
period not to exceed 20 years from the effective date of the agreement.
While a developer agreement is valid, any person, firm or corporation now or hereafter
owning benefitted properties described below, or segregated parcels thereof, desiring to
connect to the described facilities, shall first pay their pro-rata share of the total cost of the
facilities (“Total Assessment”). For this project, the Total Assessment is shown in Exhibit
B. The individual Assessment associated with each parcel of benefited property described
in this Agreement shall be charged to the property owner as shown in Exhibit B.
11. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized by City to connect
to or use the referenced facilities during the period of time prescribed in Paragraph 10
above without first paying to City, in addition to any and all other costs, assessments and
charges made and assessed for such tap or use, the amount required by the provisions of
this contract.
12. The City shall deduct from all assessment reimbursement payments it collects; an amount
(collection charge) as designated in Pasco Municipal Code (“PMC”) 3.35.180 to cover its
administrative collection costs. After deduction of the collection charge, each
reimbursement assessment payment will be disbursed to the Developer according to the
terms of this Agreement. Any amounts so collected during the time period in Paragraph
10 above by City and due to Developer, shall be remitted to Developer or assigns within
sixty (60) days of the receipt thereof, in accordance with this Agreement.
13. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any action, claim
or proceeding brought or maintained by any property owner challenging the validity or
enforceability of this Agreement. In turn, the City agrees to cooperate with the Developer
in the course of any such claim, proceeding or action to provide reasonable and lawful
access to City records and witnesses.
14. Any funds collected by City and payable to Developer in accordance with the terms of this
contract shall be remitted to Developer at the following address:
Jubilee Foundation
3713 E A Street
Pasco, WA. 99301
15. In accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 14.25.60(2), Developer shall provide to
the City in writing every two (2) years from the date this Agreement was executed,
information regarding the current contact name, address, and telephone number of the
Page 324 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 4 of 9
person, company or partnership that originally entered into the Agreement. If the
Developer fails to comply with the notification requirements within sixty (60) days of the
specified time, then City may collect any reimbursement funds owed to the Developer
under this Agreement, and such funds shall be deposited into the capital expenditure
account of the City’s utility or street fund.
16. If prior to the expiration of one (1) year after the date of conveyance of the facilities by
Developer to City (issuance of Warranty Letter), any work is found to be defective,
Developer shall promptly and without cost to City, either correct such defective work or,
if it has been rejected by City, remove and replace it with non-defective work. If Developer
does not promptly comply with the terms of such instructions, City may have the defective
work corrected or the rejected work removed and replaced and all direct and indirect costs
of such removal and replacement, including compensation for professional services, shall
be withheld from the reimbursement assessment payments that are due to Developer.
17. Developer agrees that once the City has collected all amounts under this Agreement, up to
a maximum as shown in Exhibit B of this Agreement and remitted such amount (less any
collection charges) to Developer, that City shall remit to Developer no further payments
under this contract.
18. Developer hereunder is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of City.
19. The contract must be recorded in the appropriate county auditor's office within 30 days of
its final execution.
20. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation, breach or
enforcement of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve
the dispute by themselves or with the assistance of a mediator. The remaining dispute shall
be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, the Mandatory Rules of
Arbitration (MAR), with all parties waiving the right of a jury trial upon de novo review,
with the substantially prevailing party being awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs
against the other.
Page 325 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 5 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON
Herald L. Stewart II – City Manager
DEVELOPER – JUBILEE FOUNDATION, LLC
Ralph Broetje, Co-Founder
ATTEST:
Debra C. Barham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 326 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 6 of 9
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager of the City
of Pasco, Washington, described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of ______________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
: ss
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN )
On this day personally appeared before me Ralph Broetje for Jubilee Foundation, LLC, to
be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument
and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ___ day of _____________, 2026.
________________________________________
(Seal) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Print Name: _____________________________
Residing at ______________________________
My Commission Expires: ___________________
Page 327 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT A
Page 328 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 8 of 9
PE
R
M
I
T
#
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
=
[
(
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
Pa
r
c
e
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
[F
T
]
)
/
(
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
c
e
l
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
[
F
T
]
)
]
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[
$
]
=
(
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
s
t
[%
]
)
*
(
T
o
t
a
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
)
11
3
-
8
8
3
-
0
2
2
RA
L
P
H
E
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
B
R
O
E
T
J
E
(
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
)
N/
A
47
0
.
8
7
51
.
5
9
%
22
,
3
9
6
.
6
6
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
0
7
EM
P
I
R
E
B
R
O
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
L
L
C
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
8
77
.
9
3
8.
5
4
%
3,
4
1
7
.
0
3
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
0
8
EM
P
I
R
E
B
R
O
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
L
L
C
LC
2
4
-
0
0
5
9
71
.
8
4
7.
8
7
%
3,
4
1
7
.
0
3
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
0
9
EM
P
I
R
E
B
R
O
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
,
L
L
C
LC
2
4
-
0
0
6
0
71
.
1
6
7.
8
0
%
3,
3
8
4
.
6
8
$
11
3
-
8
8
2
-
1
1
2
EU
S
T
O
L
I
A
G
O
N
Z
A
L
E
Z
LC
2
4
-
0
0
6
1
22
0
.
9
2
24
.
2
0
%
10
,
5
0
7
.
9
3
$
TO
T
A
L
S
:
91
2
.
7
2
10
0
.
0
0
%
20
,
7
2
6
.
6
7
$
20
,
7
2
6
.
6
7
$
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
M
O
U
N
T
:
45
5
L
F
8
"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
BR
O
E
T
J
E
-
H
E
L
E
N
A
#
2
EXHIBIT B
AG
R
E
E
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
AG
R
M
T
2
0
2
4
-
0
1
8
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
91
2
.
7
2
F
T
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
'
s
T
o
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
o
f
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$4
3
,
4
1
3
.
0
0
Be
n
e
f
i
t
A
r
e
a
Pa
r
c
e
l
#
,
O
w
n
e
r
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
A
R
E
A
AS
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
Page 329 of 402
Jubilee Foundation
Developer Services Agreement
Version 08.12.2025 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT C
BENEFITTING AREA
Developer Area
113-883-022
WASHINGTON ADD ALL BLK 7 TOG WITH VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS ADJ PER
ORD#3996
Assessment Area
113-882-107
LOTS 1 THROUGH 3, BLOCK 6 WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME B OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN
COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXCEPT THE SOUTH 6.41 FEET OF LOT 3, TOGETHER WITH
VACATED STEETS AND ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN-1973865 (PARCEL A OF RS-1978329)
113-882-108
LOTS 4 THROUGH 6, BLOCK 6 WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME B OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN
COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10.67 FEET OF LOT 6, TOGETHER
WITH THE SOUTH 6.41 FEET OF LOT 3 BLOCK 6 AND VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN-1973865 (PARCEL B OF RS-1978329)
113-882-109
LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 6 WASHINGTON ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME B OF PLATS, PAGE 54, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN
COUNTY, WASHINGTON TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTH 10.67 FEET OF LOT 6 BLOCK
6 AND VACTED STREETS AND ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN-1973865 (PARCEL C OF RS-
1978329)
113-882-112
WASHINGTON LOTS 9 THRU 16, BLK 6 TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS AND
ALLEYS ORD-4648 AFN1973865
Page 330 of 402
January 12, 2025
Pasco City Council
Workshop
Pa
g
e
3
3
1
o
f
4
0
2
Developer Reimbursement
Agreements –Helena 1&2-
Water, Sewer, and Street
Improvements
TBD, 2025
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
3
3
2
o
f
4
0
2
General Information
3
Pa
g
e
3
3
3
o
f
4
0
2
What is a Developer’s Reimbursement agreement?
4
• When a developer builds public street and utilities at their own expense
that benefits other property owners, they can be reimbursed.
•In order for the developer to collect the proportionate share from
benefiting property owners, the developer must enter into a Developer’s
Reimbursement Agreement with the City.
•Benefitting property owners help repay the cost of the initial investment.
•Street Developer Reimbursement Agreements are valid for 15 years.
•Utility Developer Reimbursement Agreements are valid for 20 years.
Pa
g
e
3
3
4
o
f
4
0
2
Legal Framework
5
• RCW 35.72: State law allows reimbursement of cost for street improvements.
•RCW 35.91:State law allows reimbursement of cost for utility improvements.
• PMC 14.25: Pasco’s local code that follows state law.
• These rules ensure that costs are shared fairly among those who benefit.
Pa
g
e
3
3
5
o
f
4
0
2
Helena 1&2-Water, Sewer, and
Street -Developer Reimbursement
Agreements
6
Pa
g
e
3
3
6
o
f
4
0
2
Helena 1 Water, Sewer, and Street Improvement
Project
7
• Broetje Orchards, LLC built water,
sewer and street improvements for the
Helena 1 Residential Subdivision.
• These improvements support future
development.
•Improvements built:
•761 feet of domestic water main, 4 control
valves, and 2 fire hydrants.
•751 feet of sanitary sewer main and 4 sanitary
sewer manholes.
•8,230 square feet of engineered road base and
8,230 square feet of hot mix asphalt roadway.
Pa
g
e
3
3
7
o
f
4
0
2
Helena 1 Water, Sewer, and Street Improvement
Project
8
Pa
g
e
3
3
8
o
f
4
0
2
Helena 2 Water and Street Improvement Project
9
• Jubilee Foundation built water and
street improvements for the Helena 2
Residential Subdivision.
• These improvements support future
development.
•Improvements built:
•455 feet of domestic water main, 2 control
valves, and 1 fire hydrants.
•2,511 square feet of engineered road base and
2,511 square feet of hot mix asphalt roadway.
Pa
g
e
3
3
9
o
f
4
0
2
Helena 2 Water and Street Improvement Project
10
Pa
g
e
3
4
0
o
f
4
0
2
Summary and Next Steps
11
Pa
g
e
3
4
1
o
f
4
0
2
Summary and Next Steps
12
•Ralph and Cheryl Broetje (Broetje Orchards, LLC/Jubilee
Foundation) invested in water, sewer, and street improvements
to support future growth.
• Developer Reimbursement Agreements allow developers to
recover part of the costs from benefitting property owners.
• Developer Reimbursement Agreements are executed by the
City Manager.
• Staff recommends approval of the Resolutions authorizing the
City Manager to execute 5 Developer Reimbursement
Agreements
Pa
g
e
3
4
2
o
f
4
0
2
Questions?
Pa
g
e
3
4
3
o
f
4
0
2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council December 22, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 1/12/26
FROM: Arman Rashid, Director
Information Technology
SUBJECT: Resolution – Project Acceptance for the Citywide Genetec Enterprise
Access Control System (3 minute staff presenation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
Draft Resolution
Resolution No. 4358
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
The project was completed within the approved budget and scope. No
additional fiscal impact is anticipated.
Page 344 of 402
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
In 2023, the City Council approved Resolution No. 4358, authorizing the sole-
source purchase and installation of the Genetec Unified Access Control and
Video Security System from Interwest Technology Systems, Inc.
Prior to this project, the City utilized several independent door access and
video security systems installed at different times and managed separately.
These legacy systems lacked integration capabilities, which led to inefficiencies
such as maintaining multiple vendor contracts, managing separate user access
databases, and inconsistent security policies across facilities.
Through staff research and collaboration with local agencies, Genetec Inc. was
identified as the preferred enterprise system capable of unifying the City’s
access control and video management platforms under a single interface.
Interwest Technology Systems, Inc., the only local authorized Genetec vendor,
was selected to install and support the system.
The Citywide Genetec project included the installation and configuration of
access control panels, video servers, and supporting infrastructure at over a
dozen City facilities, including:
City Hall
Main Police Station and Downtown Mini-Station
Fire Stations 81–83 and the Fire Training Garage
Parks Maintenance Shop
Administrative & Community Services Facilities Shop
Butterfield Water Treatment Plant, Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
West Pasco Water Treatment Plant
Cemetery Office
Multimodal Station
First Avenue Center
Water Tower
The unified system now integrates directly with the City’s enterprise network,
allowing for centralized management, mobile monitoring, and enhanced data
security.
Final inspections were completed on October 29, 2025.
V. DISCUSSION:
The Genetec Enterprise Access Control System Project has successfully
Page 345 of 402
achieved its goals of improving facility security, streamlining system
management, and enhancing interoperability across departments.
Key project outcomes include:
Improved security oversight: All City facilities now operate under a
single security management platform, providing real-time monitoring and
consistent user access control.
Operational efficiency: The integration with City computer accounts
has reduced redundant administrative tasks for adding and removing
user credentials.
Standardized hardware and software:Simplifies maintenance,
training, and long-term scalability.
Future-ready foundation: The Genetec platform can support future
enhancements such as automated license plate readers, expanded
video other with interoperability regional potential and analytics,
agencies using Genetec systems.
The project was completed within the approved budget and scope. Minor
installation adjustments were managed through the contract contingency and
did not result in cost overruns. All installed components meet manufacturer
specifications and City standards for network and physical security.
all that and operational fully is City the that verified have staff system
contractual deliverables have been met. Interwest Technology Systems, Inc.
has completed all work to the City’s satisfaction.
Staff recommends that the City Council formally accept the Genetec Enterprise
Access Control System Project as complete and authorize staff to close the
project and file the Notice of Completion.
Next Steps:
File Notice of Completion with L&I
Release retainage withheld
Page 346 of 402
Resolution – City-wide Genetec Project Acceptance- 1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED BY INTERWEST TECHNOLOGIES
SYSTEMS INC., UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE CITYWIDE GENETEC
ENTERPRISE ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the work performed by Interwest Technology Systems Inc., under contract
for Project No. L327 has been examined by City of Pasco (City) staff and been found to be in
apparent compliance with the applicable project specifications and drawings, and
WHEREAS, it is City staff’s recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept the
contractor's work and the project as complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council concurs with City Staff’s recommendation and thereby accepts the
work performed by Interwest Technology systems Inc., under contract for Project No. L327 as
being completed in apparent conformance with the project specifications and drawings, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington
State Department of Revenue of this acceptance, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the final payment of retainage being withheld, pursuant to
RCW 60.28.011, regulations and administrative process, shall be released upon apparent
compliance with and satisfaction of applicable project specifications and verification thereof by
Information Technology Department staff and Finance Director.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ___ day of
_____, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 347 of 402
Pasco City Council
January 12th, 2026
Workshop
Pa
g
e
3
4
8
o
f
4
0
2
Project Acceptance for
Citywide Genetec
Enterprise Access Control
System
01/12/2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
3
4
9
o
f
4
0
2
Background
•On July 17, 2023, City Council approved Resolution No. 4358 authorizing $460,285.95 for the purchase
and installation of the Genetec Unified Security System from Interwest Technology Systems, Inc. as
a sole-source provider.
•The project’s purpose was to standardize the City’s access control and video security systems across
multiple facilities, replacing outdated, stand-alone systems (OSSI) and improving overall security
management efficiency.
•Installation and configuration were completed at the following sites:
o City Hall
o Main Police Station and Downtown Mini-Station
o Fire Stations 81–83 and Fire Training Garage
o Parks Maintenance Shop
o Public Works Shops and Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants
o Multimodal Station, First Avenue Center, and Cemetery Office
Pa
g
e
3
5
0
o
f
4
0
2
Genetec Card Access Quoted Amount Paid
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - CITY HALL 37,689.00 37,689.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - FIRE STATION 81 31,452.00 31,453.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - FIRE STATION 82 25,144.00 25,144.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - FIRE STATION 83 18,279.00 18,279.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - FIRE TRAINING FACILITY 12,584.00 12,584.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - MAINT BLDG FACILITY SHOP WTP CEMERTERY 38,524.00 38,524.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - PASCO WATER TOWER 15,826.00 15,826.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - WEST PASCO WATER TREATMENT PLANT 42,573.00 42,573.00
CARD ACCESS SYSTEM - WTP 38,291.00 38,291.00
CARD ACESS SYSTEM - PASCO FIRST AVE CENTER 4,576.00 4,576.00
CARD ACESS SYSTEM - POLICE STATION 98,985.00 98,985.00
Subtotal 363,923.00 363,924.00
Tax 32,389.15
Final Cost 396,312.15
Financial Impact
*The completed project cost the City a total of $396,312.15, coming under the originally approved budget of
460,285.95, saving $63,973.80.
Pa
g
e
3
5
1
o
f
4
0
2
Pa
g
e
3
5
2
o
f
4
0
2
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution______, accepting the work performed by Interwest Technology under
contract for the Genetec Citywide Card Access System project via consented agenda at the 1/12/2026 Workshop
Council Meeting.
Next Steps:
oRelease retainage withheldPa
g
e
3
5
3
o
f
4
0
2
Questions?Pa
g
e
3
5
4
o
f
4
0
2
Page 355 of 402
Page 356 of 402
Page 357 of 402
Page 358 of 402
Page 359 of 402
Page 360 of 402
Page 361 of 402
Page 362 of 402
Page 363 of 402
Page 364 of 402
Page 365 of 402
Page 366 of 402
Page 367 of 402
Page 368 of 402
Page 369 of 402
Page 370 of 402
Page 371 of 402
Page 372 of 402
Page 373 of 402
Page 374 of 402
Page 375 of 402
Page 376 of 402
Page 377 of 402
Page 378 of 402
Page 379 of 402
Page 380 of 402
Page 381 of 402
Page 382 of 402
Page 383 of 402
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council December 15, 2025
TO: Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 1/12/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution - Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 3 with
RH2 Engineering, Inc. for Design Services for the Process Water Reuse
Facility Phase 4 Irrigation System Farm Upgrades Project (5 minute staff
presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
Exhibit A - Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement
Power Point Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Summary:
Original PSA $462,640.00
Amendment No. 1 $68,013.00
Amendment No. 2 $306,744.00
Proposed Amendment No. 3 $64,889.00
New PSA Total $904,286.00
Adopted budget for this project in the 2025-2026 Biennial budget is $ 17M as
follows:
$4.5M are bonded
$12.5M were anticipated as an award of Clean water SRF loan from
Ecology, but were not received.
A $2.5M interfund loan is anticipated to cover remaining project costs.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Page 384 of 402
Background:
The Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) Irrigation System Farm Upgrades
Project encompasses the fourth phase of the current series of planned
improvements and modifications to the PWRF. This project (informally referred
to as PWRF Improvements Phase 4) will replace existing irrigation system
components nearing their end-of-life, construct new irrigation assets to convey
the pretreated process water to the City-owned land application farm circles,
and extend the system to newly created land application areas from recently
purchased parcels.
The City secured the professional services of RH2 to provide holistic planning,
design and permitting support services for the proposed improvements to
implement the land treatment system expansion consistent with the “Process
Water Reuse Facility Engineering Report”approved by the State of
Washington Department of Ecology on April 12, 2023.
Prior amendment No. 1 to the PSA addressed various evolving project needs.
These included added Field Investigations and background review, 60 and 90
percent Irrigation Pump Station (IPS) Improvements Designs, and Bid ready
plans and specifications.
Prior amendment No. 2 to the PSA addressed various evolving project needs.
These included additional analysis and design for pipelines and IPS (Irrigation
Pump Station) design adjustments to reflect the revised site work, additional
distribution system improvements, and updated controls for the system. The
majority of the amendment provides for consultant services during
construction, to assist with engineering services through the duration of project
and assistance during project closeout.
As funding availability and immediate needs for the facility were further refined,
the scope of the project was subject to revisions and adjustments.
Impact:
The proposed upgrades will provide the distribution and irrigation infrastructure
needed to increase PWRF operations and met the State Waste Discharge
Permit for the next season. The upgrades needed and the addition of two
irrigation fields allows PWRF to not only meet the State Waste Discharge
Permit, but also allow for a more robust irrigation for the added processor
capacity to PWRF.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed and recommends approval of Amendment No. 3 to the PSA
with RH2 Engineering in the amount of $64,889.00 for the PWRF - Phase 4
Page 385 of 402
Irrigation System Farm Upgrades project.
The proposed Amendment No. 3 to RH2 Professional services agreement
addresses the additional work need for the electrical work. The amendment
also is there construction, during as consultant additional adds services
believed to be a high likelihood of unidentified utilities that will need to be
relocated or repaired, specifically through the tight easement for the main
process water lines.
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.
Anticipated necessitate land additional the will flows in PWRF at 2026
treatment area.
Next Steps:
Provided the Council approves the amendment, staff will work with the
consultant to complete all necessary contractual documentation in the
upcoming weeks.
Alternatives:
Council may choose to reject the amendment. This is not recommended
since the additional electrical work that is needed and the additional
construction support to ensure construction meets its deadlines.
The timeline associated with this alternative action would hinder expansion of
the land treatment system and therefore fail to comply with the parameters
established for the facility under the State Waste Discharge Permit for PWRF;
likely resulting in violation of the permit and/or limiting industries from sending
flows to the facility which has, in turn, a negative economic impact to the
industries and the utility.
Page 386 of 402
Resolution - PWRF PH 4 PSA Amendment No. 3 - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3
FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RH2
ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PROCESS WATER
REUSE FACILITY (PWRF) IMPROVEMENT PHASE 4: IRRIGATION
SYSTEM FARM UPGRADES PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) and RH2 Engineering, Inc., entered into a
Professional Service Agreement on May 9th, 2023, to provide Engineering services with respect
to the PWRF Improvements project; and
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering Inc., entered into Amendment No. 1 on
November 23, 2023, to additional professional design engineering services; and
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering Inc., entered into Amendment No. 2 on
September 17, 2025, to additional professional design engineering services, servi ces during
construction, and additional time of performance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, has after due
consideration, determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into Amendment No. 3
with RH2 Engineering, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco approves the terms and conditions of
Amendment No. 3 between the City of Pasco and RH2 Engineering as attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the
City of Pasco, and
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
Page 387 of 402
Resolution - PWRF PH 4 PSA Amendment No. 3 - 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this __ day of
January, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, MMC Ogden Murphy Wallace, PPC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 388 of 402
RH2 Engineering, Inc.COMPANY NAME – Amendment No. XXXX-32 to PSA
PWRF Irrigation System ImprovementsPROJECT NAME – Project Number (if
applicableNo. 23465)
Version 08.15.2025 Page 1
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 10 pt
Formatted: Not Highlight
AMENDMENT NUMBER {Agreement No.-Amendment No. “18001-2”}23 to
PROFESSIONAL/PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
PWRF Irrigation System ImprovementsPROJECT NAME
PROJECT: Finance Project No23465
AGREEMENT NO. Agreement No from original PSA. If none, assign according to
Clerk List23-014
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering, Inc.CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT
COMPANY NAME entered into a Professional Services Agreement on Month, Day,
20##5/9/2023 to provide engineering _________ services with respect to the PPWRF
Irrigation System ImprovementsROJECT NAME project.
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering, Inc.CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT
COMPANY NAME entered into an Amendment/Amendment No. # 1 to provide additional
engineering services _______________ on Monday, Day, 20##.11/27/2023.
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering, Inc. entered into an Amendment No. 2 to
provide additional engineering services on 9/17/2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement is amended to allow RH2 Engineering,
Inc.CONTRACTOR/ CONSULTANT COMPANY NAME to provide additional professional
engineering services, and additional services during construction, and additional time of
performance ______________ services as described in Exhibit A.
1. Scope of Work:
See Exhibit A.
2. Fee:
The compensation for the work is based on a Time and Materials Basis not to exceed
the amount of $0306,74464,889.00 for a total authorization amount of
$837,397902,2860.00. See Exhibit B for full breakdown..
3. Time of performance:
The time of performance for services are unchanged and will shall now be complete for
the project on or before Month Day, 20XX12/31/2026.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Resolution Exhibit A
Page 389 of 402
RH2 Engineering, Inc.COMPANY NAME – Amendment No. XXXX-32 to PSA
PWRF Irrigation System ImprovementsPROJECT NAME – Project Number (if
applicableNo. 23465)
Version 08.15.2025 Page 2
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: Georgia, 10 pt
Formatted: Not Highlight
DATED THIS DAY______________________________.
[date of execution]
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR
NAMERH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager (> $50,000) Dan Mahlum, PE – Principal Name, Title
Department Director (< $50,000)
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Resolution Exhibit A
Page 390 of 402
1
12/1/2025 12:50:34 PM J:\Data\PSC\23-0092\00 Contract\A-3\A-3_SOW_PWRF Irrigation System Improvements.docx
Scope of Work
Amendment No. 3
City of Pasco
PWRF Irrigation System Improvements
Additional Work
December 2025
Background
The City of Pasco (City) has selected RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) to provide professional services to
design and permit upgrades to its Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) Irrigation Pump Station (IPS),
as well as extensions and upgrades to the transmission and distribution of its treated and clean water
pipelines for its land treatment system (LTS). These upgrades are hereby referenced as the PWRF
Phase 4 Irrigation System Improvements.
During design, additional design and coordination effort was required to extend Franklin Public Utility
District (PUD) power to the proposed pivots and booster pump station and to design control panels.
Moving into construction, there is a high likelihood that the many unmarked utilities throughout the
LTS will require relocation or repair, specifically through the existing 30-foot Blasdel easement
adjacent to the PWRF. This will require additional construction support from RH2. This amendment
captures the level of effort necessary to accommodate the additional design to extend power and to
provide a contingency for additional services during construction . Subtask numbering is continued
from the original contract and previous amendments.
Task 14 – Bid-Ready Plans and Specifications
Objective: Prepare bid-ready project plans and specifications to reflect the updated power and
communication improvements.
Approach:
14.3 Provide additional design effort and coordination with Franklin PUD for extending overhead
and buried power to the proposed booster pump station (Circles 13 and 14).
14.4 Provide additional design effort for the proposed control panels at the proposed booster
pump station (Well 8 and Circles 13 and 14).
Provided by City:
•Timely review comments as markups on the bid-ready design plans and specifications.
RH2 Deliverables:
•Updated bid-ready plans and details in electronic PDF.
•Updated bid-ready technical specifications in electronic PDF.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution Exhibit A
Page 391 of 402
City of Pasco Exhibit A
PWRF Irrigation System Improvements Scope of Work
Additional Work Amendment No. 3
2
12/1/2025 12:50:34 PM J:\Data\PSC\23-0092\00 Contract\A-3\A-3_SOW_PWRF Irrigation System Improvements.docx
Task 15 – Services During Construction (Limited)
Objective: Provide limited engineering services during construction to support the City. As the
engineer of record, coordinate with the City, its designated utilities, and special inspector to respond
to technical questions and issues. Services will include reviewing limited technical submittals,
responding to requests for information (RFIs), performing on-site observations, and assisting with
change proposals and change orders.
Approach:
Provide additional on-call assistance as requested by the City to address unforeseen
circumstances during construction, including relocation or repair of unmarked utilities.
Assist the City with preparing a change proposal request and recordable temporary
construction easement figures for the relocation and expansion of the Circle 14 pivot. This
effort will include updates to the engineering report for Ecology and grading permit
coordination with the County.
Assumptions:
• It is anticipated that the City will be the lead inspector, lead construction contract
administration, and be responsible for day-to-day activities. A maximum of eighty-eight (88)
additional hours has been included in this Amendment to continue support to review technical
submittals, respond to contractor questions, provide limited on-site observations, and assist
with change orders, as shown in the attached Fee Estimate. If additional effort is needed, that
extra work will be mutually determined by the City and RH2.
• RH2 is not responsible for site safety, or for determining means and methods, or directing the
contractor in their work.
• The Circle 14 pivot expansion will only require a grading permit from the County. This task
does not include any State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) coordination.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Applicable technical submittal and RFI responses in electronic PDF.
• Field notes summarizing on-site observations in electronic PDF.
• Updated engineering report in electronic PDF.
• Change order proposals in electronic PDF.
Project Schedule
RH2 is prepared to commence with the work upon written authorization from the City. The revised
project design is anticipated to be completed in November 2025. Construction is anticipated from
January 2026 through December 2026.
Resolution Exhibit A
Page 392 of 402
EXHIBIT B
Fee Estimate
Amendment No. 3
City of Pasco
PWRF Irrigation System Improvements
Additional Work
Dec-25
Description
Total
Hours
Total RH2
Labor
Total Subconsultant Total Expense Total Cost
Task 14 Bid-Ready Plans and Specifications 120 28,740$ -$ 719$ 29,459$
Task 15 Services During Construction (Limited)140 32,908$ 1,000$ 1,523$ 35,431$
PROJECT TOTAL 260 61,648$ 1,000$ 2,241$ 64,889$
\\corp.rh2.com\projects\Project\Data\PSC\23-0092\00 Contract\A-3\A-3_FEE_PWRF Irrigation System Improvements 12/1/2025 12:54 PM
Resolution Exhibit A
Page 393 of 402
RATE LIST RATE UNIT
Professional I $182 $/hr
Professional II $199 $/hr
Professional III $222 $/hr
Professional IV $243 $/hr
Professional V $259 $/hr
Professional VI $280 $/hr
Professional VII $306 $/hr
Professional VIII $333 $/hr
Professional IX $336 $/hr
Technician I $139 $/hr
Technician II $154 $/hr
Technician III $178 $/hr
Technician IV $189 $/hr
Technician V $206 $/hr
Technician VI $226 $/hr
Technician VII $245 $/hr
Technician VIII $257 $/hr
Administrative I $94 $/hr
Administrative II $109 $/hr
Administrative III $129 $/hr
Administrative IV $154 $/hr
Administrative V $180 $/hr
CAD/GIS System $27.50 $/hr
CAD Plots - Half Size $2.50 price per plot
CAD Plots - Full Size $10.00 price per plot
CAD Plots - Large $25.00 price per plot
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11"$0.09 price per copy
Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14"$0.14 price per copy
Copies (bw) 11" X 17"$0.20 price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 11"$0.90 price per copy
Copies (color) 8.5" X 14"$1.20 price per copy
Copies (color) 11" X 17"$2.00 price per copy
Technology Charge 2.50%% of Direct Labor
Night Work 10.00%% of Direct Labor
Mileage $0.7000
price per mile
(or Current IRS Rate)
Subconsultants 15%Cost +
Outside Services at cost
RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
2026 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES
Rates listed are adjusted annually.
Resolution Exhibit A
Page 394 of 402
Pasco City Council
January 12, 2026
Workshop
Pa
g
e
3
9
5
o
f
4
0
2
PWRF Phase 4 Irrigation
Systems PSA Amendment No. 3
January 12, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
3
9
6
o
f
4
0
2
PWRF Phase 4 Professional Services Costs
3
Additional
Irrigation
Pa
g
e
3
9
7
o
f
4
0
2
PWRF Phase 4 Professional Services Costs
4
The proposed Amendment No. 3 adds $64,889.00 to the project and brings the total
professional services agreement amount to $904,286.00. The added services for Amendment
No. 3 are summarized below:
❑ Task 14 – Prepare project plans and specifications to reflect the updated power and
communication improvements.
❑Task 15 – Additional services during construction, as there is believed to be a high
likelihood of unidentified utilities that will need to be relocated or repaired, specifically
through the tight easement for the main process water lines.
The professional services agreement was verified as necessary additions and negotiated with City
staff. They were found to be reasonable and needed by City Staff.
Staff recommends approval of PSA Amendment No. 3.
Pa
g
e
3
9
8
o
f
4
0
2
PWRF Phase 4 Professional Services Costs
5
Professional Services Agreement Cost
Original PSA $ 462,640.00
PSA Amendment No. 1 $ 68,013.00
PSA Amendment No. 2 $ 306,744.00
PSA Amendment No. 3 $ 64,889.00
New Professional Services Agreement $904,286.00
Pa
g
e
3
9
9
o
f
4
0
2
Questions?
Pa
g
e
4
0
0
o
f
4
0
2
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 401 of 402
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 402 of 402