HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.03.02 Council Meeting Packet
AGENDA
City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, March 2, 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 meeting.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call 1-332-249-0718 and use access
code 526 780 820#.
City Council meetings 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.
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. CONSENT AGENDA - All items listed under the Consent Agenda are
considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call
vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate
discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by
Councilmembers, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the
Page 1 of 309
Regular Agenda and considered separately.
6 - 19 (a) Approval of Meeting Minutes for February 9th and February 17th
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Special Workshop
held on February 9, 2026, Regular Workshop held on February 9,
2026, and Regular Meeting held on February 17, 2026.
20 - 21 (b) Bills and Communications - Approving Claims in the Total
Amount of $10,964,318.55
To approve claims in the total amount of $10,964,318.55
($4,093,774.22 in Check Nos. 276551 - 276881; $5,567,860.84 in
Electronic Transfer Nos. 852343, 852346 - 852357; $13,248.52 in
Check Nos. 55147 - 55155; $1,289,434.97 in Electronic Transfer
Nos. 30238068 - 30238729).
22 - 26 (c) Resolution No. 4708 - City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan (CSAP) Adoption
To approve Resolution No. 4708, adopting the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
27 - 28 (a) National Reading Month Proclamation (5 minutes)
Mayor Grimm will read the proclamation for "National Reading Month"
scheduled for March 2026 and present the proclamation to Beth
Burns of the Kennewick Chapter of the National Society Daughters
of the American Revolution.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - The public may address Council on any items
unless it relates to a scheduled Public Hearing. This item is provided to
allow the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to
express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for
debate or for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate
response. Some questions require consideration by Council over time and
after a deliberative process with input from a number of different sources;
some questions are best directed to staff members who have access to
specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited to three
minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to
summarize their comments and/or submit written information for
consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings. Lastly, when called
upon, please state your name and city or county residency into the
microphone before providing your comments.
7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS
Page 2 of 309
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
8. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO
9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS
29 - 59 (a) Ordinance No. 4818 - Emergency Comprehensive Plan
Amendment- School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4818, adopting the Pasco
School District No. 1 2025 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan by
reference and incorporating such into the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan by addendum and further authorize publication by
summary only.
60 - 169 (b) Ordinance Nos. 4819 & 4820 - Emergency Low Density
Residential Land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment and R-S-
20 Rezone
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 4819, adopting the 2018
comprehensive plan amendment: low density Residential-Riverview
by reference and incorporating such into the city of Pasco
comprehensive plan by addendum and further authorize publication
by summary only.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 4820, amending and repealing
sections of Pasco Municipal Code, in Title 17 Sign Code, Title 21
Urban Area Subdivision Regulations, and Title 25 Zoning, related to
changes made to the R-S-20 Suburban District and further amending
the official zoning map classification from R-S-20 suburban district to
R-15 low density residential district, and further authorize publication
by summary only.
170 - 178 (c) Ordinance Nos. 4821 & 4822 – Creation of Aquatics Center Fund
& Budget Amendment for Aquatics Center Staffing (5 minute
staff presentation)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4821, establishing a special
revenue fund for the Pasco Public Facilities District Tax Fund and
creating a new Chapter 3.270, "Aquatic Center Fund", in the Pasco
Municipal Code, and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordnance No.4822, amending the 2025-
2026 Biennial Operating Budget (Ordinance No. 4749), by providing
supplement thereto; to provide additional appropriation in the City’s
funds and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
179 - 217 (d) *Resolution No. 4709 - Public Works Board $3.5M Loan/Grant
Page 3 of 309
Agreement - Lewis Street Underpass Demolition (5 minute staff
presentation)
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 4709, authorizing the
City Manager to execute a $3.5M Low-Interest Loan/Grant
Agreement (50% Forgivable Principal) for the Lewis Street
Underpass Demolition Project.
218 - 239 (e) Resolution No. 4710 - Third Amendment to RH2 Engineering, Inc.
Professional Services Agreement for Irrigation System
Expansion (5 minute staff presentation)
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 4710, authorizing the
City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 for the professional
services agreement with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the design and
construction services for Irrigation Systems Expansion Project.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
240 - 260 (a) Updated Street Lighting Standards (5 minute staff presentation)
11. NEW BUSINESS
261 - 269 (a) Housing Authority of the City of Pasco & Franklin County Board
of Commissioners Appointment of Position No. 5 (2 minute staff
presentation)
MOTION: I move to appoint _________________, to the Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners under Position No. 5, effective
March 2, 2026, through January 27, 2031.
270 - 293 (b) Understanding Traffic Calming: Purpose and Approaches (12
minute staff presentation)
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION
(a) Discussion with legal counsel about current or potential
litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) (10 minutes)
13. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED
294 (a) Procedural Discussion Regarding Upcoming Appeal (5 minute
staff presentation)
14. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION
295 - 307 (a) City Manager Report
Page 4 of 309
15. ADJOURNMENT
16. ADDITIONAL NOTES
(a) (RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
MF# “Master File #....”
308 - 309 (b) Adopted Council Goals (Reference Only)
Page 5 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 20, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Krystle Shanks, City Clerk
City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes for February 9th and February 17th
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
2.9.2026 & 2.17.2026 Draft Council Minutes
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Special Workshop held on
February 9, 2026, Regular Workshop held on February 9, 2026, and Regular
Meeting held on February 17, 2026.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 6 of 309
MINUTES
City Council Special Meeting
5:30 PM - Monday, February 9, 2026
Pasco Police Department Community Room, 215 W Sylvester St, Pasco, WA 99301
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:48 PM by Charles Grimm, Mayor.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: David Milne, Charles Grimm, Joe Cotta, Leo Perales,
Calixto Hernandez, Abel Campos, and Mark Figueroa
Councilmember attending remotely:
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: Harold Stewart, City Manager; Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager;
Angela Pashon, Assistant City Manager; Kevin Crowley, Fire Chief; Kevin Hebdon,
Finance Director; Haylie Matson, Community & Economic Development Director;
Maria Serra, Public Works Director, Sara Matzen, Human Resources Director; Arman
Rashid, IT Director; Brent Cook, Deputy Police Chief
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Councilmembers connected with each other, shared backgrounds, and heard one
another's perspectives in a relaxed, conversational environment.
No final action took place at this gathering.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 PM.
PASSED and APPROVED on _______________________.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Page 1 of 2Page 7 of 309
Charles Grimm, Mayor Angela Pashon, Assistant City Manager
Page 2 of 2Page 8 of 309
MINUTES
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, February 9, 2026
Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & Microsoft Teams Webinar
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Charles Grimm, Mayor.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: David Milne, Charles Grimm, Joe Cotta, Leo Perales,
Calixto Hernandez, Abel Campos, and Mark Figueroa
Councilmembers attending remotely:
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: Harold Stewart, City Manager; Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager;
Angela Pashon, Assistant City Manager; Kevin Crowley, Fire Chief; Kevin
Hebdon, Finance Director; Drew Pollom, City Attorney; Haylie Matson,
Community & Economic Development Director; Brent Cook, Deputy Police Chief;
and Maria Serra, Public Works Director
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Councilmember Cotta attended the Pasco Chamber of Commerce luncheon where
Pasco School District Superintendent Michelle Whitney gave the key note address.
Councilmember Campos congratulated the Pasco High Dance Team for winning the
2026 National Championship for Hip Hop.
Mayor Grimm also attended the Pasco Chamber of Commerce luncheon as well as
the Non-Fiction restaurant ribbon-cutting which was well attended.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 1 of 4Page 9 of 309
Presentation - Big Bro Joe Foundation
Ms. Sigdel introduced Joe Thornton, founder of Big Bro Joe Foundation, who
provided a brief presentation.
Mr. Thornton presented an overview of the Big Bro Joe Foundation, its youth
mentorship programs, and community impact in the Tri-Cities. He highlighted the
organization’s core principles, community service efforts, and the acquisition of a
Pasco facility to serve as a Community Youth Hub. Mr. Thornton requested City
support through funding, resources, and partnerships.
Councilmembers expressed general support and discussed potential funding
options and collaboration opportunities.
Lori Thompson, Pasco resident, expressed support for mentorship programs for
youth in the community.
Amber Wade, Pasco resident, congratulated Mr. Thornton for his efforts in the Big
Bro Foundation.
Matthew Catt, Kennewick resident, expressed support for Big Bro Foundation.
Presentation - Fireworks History
Ms. Sigdel introduced Fire Chief Crowley and Deputy Police Chief Cook, who
provided a brief presentation.
Fire Chief Crowley and Deputy Police Chief Cook presented an overview of
fireworks regulations, enforcement challenges, and historical trends. Staff
reviewed the 1996 ban, the 2018 allowance of “safe and sane” fireworks, and the
continued prohibition of aerial fireworks. Data showed a decline in fireworks-
related calls since 2018, though enforcement remains difficult due to call volume,
staffing limitations, and prioritization of higher-risk incidents.
Council discussed quality-of-life concerns, impacts to veterans, pets, and
residents, and questioned whether declining call volume reflects enforcement
challenges. Councilmembers suggested reviewing policies from other cities,
exploring alternative enforcement tools, and continuing public education efforts.
Lori Thompson, Pasco resident, discussed her ongoing concerns related to
fireworks.
Amber Wade, Pasco resident, discussed fireworks concerns relating to veterans,
animals and children with sensory issues.
Introduction of Ordinance – Code Amendment Allowing Sandwich Board
Signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District (CA2025-002)
Page 2 of 4Page 10 of 309
Ms. Matson provided a brief overview introducing a code amendment to allow
sandwich board signs within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District.
Council expressed general support for allowing sandwich board signs in
downtown Pasco as a pilot program. Council directed staff to return with the
ordinance for consideration at a future meeting, with the option to revisit sign
quantity, placement standards, outreach practices, and potential expansion after
an evaluation period.
Craig Maloney, downtown business owner, spoke in support of allowing sandwich
board signs but expressed concern about enforcement-driven initiation of the
amendment, limited outreach, and restrictions on sign quantity and placement.
Mike Miller, downtown business owner, supported the amendment and
emphasized the importance of reducing barriers for small businesses.
Dave Cortinez, Latin Business Association, supported the downtown amendment
but requested expansion citywide, flexibility for multiple signs, and consideration
of sidewalk width and safety.
Thomas Granbois, downtown Pasco property owner, expressed opposition to the
amendment as written, citing lack of outreach, concern over enforcement
complaints, and requesting greater flexibility for large or corner properties.
Valerie Torres, downtown business owner, supported the amendment and
encouraged collaborative revisions to address differing building conditions and
business needs
Resolution - Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Meter
Reading, Inc. for City Meter Reading Services
Mr. Hebdon presented a proposed professional services agreement with
Columbia Meter Reading, Inc. for water meter reading services. The contract
would be for three years with two one-year extensions. Staff noted a projected
annual cost of approximately $610,000 and stated the item would return for
council action at a future meeting.
Mayor Grimm called three (3) times for public comment, but no public comment
was received.
Resolution - Sole Source Purchase of Three (3) Valley Pivots for the
Process Water Reuse Facility Irrigation System Farm Upgrades Project
Ms. Serra presented a resolution authorizing a sole source purchase of three
Valley center pivots for the Processed Water Reuse Facility irrigation system
upgrades. The item was previously reviewed in November and returned with a
corrected cost and updated information regarding equipment availability and
storage constraints.
Page 3 of 4Page 11 of 309
The proposed purchase is not to exceed $620,000, including contingency for
installation adjustments. Staff indicated the item would return for council action at
the next meeting.
Mayor Grimm called three (3) times for public comment, but no public comment
was received.
MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mr. Stewart reminded the Council and public that previously approved water and
sewer rate changes will take effect March 1 and that staff is proactively
communicating the change. He also noted that utility shutoffs for non-payment have
resumed following completion of billing system transitions.
Councilmember Perales acknowledged constituent concerns regarding shutoffs and
thanked staff for promptly addressing the issues and providing direct outreach.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:59 PM.
PASSED and APPROVED on _______________________.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Charles Grimm, Mayor Angela Pashon, Assistant City Manager
Page 4 of 4Page 12 of 309
MINUTES
City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM - Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Pasco City Hall, Council Chambers & Microsoft Teams Webinar
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Charles Grimm, Mayor.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Charles Grimm, David Milne, Mark Figueroa, Leo
Perales, Joe Cotta, Calixto Hernandez, and Abel Campos
Councilmembers attending remotely:
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: Harold Stewart, City Manager; Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager;
Angela Pashon, Assistant City Manager; Kevin Crowley, Fire Chief; Kevin
Hebdon, Finance Director; Daniel Kenny, City Attorney; Haylie Matson,
Community & Economic Development Director; Brent Cook, Deputy Police Chief;
Maria Serra, Public Works Director; and Krystle Shanks, Deputy City Clerk
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Minutes for January 26th and February 2nd
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Regular Workshop held on
January 26, 2026, and Regular Meeting held on February 2, 2026.
Bills and Communications - Approving Claims in the Total Amount of
$8,997,674.66
To approve claims in the total amount of $8,997,674.66 ($6,152,317.82 in Check
Nos.276279 - 276550 ; $1,549,935.59 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 852056 -
852133, 852135 - 852196, 852218 - 852308, 852318 - 852319, 852321 - 852322,
852324 - 852342; $20,661.98 in Check Nos.55140 - 55146; $1,274,759.27 in
Page 1 of 7Page 13 of 309
Electronic Transfer Nos. 30237400 - 30238067).
Letter Regarding Possible Re-Conveyance of Rivershore Property from
USACE
The City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the joint letter of support for
proposed federal legislation directing the transfer of Columbia River shoreline
lands in the Tri-Cities from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to local
governments and Tribes.
Resolution No. 4706 - Sole Source Purchase of Three (3) Valley Pivots for
the Process Water Reuse Facility Irrigation System Farm Upgrades Project
To approve Resolution No. 4706, waiving the competitive bidding requirements
and approving the purchase of three (3) Valley pivots and ancillary equipment
from LAD Irrigation of Pasco.
Resolution No. 4707 - Professional Services Agreement with Columbia
Meter Reading, Inc. for City Meter Reading Services
To approve Resolution No. 4707, authorizing the City manager to execute a
personal services agreement with Columbia Meter Reading Services.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Milne moved, seconded by Councilmember Perales
to approve the Consent Agenda as read by Roll Call vote.
RESULT: Motion carried 7-0
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Perales, Councilmember
Cotta, Councilmember Hernandez, and Councilmember
Campos
AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA
MOTION: Councilmember Perales moved, seconded by Councilmember
Figueroa to amend the agenda to add consideration of a moratorium on the
acceptance of applications related to essential public facilities, including secure
community transition facilities to the start of the agenda of Section 9.
RESULT: Motion carried 7-0
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Perales, Councilmember
Cotta, Councilmember Hernandez, and Councilmember
Campos
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mary Mahoney, Pasco resident, discussed the Tri-Cities Animal Control, Pasco Public
Facilities District Aquatic Center, floodplain development and ongoing property issues.
Page 2 of 7Page 14 of 309
Sam Snodgrass, Pasco resident, commended the Pasco Fire Department and the
Pasco Police Departments and raised concerns about utility billing customer service,
including a water shutoff experience and difficulty reaching staff.
Craig Maloney, Pasco resident and business owner, thanked staff for considering
prior feedback and incorporating changes, expressed appreciation for their
responsiveness, and encouraged council approval of the proposed code amendments
relating to sandwich board signs in downtown.
Saul Martinez, Pasco business owner, echoed Mr. Maloney's comments and asked
council to ease sandwich board signage restrictions to help downtown small
businesses, and emphasized such changes could affect business survival.
Thomas Granbois, Pasco resident and business owner, praised the City’s Memorial
Pool Dome and parks programs, expressed support for the aquatic center, and
commended efforts to support downtown small businesses at the Pasco Specialty
Kitchen and economic development.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS
Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
Councilman Perales attended the Good Roads & Transportation Meeting, Good
Roads meeting on transportation priorities and funding, toured Hermiston
wastewater plant, attended the Tri-City Animal Control Authority meeting, met with
Pasco School District about lead in drinking water, and toured the Pasco Little
League fields to assess needs.
Mr. Cotta attended a Regional Chaplaincy meeting with training and community
support activities..
Mr. Grimm stated he will be cooking for the first responder chaplains in the Tri-
Cities this upcoming Saturday, and said he attended the Benton-Franklin Transit
Board meeting.
Mr. Campos met with Visit Tri-Cities to discuss tourism collaboration and
opportunities for Pasco.
Mr. Figueroa met with the Benton Franklin Council of Governments representative
for regional government overview and has been assisting with high school girls
wrestling, noting upcoming state tournament.
HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO
Public Hearing & Ordinance No. 4814 - Tierra Vida Phase 1 Westerly 20 Feet
Page 3 of 7Page 15 of 309
(VAC2025-003)
Ms. Matson provided a brief overview on the proposed ordinance and public
hearing that would vacate a 20-foot right-of-way in Tierra Vida, Phase 1 to correct
a technical omission from a 2023 vacation involving a historic street grid no longer
needed; the landlocked parcel has no public use and criteria for vacation were
met.
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Grimm called for public comments three (3) times and no one came
forward to speak.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Milne moved, seconded by Councilmember Perales
to adopt Ordinance No. 4814, vacating the westerly 20 feet of Tiera Vida
Phase One, as recorded under Auditor's File No. 1691585, providing for
severability and establishing an effective date, and, further, authorize
publication by summary only.
RESULT: Motion carried 7-0
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Perales, Councilmember
Cotta, Councilmember Hernandez, and Councilmember
Campos
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS
Ordinance No. 4817 - Moratorium on Essential Public Facilities (Secure
Community Transition Facilities)
Mr. Stewart discussed the proposed ordinance and requested council consider a
six-month moratorium on applications for certain state-mandated facility types so
the city can develop local regulations, public processes, and legally defensible
standards for siting them.
Councilmembers expressed support, noting it would allow time for community
input and proactive planning.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Milne moved, seconded by Councilmember Perales
to adopt Ordinance No. 4718, imposing a six-month moratorium on
applications related to essential public facilities, including secure community
transition facilities, and establishing an immediate effective date, authorized
publication by summary only, and directing staff to develop and return to City
Council with recommendation, land use regulations addressing the sitting of
these facilities within 6 months of adoption of the moratorium.
RESULT: Motion carried 7-0
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Perales, Councilmember
Page 4 of 7Page 16 of 309
Cotta, Councilmember Hernandez, and Councilmember
Campos
Ordinance No. 4815 - Code Amendment Allowing Sandwich Board Signs
within the Downtown Pasco Overlay District (CA2025-002)
Ms. Matson introduced Ivan Barragan, Planner III, presented the proposed
ordinance to allow sandwich board signs in the downtown overlay district,
outlining planning commission review, recent council feedback, and revisions
adding flexibility such as sign allowances based on frontage, corner-lot
placement, and permitted off-site placement with written permission.
Councilmembers expressed support and appreciation for staff’s responsiveness
before considering a motion.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Milne moved, seconded by Councilmember Perales
to adopt Ordinance No. 4815, amending Title 17, Sign Code of the Pasco
Municipal Code to establish regulations allowing sandwich board signs within
the downtown Pasco overlay district, and further, authorize publication by
summary only
RESULT: Motion carried 7-0
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Perales, Councilmember
Cotta, Councilmember Hernandez, and Councilmember
Campos
Ordinance No. 4816 - Creation of Transportation Benefit District
Ms. Sigdel provided a brief overview of the proposed ordinance creating a
Transportation Benefit District to fund street maintenance and transportation
improvements, noting many cities use the tool due to declining road revenues and
aging infrastructure.
Council asked questions from staff and discussed that the action would only
establish the district, and expressed mixed views, with some Councilmembers in
support of moving forward and one Councilmember opposing due to concerns
about potential sales tax increases.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Milne moved, seconded by Councilmember
Figueroa to adopt Ordinance No. 4816, amending Pasco municipal code to
enact a new chapter 3.270 Pasco Transportation Benefit District, establishing a
transportation benefit district, specifying the boundaries for the transportation
benefit district, pavement maintenance & reconstruction, street and traffic
maintenance and operations, and other transportation related capital projects;
providing for severability and establishing an effective date, and, further,
authorize publication by summary only.
RESULT: Motion carried by Roll Call vote, 6-1
Page 5 of 7Page 17 of 309
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Cotta, Councilmember
Hernandez, and Councilmember Campos
NAYS: Councilmember Perales
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION
Staff noted a clerical error made in the original motion for Ordinance 4817 approved
earlier in the meeting, noting that Council would need to make an amended motion.
Ordinance No. 4817 - Moratorium on Essential Public Facilities (Secure
Community Transition Facilities)
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Milne moved, seconded by Councilmember Perales
to amend the original motion, and adopt Ordinance No. 4817, imposing a six-
month moratorium on applications related to essential public facilities, including
secure community transition facilities, and establishing an immediate effective
date, authorized publication by summary only, and directing staff to develop
and return to City Council with recommendation, land use regulations
addressing the sitting of these facilities within 6 months of adoption of the
moratorium.
RESULT: Motion carried 7-0
AYES: Mayor Grimm, Mayor Pro Tem Milne, Councilmember
Figueroa, Councilmember Perales, Councilmember
Cotta, Councilmember Hernandez, and Councilmember
Campos
Mr. Stewart highlighted upcoming events, including a departmental tour and the
Martin Luther King Center reopening, and announced fluoride had been removed from
the city water system.
Councilmember Perales commended city staff for assisting a business with a permit in
time for a Valentine’s Day sale.
Mayor Grimm made remarks recognizing Presidents Day and encouraged
Councilmembers to uphold public service values.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:54 PM.
PASSED and APPROVED on _______________________.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Page 6 of 7Page 18 of 309
Charles Grimm, Mayor Krystle Shanks, Deputy City Clerk
Page 7 of 7Page 19 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 20, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Kevin Hebdon, Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Bills and Communications - Approving Claims in the Total Amount of
$10,964,318.55
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Accounts Payable 02.05.26 to 02.18.26
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve claims in the total amount of $10,964,318.55 ($4,093,774.22 in
Check Nos. 276551 - 276881; $5,567,860.84 in Electronic Transfer Nos.
852343, 55155; - 55147 Nos. Check 852357; $13,248.52 - 852346 in
$1,289,434.97 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30238068 - 30238729).
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
There are two categories of accounts receivable write-offs:
1. Direct write-offs are small in value or, in the case of Ambulance Fund,
reflect a reduction of fees related to a discount required by DSHS and
Medicare. These direct write-offs are not sent to collection.
2. Write-offs referred to collection and have been in arrears for a given
number of days and exceed minimum values that move them out of the
direct write-off category.
Please see the summary page attached to this agenda item for details.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 20 of 309
REPORTING PERIOD:
March 2, 2026
Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined
Check Numbers 276551 - 276881 55147 - 55155
Total Check Amount $4,093,774.22 $13,248.52 Total Checks 4,107,022.74$
Electronic Transfer Numbers 852343 30238068 - 30238729
852346 - 852357
Total EFT Amount $5,567,860.84 $1,289,434.97 $0.00 $0.00 Total EFTs 6,857,295.81$
Grand Total 10,964,318.55$
Councilmember B
100 1,472,644.78
110 35,150.56
125 5,535.00
140 2,833,472.36
145 3,341.48
150 56,188.63
160 8,569.87
165 7,040.71
168 18,611.30
170 2,338.42
180 1,424.66
185 336.50
189 73.66
194 46,911.60
195 74.00
367 1,045,652.39
410 3,083,503.51
510 81,649.16
511 12,835.02
520 304,461.51
690 1,944,503.43
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:10,964,318.55$
February 5, 2026 to February 18, 2026
C I T Y O F P A S C O
Council Meeting of:
Accounts Payable Approved
The City Council
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as
described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim.
Harold Stewart, City Manager Kevin Hebdon, Finance Manager
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this
2nd day of March, 2026 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment:
Councilmember A
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND
STREET
CEMETERY
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
ANIMAL CONTROL
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
C.D. BLOCK GRANT
MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STADIUM/ CONVENTION CENTER
GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
LITTER ABATEMENT
PAYROLL CLEARING
UTILITY, WATER/ SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
MEDICAL/ DENTAL/ VISION INSURANCE
Page 21 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 4, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Public Works Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 4708 - City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
(CSAP) Adoption
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
Link to City of Pasco - Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 4708, adopting the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the CSAP does not require an immediate capital expenditure;
however, it is a mandatory prerequisite for the City to remain eligible for the
secured federal Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Planning Grant Program and other
future state/federal funding opportunities. Having an adopted plan significantly
strengthens the City's competitive position for millions of dollars in future grant
funding to support safety projects identified within the document.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
In early 2020, the City completed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), and later
updated it in June 2022, using a framework established in Washington State’s
Target Zero effort to provide data-driven collision reduction strategies on the
City’s roads. To continue this commitment, in 2023, the City of Pasco secured
a federal grant through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program to develop a Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan (CSAP). This data-driven, context-sensitive plan is tailored to
Pasco’s unique infrastructure needs and aligns with the USDOT Safe System
Page 22 of 309
Approach. Its primary objective is to identify high-risk areas, recommend
proven countermeasures, and prioritize safety improvements that protect all
road users, with a specific focus on eliminating fatalities and serious injuries.
A formal adoption of this plan is critical to the City's immediate funding strategy.
The City is currently preparing a grant application for a safety infrastructure-
based improvement IB2 (Systemic Pedestrian Crossings) for the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which has a submission deadline of
March 6, 2026. This funding program aims to reduce fatal and serious injury
crashes on city streets through targeted funding and engineering
improvements. Formal adoption of the CSAP is a mandatory prerequisite for
this HSIP application; any delay in approval would jeopardize the City’s
eligibility for this and future funding opportunities. Without an adopted plan, the
City will struggle to secure future SS4A Action Plan funds, significantly limiting
its ability to address high-priority safety needs.
The CSAP aligns with the City’s core strategic goals by directly addressing
crash reduction through targeted engineering and policy solutions. It provides a
prioritized list of non-infrastructure and infrastructure capital improvements for
integration into the City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
ensures that safety investments are equitably distributed to benefit
traffic by impacted disproportionately are that communities underserved
incidents. Adoption of the CSAP will provide a clear roadmap for the City to
secure state and federal funding opportunities for the projects prioritized within
the plan. Once adopted, the City will apply for grant opportunities as criteria fits
project scopes; once funding is secured, the City will be able to begin design,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction activities until the project is complete.
Ultimately, safer, a foster will more and improvements these policies
connected, and more equitable transportation network that directly improves
the daily quality of life and physical well-being of every Pasco resident.
To oversee the plan’s development, the City established a Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) composed of cross-departmental leadership:
Andrey Avetisyan – Engineering Manager
Faigda Garcia – Engineer I/Project Manager
Kevin Crowley – Fire Chief
Michael Andrews – Police Traffic Sergeant
Matthew Decker – Police Lieutenant
Mark Trumpy – Public Works Street Lead Maintenance
The project team performed a rigorous assessment of safety needs by
conducting analyzing five years of crash data (2020–2024), extensive
community engagement, and evaluating underserved areas alongside local
policies and standards. This process culminated in the creation of a High Injury
Page 23 of 309
Network (HIN) to score and prioritize project locations. Proposed interventions
are categorized into Safety Policy Strategies and Infrastructure Safety Projects,
supported by a transparent progress-tracking methodology.
A key requirement of the SS4A program is a formal commitment to a safety
timeline. In August 2025, through Resolution No. 4641, the City Council
officially adopted a goal to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries by
50% by the year 2035. This CSAP represents a collaborative foundation for
making Pasco’s roadways safer for everyone, incorporating continuous
feedback from the Public Works Department and the TAC.
Impact (other than fiscal)
Adoption of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) ensures the City of
Pasco’s compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT)
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program. Additionally, serving as a
strategic gateway, allowing the City to leverage the plan's recommended safety
improvements to secure future state and federal grants.
Any delays to adoption will affect our eligibility to apply for the earliest grant
opportunity for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding due on
March 6, 2026.
Choosing not to adopt the plan will compromise the City’s eligibility for future
federal and state funding opportunities and hinder efforts to secure future
SS4A Action Plan grants, significantly limiting the City's ability to address high-
priority safety needs.
V. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council formally adopt the Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan. This action fulfills the requirements of the SS4A funding
program, aligns with the City's long-term strategic goals for multimodal safety,
and establishes a strategic framework for eliminating traffic-related fatalities
and serious injuries within the community.
Next Steps
Once adopted, the City will be eligible to apply for implementation funding
through various state and federal grant programs in the upcoming cycles.
Alternatives
A formal adoption is essential to maintain the City's eligibility for the upcoming
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding cycle, which has a strict
application deadline of March 6, 2026. Any delay in adoption will result in the
loss of this immediate grant opportunity.
Page 24 of 309
Choosing not to adopt the plan will compromise the City’s eligibility for future
federal and state funding opportunities and hinder efforts to secure future
SS4A Action Plan grants, significantly limiting the City's ability to address high-
priority safety needs.
Page 25 of 309
Resolution – Adopting the City of Pasco Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) - 1
Version 1.9.26
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
APPROVES THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE
SAFETY ACTION PLAN (CSAP).
WHEREAS, in 2024, the City of Pasco secured federal funding from the U.S. Department
of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program to help develop a
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP).
WHEREAS, the CSAP aims to reduce fatal and serious injuries on city roadways through
engineering improvements and countermeasures.
WHEREAS, as commitment to the eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious
injuries, the City Council of the City of Pasco approved Resolution No. 4641, adopting the
commitment goal to reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries by 50% by the year 2035.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco is committed to the eventual goal of zero
roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Pasco adopts the City of Pasco
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP), and
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.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Page 26 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 20, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Angela Pashon, Assistant City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: National Reading Month Proclamation (5 minutes)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Proclamation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Month" Reading "National for proclamation the read will Grimm Mayor
scheduled for March 2026 and present the proclamation to Beth Burns of the
Kennewick Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American
Revolution.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
The "National Reading Month" Proclamation will be read and presented to Beth
Burns of the Kennewick Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the
American Revolution.
Page 27 of 309
Proclamation
“National Reading Month”
March 2026
WHEREAS, reading is a foundational skill that allows individuals to explore worlds beyond their
own, expand their imagination, and develop critical thinking skills necessary for success in life; and
WHEREAS, March is designated as National Reading Month to motivate Americans of all ages
to read every day, in honor of the birthday of the beloved children's author Dr. Seuss; and
WHEREAS, research has shown that literacy skills begin to develop at birth and that reading
regularly is linked to positive mental health, cognitive development, and lifelong learning; and
WHEREAS, cultivating a love for reading prepares young minds for academic success, improves
vocabulary, and fosters empathy and creativity; and
WHEREAS, the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), Kennewick
Chapter, is committed to fostering a community of readers and encouraging families to read together
daily; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles Grimm, Mayor of the City of Pasco, Washington, do hereby
proclaim March 2026 as
“National Reading Month”
in the city of Pasco, and urge all residents to celebrate this month by reading, visiting local libraries,
and encouraging children to discover the joy of books.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the
City of Pasco, State of Washington, to be affixed this 2nd day of March 2026.
Charles Grimm, Mayor
City of Pasco
Page 28 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 2, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 4818 - Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment-
School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4818, adopting the Pasco School
District No. 1 2025 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan by reference and
incorporating such into the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan by addendum
and further authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
The Ordinance informs and supports school impact fees as established by
Ordinance 4774, adopted by Council on June 16, 2025. School impact fees are
collected by the City when building permits are issued. Each month, city staff
transmits any school impact fees collected that month to the School District,
therefore having no fiscal impact to the Cities budget.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
The with capital the consistent must Plan Comprehensive City’s remain
planning efforts of local service providers, including the Pasco School District.
The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan is required to be
maintained and periodically updated to ensure alignment with the City’s
adopted budget and to accurately reflect planned improvements for public
facilities, including schools.
Pasco School District No. 1 (PSD) recently adopted an updated Capital
Facilities Plan that is intended to accomplish a number of things. The plan
Page 29 of 309
identifies District Capital Facility accomplishments, student enrollment trends,
community growth projections and financial needs for future capital projects.
Until March of 2025, the most recent adoption of an amended plan was in
2022.
Impact (other than fiscal):
The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan allows for the continued collection
of school district impact fees that periodically are adjusted due to emerging
trends project and budgets district capital growth, community in school
demands.
V. DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, comprehensive plans and their implementing
development regulations must be reviewed and, if necessary, amended to
maintain internal consistency and alignment with capital facility planning and
financing. Similarly, PMC 25.215 establishes the procedures and criteria for
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including provisions for emergency
amendments necessary to ensure consistency with adopted capital facility
programs and ordinances. Identifying school facilities as necessary to support
development is a prerequisite for the City’s continued imposition of school
impact fees as a funding mechanism for the Pasco School District.
Without this identification, the City cannot legally collect these fees. Through
Ordinance No. 4774, adopted on June 16, 2025, the City previously updated
school impact fees to reflect the PSD’s most recent Capital Facilities Plan. This
amendment ensures that the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive
Plan remains consistent with both state law and the City’s adopted ordinances.
General Approval Criteria:
Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(8)(c), The City may approve
Comprehensive Plan amendments if it finds that:
(i) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment;
(ii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter
36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan
not affected by the amendment;
(iii) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
(iv) The deficiency the in identified amendment addresses proposed an
Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(9) The City must also
consider Plan the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive
amendments:
Page 30 of 309
(a) The effect upon the physical environment;
(b) The effect on open space and natural features including, but not limited to,
topography, streams, rivers, and lakes;
(c) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
(d) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities,
roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
(e) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type
and density and the demand for such land;
(f) The current and projected project density in the area; and
(g) The effect, if any, upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is an analysis of these criteria:
1.Does the proposed amendment bear a substantial relationship to the
public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment?
The PSD Capital Facilities Plan is intended to directly support the health, safety
and welfare of the community through building the necessary infrastructure
necessary to support the District’s standard of service.
2.Is the proposed amendment consistent with the requirements of the
Washington State Growth Management Act and to the affected portion(s)
of the adopted Pasco Comprehensive Plan?
Yes. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is intended to
maintain timely updates that reflect emerging trends and maintaining
consistency across various PSD and City plans and goals.
3.Does the proposed amendment correct a mapping error?
The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error.
4.Does the proposed amendment address a deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed amendment is intended to address new PSD Capital Facility
needs and financing requirements and to ensure that City Ordinances are
supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
5.What are the effects on the physical environment, including open space
and natural features?
This is a non-projection proposal. Effects will be determined on a project
specific basis if/when plans are brought forward for necessary permits and
approvals.
6.What is the compatibility and impact on adjacent land uses and
surrounding neighborhoods?
This is a non-projection proposal. Effects will be determined on a project
specific basis if/when plans are brought forward for necessary permits and
approvals.
7.What are the impacts on public facilities, and utilities, transportation
system, parks, recreation, and public schools?
Page 31 of 309
PSD Capital Facilities Plan is intended to identify “the District’s standard of
service, an inventory of facilities, capacity by grade span, a six year enrollment
forecast, facility needs and costs, a finance plan and calculation of the school
impact fees.”
8.What is the effect on other components of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan?
The proposed amendment will not adversely impact utility or public service
plans.
Recommendation:
Based on analysis of the review criteria above, staff recommends approval of
this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adoption of the Pasco School
District No. 1 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Update.
Constraints (time or other consideration):
Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary in order to
continue to charge and collect the school impact fees as amended by
Ordinance 4774.
Next Steps:
Upon approval, staff will notify Washington State Department of Commerce as
required.
Alternatives:
The City Council may elect to reject the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
direct staff to coordinate with Pasco School District No. 1 how best to facilitate
enacting the School District's Capital Facilities Plan.
Page 32 of 309
Ordinance - PSD No. 1 Update to Capital Facilities Plan - 1
Version 1.8.26
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 2025 UPDATE TO THE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN BY REFERENCE AND INCORPORATING
SUCH INTO THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
ADDENDUM .
WHEREAS, Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, comprehensive plans and their implementing
development regulations must be reviewed and, if necessary, amended to maintain internal
consistency and alignment with capital facility planning and financing.; and
WHEREAS, capital facilities must be identified as necessary to support development
when the City imposes school impact fees as a funding strategy for the Pasco School District;; and
WHEREAS, on March 25th, 2025, the Pasco School District adopted its 2025 Capital
Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, emergency amendments may be reviewed and acted upon outside the annual
amendment review cycle; and.
WHEREAS, such amendments shall be initiated by resolution approved by a vote of the
Council upon a finding that a situation exists that necessitates expeditious action to preserve the
health, safety or welfare of the public, or to support the social, economic or environmental well-
being of the City; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, The Pasco City Council ADOPTED Resolution 4679
authorizing the initiation of an emergency amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Pasco Planning Commission held a public
hearing to receive testimony regarding said Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, the Pasco Planning Commission did move and
approve a motion to recommend approval of said Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.The Pasco School District No. 1 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan is sufficient
in consideration of the imposition of Impact Fees authorized by adopted of Ordinance 4774 .
Section 2. The City adopts by reference as if fully set forth herein, The Pasco School
District No. 1 2025 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan and incorporates such into the City of
Pasco Comprehensive Plan by addendum.
Page 33 of 309
Ordinance - PSD No. 1 Update to Capital Facilities Plan - 2
Version 1.8.26
Section 3. 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 4. 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 5. 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 _____,
2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 34 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 1 of 26
March 2025
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Amanda Brown, President
Steve Simmons, Vice President
John Kennedy, Member
Steve Norberg, Member
Amy Phillips, Member
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
2025 UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
SUPERINTENDENT
Michelle Whitney
Proposed CFP Scheduled for Review by the Pasco School Board
on February 11, 2025
Page 35 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 2 of 26
March 2025
Section 6 Financing Plan ........................................ 14
Section 7 School Impact or Mitigation Fees .......... 15
Appendices
Appendix A—Charts & Supporting Data… ....... 17
Building Capacity ................................... 18
Building Condition Scores… .................. 20
Projected Enrollments ............................ 21
Needed Capacity ..................................... 22
Necessary Improvements & Costs… .... 23
Capital Facilities Financing Plan ............ 24
Appendix B—Impact Fee Calculations ............. 25
2025 Impact Fee… .................................. 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction ............................................... 3
Section 2 Program Standards ................................... 6
Section 3 Capital Facilities Inventory ....................... 8
Section 4 Enrollment Projections & Capacity ........ 11
Section 5 Capital Facilities Needs…………………..13
Page 36 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 3 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the 2025 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan
The Pasco School District (the “District”) in 2011 first adopted a Capital Facilities Plan (the
“2011 CFP”) in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter
36.70A RCW (the “GMA”), and City of Pasco Ordinance 4046 (the “School Impact Fee
Ordinance”). The City of Pasco adopted the 2011 CFP on April 16, 2012, and adopted updates
to the CFP in 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2022.
Section 3.133.025 of the School Impact Fee Ordinance describes the elements that must be
addressed in the CFP. They include “the District’s standard of service, an inventory of facilities,
capacity by grade span, a six year enrollment forecast, facility needs and costs, a finance plan
and calculation of the school impact fees.” Once the CFP with these elements is adopted, the
Ordinance says “[t]he District shall file an update to its capital facility plan at least once every
two years.” And, “[a]t least once every two years, commencing on April 15, 2014, the City
Council shall review and consider the District submitted capital facilities plan update.” Following
the 2016 CFP, the District adopted an updated CFP in April 2018 and forwarded the 2018 CFP
update to the City of Pasco and Franklin County shortly thereafter. The City Council reviewed
but did not act on that update. The District subsequently submitted in 2019 and 2022 updated
CFPs to the City and the County, with the City subsequently adopting the 2019 and 2022 CFP.
Franklin County has yet to adopt a version of the District’s Capital Facilities Plan. The District
intends for this 2025 CFP update to replace the 2022 CFP for all purposes, including the
District’s compliance with the above requirements in the School Impact Fee Ordinance. The
2025 CFP update supplements and updates the core information in the 2011 CFP. The 2025
update also includes an updated calculation for the District’s school impact fees.
B. Changes in the Pasco School District
The District now serves approximately 18,523 students (Chart 3 herein – October 2024 reported
enrollment), an increase of approximately 200 students since 2022. Steady residential development
within the District’s boundaries continues. The latest demographics study prepared by the District
(Chart 3) projects that enrollment growth will continue at all grade levels over the six-year planning
period and beyond. Since 2021, the City of Pasco approved the construction of more than 1,000 new
single family units and approximately 35 multi-family units. There is also continuing plat activity in
the District’s boundaries within unincorporated Franklin County. The District continues to review
new residential development applications in Franklin County subject to SEPA review. Additional
SEPA-exempt residential development activity may also exist in Franklin County.
Over the past 12 years, the District has engaged in community-driven capital planning
activities intended to construct all the improvements that are required to serve existing
needs (including those from recent residential growth) and forecasted growth. These
activities include:
November 2013 bond: This bond was developed with several strategies to significantly reduce
the cost of the bond projects after the previous bond failed with a 48% yes vote in April 2011.
The Board engaged a community task force to provide recommendations regarding strategies
for handling enrollment growth. The task force considered multi-track/year-round options, and
recommended constructing additional elementary school capacity (vs. a middle school, which
Page 37 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 4 of 26
March 2025
would have been a more expensive project) and that the District use the additional elementary
capacity to house 6th grade students at the elementary level instead of the middle level.
• The three elementary schools approved in the 2013 bond opened in the 2014-2015
school year (one school) and the 2015-2016 school year (two schools). The added
capacity allowed the District to complete the plan to transition to a K-6 and 7-8
grade configuration in 2015-2016.
November 2017 bond: The District’s voters in November 2017 approved a $99.5 million
bond measure with a 60.07% yes vote (approval of a bond requires 60% yes votes) to fund
two new elementary schools, a new Middle School #4, and the replacement and expansion
of Stevens Middle School. The District’s Community Builders Group recommended these
projects for the bond, with the understanding that the additional middle level capacity would
cause the district to transition 6th grade back to the middle school. These projects are now
complete and the District has moved back to a K-5 and 6-8 grade model.
February 2023 bond: In February 2023, the voters approved a $195.5 million bond
measure with yes votes of 60.91% to fund a new comprehensive high school (Sageview
High School), a smaller innovative high school (Orion High School), athletic field and facility
improvements, enhanced and modernized career and technical education spaces at
Chiawana and Pasco High Schools, and the purchase of land for additional schools.
Sageview and Orion High Schools are on track to open in the fall of 2025.
The District has continued to engage in cost-saving measures in facilities planning, and will
continue to use cost-reduction strategies and District construction standards to save taxpayer
dollars. Pasco School District’s construction costs have normally been lower than other school
construction costs around the State of Washington. Examples of cost-reduction strategies
includes the following:
• Use property already owned by the district for school sites;
• Use the updated Pasco design that has been built multiple times for Pasco schools,
thereby saving A/E, construction and maintenance costs;
• Curie and Whittier Elementary Schools share one playground, reducing the amount
of land to be purchased;
• Build larger elementary schools to reduce the total number needed and create
efficiencies in operations;
• Build schools to serve at least 50 years; and
• Maintain school buildings well to ensure they last several decades;
• Seek alternative sources of facilities funding such as grants or private donations;
• Relocate portable classrooms to locations where enrollment is growing in lieu of
purchasing additional portable classrooms, wherever possible.
The voters of Washington State passed Initiative 1351 in 2014. The initiative imposes class
size values as recommended by the Legislature’s Quality Education Council (QEC). The class
size requirements have been implemented in part and delayed in part. Under the Supreme
Court’s McCleary decision, the Legislature is under court order to fully fund basic K-12
education, including the K-3 class size reductions. Initiative 1351 class sizes are reflected in
Chart 1 and position the District for full legislative implementation.
The District implemented All-Day Kindergarten (ADK) in every elementary school in the 2015-
2016 school year. The District added portable classrooms to meet this requirement.
Page 38 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 5 of 26
March 2025
In Chart 2 in the Appendix, State scoring matrices show that Pasco School District is
effectively maintaining its schools as a community investment and asset, according to a third
party review. The schools’ adjusted maintenance score is significantly above its expected
score for the facility’s age, demonstrating effective maintenance by the district. These data
mean that they will last longer and be able to serve more students before needing to be
replaced.
Page 39 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 6 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
The District’s core and special program needs, which are used to define the standard of service,
are addressed in the 2011 Capital Facilities Plan. The District has implemented K-3 class size
reduction and All Day Kindergarten and is positioned to implement I-1351’s targets for grades 4-
12. Below is the District’s adopted educational program standards (or standard of service).
A. Elementary Educational Program Standards
The state is required to provide funding for a student-to-teacher ratio of 17-1 in grades K-3 (15-1
for high poverty schools), consistent with QEC recommendations, Initiative 1351, and McCleary.
The class size of 15-17 impacts all elementary schools.
Elementary Class Size Requirements-Initiative 1351
Grades K-3 Enacted by the Legislature
Grades 4-12 Implementation Delayed
Grade
Levels
Initiative 1351
Class Sizes
District Contract
Class Sizes
High-Poverty Schools Non-High Poverty Schools
K-1 15 17 21
2-3 15 17 24
4-5 25 26
4 22
5 23
Capt. Gray
Whittier
Robinson Livingston
Longfellow
Chess
Emerson
Frost
Twain
Curie
Franklin
McGee
Three Rivers
McClintock
Markham
Angelou
Columbia River
B. Middle and High School Program Standards
Secondary (Middle and High) school class size standards also are projected to be reduced to
levels set by Initiative 1351 with recommendations to be mandated under McCleary as noted
below.
Page 40 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 7 of 26
March 2025
Secondary Class Size Requirements-Initiative 1351
Grades K-3 Enacted by the Legislature
Grades 4-12 Implementation Delayed
Grade
Levels
Initiative 1351
Class Size
District Contract
Class Size
High-Poverty Schools Non-High Poverty Schools
6-8 23 25 30/145
per day
9-12 23 25 30/120
per day
Stevens MS
Ochoa MS
McLoughlin MS
Reynolds MS
Pasco HS
Chiawana HS
New Horizons HS
Page 41 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 8 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
As described in the 2011 CFP, the District’s facilities inventory establishes a baseline for
determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at
acceptable levels of service. While the District has not added new permanent capacity since
the 2022 CFP, this 2025 CFP anticipates new high school permanent capacity opening in the
fall of 2025 at Sageview and Orion High Schools. The District will also move portables
between schools and grade levels as additional capacity is needed.
A. Capacity Calculation and Standard of Service
The District’s Board of Directors directed staff to conduct a comprehensive review of school
building capacity in 2017. The purpose of the review was to ensure consistent, reasonable
measures were being used to determine the capacity of each school building, and to provide a
safe and equitable standard of service for students throughout the school system.
Student safety has been a critical consideration for the District in determining this standard of
service. In 2014 and again in 2018, the District conducted a comprehensive safety review of
schools, including brick and mortar buildings and portable classrooms. It is the District’s goal to
house students in permanent facilities with controlled points of access, which can be best
accomplished by housing students in one contained brick and mortar building. Portable
classrooms will continue to be used as a temporary solution to provide student housing.
However, to achieve the desired standard of service to enhance student and staff safety,
portable classrooms should not be counted in the District’s permanent classroom inventory.
The state does not count portable classrooms when calculating a school district’s classroom
inventory for purposes of eligibility for state assistance for construction. In the 2011 CFP, the
District counted some portables into the permanent capacity calculation after consultation with
the City of Pasco. However, since 2017, the District’s CFP has not included portable
classrooms in calculating permanent capacity but still recognizes the capacity purpose. The
2025 CFP update carries forward the 2017 CFP methodology.
B. Elementary Schools
The District currently has seventeen (17) elementary schools serving grades K-5 and providing
capacity to serve 8,900 students in permanent capacity. As of October 1, 2024, there were
8,026 FTE elementary students enrolled.
Two new elementary schools, Columbia River Elementary School and Three Rivers
Elementary School, providing additional capacity for 1,288 elementary students, were
constructed and opened in the 2019 and 2020 school years, respectively.
As of the 2024-25 school year, there are 103 portable classrooms at the elementary schools
providing additional capacity to house 2,538 students.
The District purchased the former Pasco Senior Center and an adjacent vacant lot from the City
in 2016 for the purpose of the converting the building into an early learning facility. The District
pursued, and was granted, two capital appropriations from the state totaling $1.3 million dollars
to help offset the costs. The Early Learning Center opened in January 2018, with designated
Page 42 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 9 of 26
March 2025
programs transitioned to the Center by September 2018. In addition, the District used ESSER
funds and impact fees to add capacity K-12 by purchasing and renovating 4403 W. Court
Street. These projects have allowed the District to provide additional capacity for K-5 students
in elementary buildings by relocating early learning classes from the elementary buildings to the
new facilities and adding capacity for online programs K-12.
C. Middle Schools
The District has four middle schools serving grades 6-8. The middle schools provide permanent
capacity to serve approximately 4,134 students. As of October 1, 2024, there were 4,255 FTE
students enrolled in those schools.
Reynolds Middle School and the replacement and expansion of Stevens Middle School added
permanent capacity for approximately 1,377 students in 2020 and 2021, respectively.
As of the 2024-25 school year, there are 48 portable classrooms at the middle schools
providing additional capacity to house 1,094 students. Since 2011, the District added eighteen
(18) new portable classrooms as temporary capacity at the middle school level. The District
plans to add portable capacity at the middle school level during the six years of this CFP
(either newly purchased or relocated from the elementary grade level).
D. High Schools
There are currently two traditional high schools serving grades 9-12. There is permanent
capacity in those schools to serve 4,156 students. As of October 1, 2024 there were 6,119 FTE
students enrolled in the high school program. Pasco High School has additional capacity to
serve students in 29 portable classrooms and Chiawana High School has additional capacity to
serves students in 32 portable classrooms.
New Horizons High School moved into a leased brick and mortar building on the Columbia
Basin College campus in 2017. The building capacity is 248. With New Horizons the
District has a total of 4,404 permanent capacity seats at the 9-12 level. The District
shares capacity at Delta, a STEM based high school with Kennewick and Richland School
Districts.
The opening of Sageview High School, with a capacity of 2,091, and Orion High School, with a
capacity of 594, will address existing capacity needs and provide capacity for future growth
needs.
E. Support Facilities
Bus parking has been expanded into the District’s maintenance lay-down yard at the Port of
Pasco property (Building 210). The District leased additional space from the Port to replace the
lost lay-down yard capacity, and is also leasing additional warehouse space. The November
2017 bond provided funding for expansion of transportation and maintenance facilities, which
is expected to be complete in December 2022.
Page 43 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 10 of 26
March 2025
F. Land Inventory
The District currently owns nine unimproved parcels, totaling approximately ±188 acres.
Site Name Tax Parcel(s) # Location/Cross Streets Acreage Status
Undeveloped A 115-180-042 Rd 108 & Burns Rd 70.18 Undeveloped
Undeveloped B 115-170-072 Burns Rd & Rd 90 13 Undeveloped
Undeveloped C 114-330-059
Burns/Powerline Rd & Rd
60 (N of Sageview HS) 14.32 In Progress
Undeveloped D
114-330-058, 114-
330-055 Clark & Rd 52 81.2 Undeveloped
Undeveloped F 119-121-307 Rd 44 & Court St 0.56 Undeveloped
Undeveloped G 112-152-300 7th Ave & Brown St 0.59 Undeveloped
Undeveloped H 113-501-070 Salt Lake & Utah 3.49 Undeveloped
Undeveloped I 123-200-133 4171 Elm Rd 5.1 Undeveloped
Page 44 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 11 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
AND CAPACITY BY GRADE SPAN
A. Projected Student Enrollment
Since 2016, the District received and reviewed five enrollment forecasts. For purposes of the
2025 CFP Update, the District is relying on the comprehensive forecast prepared internally by
the District. The forecast considers recent trends, including enrollment anomalies occurring
during the Covid-19 pandemic, previous data provided by MGT of America and demographer
Paul Dennis, updated information provided by JUB Engineering, and information related to
known residential development data throughout the District’s boundaries. See Appendix, Chart
3.
In October 2011, there were 15,707 students enrolled in grades K-12. In October 2024, there
were 18,523 headcount students enrolled, which is an increase of 2,816 students. While the
global pandemic impacted enrollment in the fall of 2020 and for a short time thereafter, the
District’s enrollment has stabilized and steadily increased since 2022. By 2030, the forecast
predicts there will be 19,943 students enrolled in grades K-12, which is an additional 1,420
students over 2024. The District plans to watch enrollment closely and will update the CFP
accordingly. The District’s new high school capacity, opening in the fall of 2025, will help
address growth needs over the planning period of this CFP, and the District will need to add
permanent and temporary capacity at the elementary and middle school levels in order to serve
expected growth.
B. Capacity by Grade Span
Current enrollment at each grade level is identified in Chart 1, which provides the actual
FTE enrollment in District facilities as of October 1, 2024. Projected available student
capacity was derived by subtracting projected student 2030 enrollment (Chart 31) from total
existing October 2024 school capacity (Chart 1).
Enrollment in grades K-5 is expected to grow by approximately 755 students by 2030. Growth
at the K-5 level is expected to continue beyond the six year planning period. The recent
construction of Columbia River Elementary School and Three Rivers Elementary School
helped to provide needed capacity at the elementary school level for existing and growth
projected over the six-year planning period. The District plans over the six year planning
period to address continued elementary needs with a new-in-lieu Markham Elementary School
and converting that school to a K-8 program (and adding capacity at the elementary and
middle school level), and replacing and expanding Captain Gray, Livingston, and McGee
Elementary Schools.
Enrollment at the 6-8 level is projected to grow over the six year planning period and beyond,
with approximately 217 middle school students added by 2030. The construction of Reynolds
Middle School and the replacement/expansion of Stevens Middle School, along with grade
reconfiguration in 2015, helped to provide needed capacity to serve recent growth at the 6-8
level. However, growth at the middle school grade level has continued in recent years,
creating additional needs. The District will need to add capacity at the middle school level to
serve, existing student needs, growth expected by 2030, and growth expected beyond 2030.
In addition to the conversion to a K-8 and expansion of Markham Elementary School (as
1 Chart 3 uses headcount enrollment vs. full-time equivalent figures (used in Chart 1).
Page 45 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 12 of 26
March 2025
discussed above), the District is planning to replace and expand McLoughlin Middle School
and build a new Middle School No. 5.
Enrollment in grades 9-12 is also forecasted for continued growth, adding nearly 448 students
by 2030. The new Sageview High School and Orion High School, planned to open in fall of
2025, will provide capacity to serve existing, recent, and future growth needs at the high school
level.
The current capacity in the existing schools and the capacity that is needed to serve forecast
growth through 2030 is shown on Chart 4 in the Appendix. Chart 4 does not consider
capacity additions planned through 2030 (including the planned 2025 opening of Orion and
Sageview High Schools) and beyond.
Page 46 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 13 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 5
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
To determine future facility needs, existing school program capacity was compared to
projected enrollment throughout the six-year forecast period. See Section 4.
In November 2017, the District’s voters passed a $99.5 million bond measure to help fund
the construction of two new elementary schools (Columbia River Elementary School and
Three Rivers Elementary School), a new middle school (Reynolds Middle School), the
expansion and replacement of Stevens Middle School, safety and health improvements at
various schools, and improvements to the District’s transportation and maintenance
facilities. In February 2023, the voters approved a $95.5 million bond measure funding the
construction of Sageview High School and Orion High School, both expected to open in
2025, athletic field and facility improvements at Pasco High School, enhanced and
modernized CTE spaces at Chiawana and Pasco High Schools, and the purchase of land
for additional schools. See Chart 5, Appendix. The 2023 bond projects are ongoing.
The opening of Sageview and Orion High Schools will address existing capacity needs as well
as providing available capacity to serve growth at the 9-12 level through the six-year planning
period. The District is now in the planning stage for adding elementary and middle school
capacity needed to serve existing and anticipated growth. Those projects are expected to
include the following: planning for a new Middle School No. 5, replacing and expanding
capacity at McLoughlin Middle School, replacing Markham Elementary School with expanded
capacity and converting that school to a K-8 program, and replacing and expanding Captain
Gray, Livingston, and McGee Elementary Schools. The District will also continue to seek to
acquire land for future school projects.
Portable classrooms will be used to provide temporary facilities while funding is secured to
construct brick and mortar facilities and while construction occurs over time. The new schools
and portable classrooms will provide the needed capacity identified in Section 4 above.
In addition to building schools that add capacity for growth, the District will make other
improvements to serve students. The improvements will be constructed in phases and cannot
occur until bonds are approved by the voters. The District will continue with long term facilities
planning efforts using community recommendations to identify which projects should be
prioritized.
The District will continue to plan for needs beyond 2030. Chart 5 includes estimated permanent
improvements and capacity conditioned on future funding. Future updates to this CFP will
provide more specific information as to the District’s updated planning.
Page 47 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 14 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent upon
the passage of bond elections at a 60% supermajority and receipt of State Construction
Assistance Program (SCAP) funds, also known as “state match” funds. Costs for improvements
that add capacity to serve projected new growth are used to calculate school impact fees.
School impact fees, or SEPA mitigation fees collected from some new development projects in
unincorporated Franklin County, will be used to pay for a portion of the improvements that add
growth-related capacity. The majority of the costs to construct the capacity improvements will
be paid for with bonds and state match funds. See Section 6 of the 2011 CFP for a complete
discussion regarding the framework for financing planned improvements.
To serve growth needs identified in this CFP, the District plans to construct new schools and
new school capacity consistent with the funding identified in this CFP. Charts 5 and 6 have
detailed information on the 2023 Bond projects and planned future bond projects,
with the Sageview High School, Orion High School, and CTE program improvements at PHS
and CHS funded by the 2023 Bond and the planned middle school capacity additions (including
the new Middle School No. 5 and the additional middle school capacity resulting from the
replacement/expansion of McLoughlin Middle School and replacement/expansion/K-8
conversion at Markham Elementary School) all being growth-related projects. The District may
also add portables to serve interim growth needs.
In addition to construction of facilities to add capacity, the District also needs to acquire school
sites for future construction, and must make a variety of improvements that are needed at
existing facilities.
The Capital Facilities Financing Plan in Chart 6 demonstrates how the District intends to fund
new construction and improvements to school facilities during the six-year planning period
(and also includes financing information related to the 2023 projects in process).
The District continues to use a variety of strategies to plan, reduce costs, and mitigate the
effects of student enrollment growth. Receipt of impact fees remains critical to ensuring the
District can manage growth by providing sufficient student facilities. The forecast of steady
enrollment growth over the next six years underscores the need to use a variety of financing
measures, including the passage of bonds, expenditure from the General Fund, and impact
fees/SEPA mitigation fees to meet the needs of the community.
Page 48 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 15 of 26
March 2025
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES
The District’s ability to fund the improvements that are needed to serve forecast growth depends
on new development contributing to the cost to build the schools that will serve the students that
live in new housing. The District is collecting school impact fees from development in the City
and will continue to seek mitigation fees from developers in Franklin County (and continue to
request that Franklin County adopt a GMA-based school impact fee ordinance). The District’s
desire and intent is that school mitigation is collected from all residential development within the
District in an equitable and comprehensive manner. The District files annual reports with the
City regarding the use of the school impact fees.
The District has calculated school impact fees using a standard school impact fee formula,
adopted by the City of Pasco and many other Washington cities and counties, that complies
with the Growth Management Act. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per
dwelling unit to construct schools needed to serve new development. A student factor (or
student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the
average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi-
family dwellings). The District hires a consultant to update the student factor methodology
based upon the last six years of residential development data within the District, as required
by the City of Pasco School Impact Fee Ordinance. In this year’s CFP, the District’s student
generation rates are based on an analysis performed by JUB Engineering considering
Franklin County and City of Pasco residential development data from 2018 through the
first quarter of 2024 . As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account
for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected
future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not add
capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, impact fees will not be
used to address existing deficiencies.
The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:
• New Middle School No. 5
Please see Chart 6.
The calculated impact fee amounts (reduced by 25%), in Appendix B, are $0 for each single
family residence and $2,595. The primary reason for the significant decline in the impact fee
calculated in the 2022 Capital Facilities Plan is the removal from the formula of the elementary
capacity projects (Columbia River and Three Rivers Elementary Schools, completed in 2019a
and 2020, but continuing to provide available capacity for new growth) and the soon to be
completed high school capacity projects. While the fee formula includes this year a new middle
school, using current student generation rates, the middle school project alone does not
generate a single family cost per dwelling unit that exceeds the single family tax credit in the
formula. As such, the tax credit nullifies any unfunded impact per single family unit. In both
cases, the District’s voters front-funded capacity that remains available for the benefit of new
development. The District is requesting the City collect school impact fees in the following
amounts:
Single Family: $0
Multi Family: $2,595
Page 49 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Page 16 of 26
March 2025
The District began receiving impact fees from the City in 2012. Through December 2024, the District
has received approximately $26.9 million in impact fee and mitigation fee revenue. Of that amount,
$1,250,000 was used to reduce the principal of the 2013 bond, $5,374,972 has been used for portable
classrooms (new and relocated), $14.3 million has helped fund property acquisitions, and $2,000,000
was used to reduce the principal of the 2017 bond. The District plans to use remaining revenue for
growth-related projects including portables, land acquisition, and reducing the cost of current and
future bond projects. The District will use future impact fees and mitigation fees as allowed by law for
growth-related impacts identified in the CFP.
Page 50 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 17 of 26
February 2025
APPENDIX A
Charts with Supporting Data
Page 51 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 18 of 26
February 2025
Chart 1
Building Capacity
October 2024
Elementary Schools
88% Scheduling Factor Applied Building Capacity
Oct 1, 2024
Enrollment
Over/Under
Capacity
Angelou 594 554 40
Capt. Gray 487 408 79
Chess 495 404 91
Columbia River 644 621 23
Curie 771 376 395
Emerson 474 447 27
Franklin 617 543 74
Frost 474 464 10
Livingston 423 543 120
Longfellow 405 309 96
Markham 255 209 46
McClintock 575 568 7
McGee 438 499 61
Robinson 604 474 130
Three Rivers 644 655 11
Twain 526 573 47
Whittier 474 379 95
Elementary Totals 8,900 8,026 874
Middle Schools
76% Scheduling Factor Applied Building Capacity
Oct 1, 2024
Enrollment
Over/Under
Capacity
McLoughlin 1,011 1,172 161
Reynolds 1,131 1,294 163
Ochoa 1,006 832 174
Stevens 986 957 29
Middle School Totals 4,134 4,255 121
Page 52 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 19 of 26
February 2025
High Schools
75% Scheduling Factor Applied Building Capacity
Oct 1, 2024
Enrollment
Over/Under
Capacity
Chiawana 2,348 3,153 805
Pasco 1,808 2,616 808
New Horizons 248 350 102
Delta* 173
High School Totals 4,577 6,119 1,931
Academy of Learning 52
Innovative Experiences/E-Learning 71
Pasco Digital Learning Totals 0 123
Grand Totals 17,611 18,523 1,178
* Delta total capacity is 518 to be shared between PSD, KSD and RSD ** iPAL high
school students are enrolled in the iPAL program and their home school
Capacity Calculation Methodology
Elementary – Capacity calculated by School Design, K-3 Class Size Reduction, Grades 4-5 Collective
Bargaining Agreement, Grades K-5 Weighted Average and 88% Scheduling Factor
Middle School – Capacity calculated by School Design, Collective Bargaining Agreement and 76%
Scheduling Factor
High School - Capacity calculated by School Design, Collective Bargaining Agreement and 75%
Scheduling Factor
Page 53 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 20 of 26
March 2025
Chart 2
Pasco School District Asset Preservation Program
2024 Building Condition Scores
OSPI 2022 2023 2024
Building
Age in
Years
Current
Draft Score
by Age
Adjusted
B.C.E.
Adjusted
B.C.E.
Adjusted
B.C.E.
Emerson 27 78 82.25 79.20 79.20
Frost 27 82 81.56 81.40 82.56
Franklin 11 97 97.34 97.34 97.34
McClintock 10 96 96.21 95.57 95.57
Curie 11 97 98.04 96.4 96.4
Chiawana High School 16 86 92.05 86.73 86.78
Delta High School 11 95 N/R 96.10 95.78
Three Rivers 6 100 N/R 100 100
Columbia River 5 100 N/R 100 100
Ray Reynolds Middle School 5 100 N/R 100 100
Stevens Middle School 5 100 N/R 100 100
“B.C.E.” is the Building Condition Evaluation score given by OSPI for those facilities in which
State School Construction Assistance Program (state match) dollars were used. The
Current Draft Score” is OSPI’s expected score for the age of the facility, given average use
and maintenance. Buildings were not reviewed (N/R) in 2019 due to COVID.
Pasco High School is no longer assigned a B.C.E. score for purposes of state reporting
because of the age of the facility. However, the district continues to monitor and score Pasco
High School for internal monitoring purposes.
Page 54 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 20 of 26
March 2025
Chart 3
Projected Enrollment
Pasco School District Projected Enrollment
Grade 24-25* 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31
K 1,227.00 1,245.41 1,264.09 1,283.05 1,302.29 1,321.83 1,341.65
1 1,316.00 1,335.74 1,355.78 1,376.11 1,396.75 1,417.71 1,438.97
2 1,389.00 1,409.84 1,430.98 1,452.45 1,474.23 1,496.35 1,518.79
3 1,414.00 1,435.21 1,456.74 1,478.59 1,500.77 1,523.28 1,546.13
4 1,338.00 1,358.07 1,378.44 1,399.12 1,420.10 1,441.41 1,463.03
5 1,391.00 1,411.87 1,433.04 1,454.54 1,476.36 1,498.50 1,520.98
8,075.00 8,196.13 8,319.07 8,443.85 8,570.51 8,699.07 8,829.55
6 1,425.00 1,428.56 1,432.13 1,435.71 1,439.30 1,442.90 1,446.51
7 1,461.00 1,464.65 1,468.31 1,471.98 1,475.66 1,479.35 1,483.05
8 1,443.00 1,446.61 1,479.16 1,512.44 1,546.47 1,581.26 1,616.84
4,329.00 4,339.82 4,379.60 4,420.14 4,461.44 4,503.52 4,546.40
9 1,460.00 1,478.25 1,496.73 1,515.44 1,534.38 1,553.56 1,572.98
10 1,529.00 1,548.11 1,567.46 1,587.06 1,606.90 1,626.98 1,647.32
11 1,531.00 1,550.14 1,569.51 1,589.13 1,609.00 1,629.11 1,649.47
12 1,599.00 1,614.99 1,631.14 1,647.45 1,663.93 1,680.57 1,697.37
6,119.00 6,191.49 6,264.85 6,339.08 6,414.20 6,490.22 6,567.14
18,523.00 18,727.44 18,963.52 19,203.07 19,446.14 19,692.80 19,943.10
*October 2024 reported enrollment (OSPI Report 1251H)
Page 55 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 22 of 26
March 2025
Chart 4
2030 Student Capacity and Future Need
Building
Capacity
2024
Total Capacity
(Permanent/Portable)
2024
Oct 24
Enrollment
Forecast
Enrollment
2030
Needed
Capacity
(Permanent)
2030
Elementary
(K-5)
8,900
11,438 8,075 8,830 (70)
Middle (6-8) 4,134 5,229 4,329 4,546 412
High (9-
12) 4,404 5,775 6,119 6,567 2,163
“Building Capacity” is the number of classrooms multiplied by the weighted average I-1351
class size for non-high poverty schools, multiplied by a utilization factor to allow for planning
time and other uses. See Chart 1.
“Forecast Enrollment 2030” is based on Chart 3.
“Needed Capacity” includes total (permanent/portable) capacity but does not include new
capacity planned for completion through 2030 (including the opening of Sageview High
School and Orion High School), portable additions/relocations, or grade reconfiguration.
Page 56 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix A
Page 23 of 26
March 2025
Chart 5
Necessary Facility Improvements, Added Capacity and Costs
2025 Update
2023 BOND PROJECTS
Sageview High School 2,091 $185,363,000
Orion High School 594 $37,500,000
CTE PHS/CHS 75 $12,000,000
Athletic Fields N/A $2,000,000
Land Acquisition N/A $10,000,000
Total 2023
Bond Projects
2,760 $246,863,000
ESTIMATED PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS & ADDED/NEW CAPACITY
CONDITIONED ON FUTURE BOND AND STATE ASSISTANCE
Livingston Replacement 300 $57,825,949
Middle School #5 1,250 $90,577,498
Markham Replacement 300 $43,659,000
Land Acquisition (80 acres) N/A $12,000,000
McGee Replacement 220 $57,825,949
Captain Gray Replacement 300 $57,825,949
McLoughlin MS Replacement 250 $90,557,498
Total Permanent Capacity 2,620 $410,271,843
TEMPORARY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000
Total 460 $3,250,000
Page 57 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix B, Page 24 of 26
March 2025
Chart 6
Capital Facilities Financing Plan
Project Estimates
2023 Bond Projects and
Future Planning for Anticipated 2028 Bond
Project
New/
Added
Capacity
Est.
Cost
Source of Funding
Bonds State
Match
Impact/
Mitigation Fees
General
Fund
February 2023 Bond Projects and Other Improvements
High School #3 2,091 $185,000,000 $195,500,00 $67,514,530 Portion TBD
Innovative High School 594 $37,500,000 $37,500,000 $0 Portion TBD
CTE CHS/PHS 75 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $0
Portion TBD
Athletic Fields $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Land Acquisition $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Portion TBD
Future Bond Projects (Subject to Future Planning & Board Approval)
Livingston Replacement 200 $57,825,949 $44,740,767 $13,085,184 Portion TBD
Middle School #5 900 $90,577,498 $90,577,498 $0 Portion TBD
Markham Replacement 600 $57,825,949 $57,825,949 $0 Portion TBD
Land Acquisition (80 acres) $12,000,000 N/A N/A Portion TBD
McGee Replacement 220 $57,825,949 $44,866,849 $12,959,460 Portion TBD
McLoughlin MS Replacement 0 $90,557,498 $57,509,658 $33,047,840 Portion TBD
Gray Replacement 0 $13,476,263 $0 $13,476,263 Remodel
Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $0 Portion TBD
Livingston Replacement 850 $57,825,949
Middle School #5 1,250 $90,577,498
Markham Replacement 450 $43,659,000
Land Acquisition (80 acres) N/A $12,000,000
McGee Replacement 850 $57,825,949
Captain Gray Replacement 850 $57,825,949
McLoughlin MS Replacement 1,250 $90,557,498
Total Permanent Capacity 5,500 $410,271,843
“State Match” refers to funds allocated by the State of Washington through the School
Construction Assistance Program administered by OSPI. This number is an estimate of state
matching funds and is subject to verification by OSPI.
*The “portion TBD” of impact fee revenue used to fund the growth-related capacity projects will
be determined based upon impact fee revenue received from new development. Impact fee
revenue may be able to offset debt service on the bonds and result in tax savings to the
existing community.
Page 58 of 309
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update
Appendix B, Page 26 of 26
March 2025
APPENDIX B IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 25% reduction
2024 Impact Fee APPENDIX B
Single Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$0.00 $90,500,000.00 $0.00 Facility Cost
620 1400 2000 Additional Capacity
$0.00 $64,642.86 $0.00 Cost per Student (CS)
0.230 0.090 0.100 Student Factor (SF)
$0.00 $5,817.86 $0.00 CS x SF
$0.00 $375.00 $0.00 Boeck Index
90.00 108.00 130.00 OSPI Sq Ft
0.00%0.00%0.00%State Match Eligibility %
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit (SM)
$0.00 $5,817.86 $0.00 CS x SF - SM
$5,817.86 Cost per Single Family Residence
0.0383 Average Interest Rate
0.456225193 Tax Credit Numerator
0.055773425 Tax Credit Denominator
8.179974492 Tax Credit Multiplier (TCM)
$398,005.00 Average Assessed Value (AAV)
3255670.75 TCM x AAV
0.00184 Tax Levy Rate (TLR)
$5,981.64 TCM x AAV x TLR = (TC)
-$163.79 Cost per Single Family Residence - Tax Credit
-$40.95 25% reduction (A)
-$122.84 Calculated Single Family Fee Amount
$0 Recommended Fee Amount
Multi-Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$0.00 $90,500,000.00 $0.00 Facility Cost
620 920 2000 Additional Capacity
$0.00 $64,642.86 $0.00 Cost per Student (CS)
0.180 0.080 0.100 Student Factor (SF)
$0.00 $5,171.43 $0.00 CS x SF
$0.00 $375.00 $0.00 Boeck Index
90.00 108.00 130.00 OSPI Sq Ft
0.00%0.00%0.00%State Match Eligibility %
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit (SM)
$0.00 $5,171.43 $0.00 CS x SF - SM
$5,171.43 Cost per Multi-Family Residence
0.0383 Average Interest Rate
0.456225193 Tax Credit Numerator
0.055773425 Tax Credit Denominator
8.179974492 Tax Credit Multiplier (TCM)
$113,100.00 Average Assessed Value (AAV)
925155.12 TCM x AAV
0.00185 Tax Levy Rate (TLR)
$1,711.54 TCM x AAV x TLR = (TC)
$3,459.89 Cost per Multi-Family Residence - Tax Credit
$864.97 25% reduction (A)
$2,594.92 Calculated Multi- Family Fee Amount
$2,595 Recommended Fee Amount
()()()
()FCATLRAAVii
iSMSFCSSIF -´úú
û
ù
êê
ë
é
÷÷
ø
ö
çç
è
æ ´´+
-+--=10
10
1
11
Page 59 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 17, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Haylie Matson, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance Nos. 4819 & 4820 - Emergency Low Density Residential
Land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment and R-S-20 Rezone
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
01 Proposed Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
02 Proposed Ordinance - Text Amendments and Rezone
03 Ordinance 4663
04 BFHD Table XI
05 SEPA Notice and Affidavit
06 SEPA2025-036 Checklist Submitted
07 SEPA Decision
08 Commerce Notice
09 Public Hearing Notice
10 Public Comments (13a, 13b & 13c)
11 Planning Commission Meeting
12 PowerPoint slides
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION 1 2018 the adopting 4819, Ordinance I to move : adopt
density Residential-Riverview low by plan comprehensive amendment:
reference and incorporating such into the city of Pasco comprehensive plan by
addendum and further authorize publication by summary only.
MOTION 2: I move to adopt Ordinance 4820, amending and repealing sections
of Area Urban Title Code, Sign 21 Title in Code, Municipal Pasco 17
Subdivision Regulations, and Title 25 Zoning, related to changes made to the
R-S-20 map zoning official the and further District Suburban amending
classification from R-S-20 suburban district to R-15 low density residential
district and further authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Page 60 of 309
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adoption of the proposed
ordinances. This action is a legislative amendment that does not authorize
capital expenditures or require additional City staffing or resources. Any future
development enabled by the amendment would be subject to existing permit
fees, impact fees, and utility connection requirements adopted by the City.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Land Use Designation and Zoning Relationship:
In Pasco, land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan establish the City’s
long-range policy direction for the general type and density of development,
while zoning regulations in the Pasco Municipal Code provide the specific,
enforceable development standards for individual properties. Zoning
implements the Comprehensive Plan by translating broad land use policies into
detailed requirements such as lot size, setbacks, and permitted uses, and must
remain consistent with the assigned land use designation. Under this proposal,
the Comprehensive Plan land use designation allows for 2–5 dwelling units per
acre to preserve long-term flexibility, while the implementing zoning regulations
currently limit development to 2–3 dwelling units per acre.
History of Proposal
On April 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 (Exhibit 03),
amending Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.215.015 and the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Density Table (Table LU-1). This amendment revised the
allowable gross density range for areas designated as Low Density Residential
from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre.
Ordinance No. 4663 also established that the gross density of any proposed
development within a zoning district shall not fall below the corresponding
minimum an created change 25.215.015. This in identified density PMC
unintended conflict with the R-S-20 zoning district, where minimum lot sizes
and infrastructure constraints are not compatible with the higher minimum
density requirements.
The City Council was briefed on this matter on three occasions in 2025 and the
City the revising by inconsistency the staff to directed Council resolve
comprehensive plan designation from 3-6 units per acre to 2-5 units per acre
and the revise the zoning from allowing 2 units per acre to 2-5 units per acre.
Staff conducted a workshop with the Planning Commission on November 20,
2025, followed by a public hearing on December 18, 2025, to discuss options
for resolving this inconsistency. The proposal presented in December 2025
sought to restore a 2–5 dwelling units per acre land use designation for
properties currently zoned R-S-20 and to replace the R-S-20 zone with a new
Page 61 of 309
R-9 Low Density Residential District, establishing a minimum lot size of 8,700
square feet.
The Planning Commission did not support allowing densities of 2–5 dwelling
units per acre and directed staff to revise the proposal to reduce the density
range to 2–3 dwelling units per acre and to schedule a second public hearing in
January to review the changes.
The Planning Commission held a second public hearing on January 15, 2026,
to review the revised proposal as noted above, and recommended that the City
Council approve the following actions:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 2025-002), including the
proposed Land Use Map amendment establishing the Low Density
Residential–Riverview designation at 2–5 dwelling units per acre; and
2. Replacement/rezone of the R-S-20 zone with the R-15 Low Density
Residential and zoning associated the and approval District, of
Comprehensive Plan text amendments, including a revision to PMC
21.20 added during the meeting.
Full meeting minutes for the Planning Commission meetings held on November
20, 2025, December 18, 2025, and January 15, 2026, are attached as Exhibit
11.
Background
(Exhibit subdivision 03), 4663 several of adoption the Ordinance Since
applications within the R-S-20 district have been denied due to a mismatch
between the Comprehensive Plan’s current minimum density requirements and
the zoning district’s large lot standards. Many parcels in this area are also
located far from existing City sewer infrastructure, leaving septic systems as
the only feasible wastewater option. Under Benton-Franklin Health District
Table XI (Exhibit 04), parcels using septic on Soil Type 1 must be at least one-
half acre, which limits achievable density to two units per acre below the
Comprehensive Plan’s current minimum density.
Because for difficult it make infrastructure and zoning these constraints
property owners to meet the Plan’s existing density standards, the City Council
directed staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment and corresponding
zoning code revisions to restore the previous 2–5 unit-per-acre designation for
properties zoned R-S-20. Planning Commission has suggested the zoning
designation be 2-3 units per acre.
Impact (other than fiscal)
inconsistency the between long-standing The resolves proposal a
Comprehensive Plan’s minimum density requirements and the R-S-20 zoning
district’s a large-lot standards, improving regulatory clarity and restoring
feasible development pathway for affected properties. The amendments
Page 62 of 309
maintain low-density neighborhood character while allowing modestly smaller
lots where urban services are available. Wastewater standards remain driven
by infrastructure conditions: lots capable of connecting to sewer must do so,
while septic development remains limited by Health District requirements. The
proposal does not approve a specific development; environmental protections,
including critical areas regulations, remain unchanged and will be applied
during project review.
V. DISCUSSION:
Under the existing 3–6 unit-per-acre land use designation, the R-S-20 zone
cannot achieve the required minimum density due to its 20,000-square-foot lot
size and the reliance on septic systems in areas lacking sewer access. These
combined factors have resulted in a functional moratorium on subdivisions in
the district because properties cannot meet both the density requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan and the infrastructure realities on the ground.
Restoring the 2–5 unit-per-acre land use designation and rezoning the area to
allow 2-3 units per acre, resolves this regulatory conflict and enables a
consistent framework for both 14,520-square-foot lots and larger half-acre lots
where septic remains necessary. This adjustment restores development
feasibility, supports existing neighborhood patterns, and allows zoning
regulations to match actual service conditions.
Septic systems remain limited to lots of at least one-half acre located more
than 200 feet from an accessible sewer line, while smaller lots must connect to
City ultimately zoning) (not availability infrastructure therefore, sewer;
determines achievable density in these areas.
Analysis
Under the proposed amendment, the restored 2–5 dwelling unit per acre land
use designation provides the appropriate policy basis for low-density residential
development in the Riverview area. To implement this designation, staff
propose replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-15 Low Density Residential
District that establishes a minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet. This zoning
framework allows development within the density range contemplated by the
Comprehensive Plan while continuing to accommodate larger half-acre lots in
areas that rely on on-site septic systems.
Not all development would be eligible for septic systems, as wastewater
service will remain dependent on project size, site conditions, and proximity to
City sewer infrastructure. To address site-specific constraints, the proposed
code allows limited flexibility in individual lot sizes (up to 25 percent smaller or
larger) provided overall density requirements are met. This flexibility is intended
to improve site design options and alleviate certain, but not all, constraints
Page 63 of 309
associated with septic system requirements.
The proposed R-15 district reestablishes consistency between the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, supports long-term growth
management objectives, and aligns Pasco’s development standards with
emerging statewide housing requirements.
Analysis - Proposed Setback and Lot Revisions
to subject are lots 20,000-square-foot standards, zoning current Under
minimum setbacks of 25 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet on each side,
with a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. These standards were designed
for larger lots with greater separation between homes.
The proposed zoning revision would allow smaller lots, down to 14,520 square
feet, while still permitting lots up to one-half acre. To ensure these smaller lots
remain buildable, staff proposes modest reductions to the front and rear
setbacks while retaining the existing side setback requirement.
Specifically, the proposal would revise setbacks to 20 feet in the front, 10 feet
on each side, and 20 feet in the rear, and increase maximum lot coverage from
40 percent to 45 percent. These changes align development standards with the
reduced minimum lot size while maintaining reasonable separation between
homes and protecting neighborhood character.
spacing and privacy preserve helps 10-foot side the Retaining setbacks
between structures, even as lot sizes decrease. Table 1 summarizes the
proposed changes to development standards.
Table 1. Development Standards Comparison Table
The proposed code also allows limited flexibility in individual lot sizes when site
conditions require it, such as septic system constraints, provided the overall
development remains within the planned low-density range of 2–3 dwelling
units proceed can development ensures acre. This per while flexibility
maintaining consistency with adopted density standards. The proposed
language code is included in Exhibit 02 (PMC 25.30.050).
General Approval Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezone and Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria
Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(8)(c), The City may approve
Comprehensive Plan amendments if it finds that:
(i) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the
public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment;
(ii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of
Page 64 of 309
Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan not affected by the amendment;
(iii) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
(iv) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, per Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.020(9) The City must also
consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan
amendments:
(a) The effect upon the physical environment;
(b) The effect on open space and natural features including, but not
limited to, topography, streams, rivers, and lakes;
(c) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and
surrounding neighborhoods;
(d) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including
utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
(e) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use
type and density and the demand for such land;
(f) The current and projected project density in the area; and
(g) The effect, if any, upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is an analysis of these criteria:
1. Does the proposed amendment bear a substantial relationship to the
public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment?
No. This code change would change the R-S-20 zone to allow for 2-3 units per
acre. Septic systems could be permitted on lots a half-acre in size. Anything
over 2 units per acre would need to be connected to city sewer.
Is the proposed amendment consistent with the requirements of the
Washington State Growth Management Act and to the affected portion(s)
of the adopted Pasco Comprehensive Plan?
Yes. The emergency amendment is intended to retain the previous 2–5 units
per acre land use designation. The proposed rezone to R-15 would allow
development at 2–3 units per acre, supporting slightly smaller lot sizes in the
Riverview area and the area southwest of West Court Street and Harris Road,
and better aligning zoning with the Comprehensive Plan and state housing
requirements.
Under the Growth Management Act, cities are required to plan for increased
housing capacity. Very large minimum lot sizes are generally discouraged in
urban areas because they limit housing supply and increase infrastructure
costs. The proposed zoning change supports more efficient land use while
maintaining low-density character.
Page 65 of 309
Additionally, by the end of 2026, state law (including HB 1110) will require
cities to allow increased housing types citywide, regardless of existing zoning.
This zoning update positions Pasco to remain compliant with state law while
supporting gradual, appropriately scaled residential growth.
3. Does the proposed amendment correct a mapping error?
The proposed amendment corrects an error in the Pasco Municipal Code
where the R-S-20 zone (based on the minimum lot size) does not coincide with
the land use range currently adopted which is 3-6 units per acre.
Does the proposed amendment address a deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan?
No, the proposed amendment will modify the Comprehensive Plan, assigning a
low-density range of 2-5 units per acre to properties currently located within the
R-S-20 zone.
5. What are the effects on the physical environment, including open space
and natural features?
Lot sizes will be a minimum of 14,520 square feet. Any critical areas will be
addressed consistently with the City’s critical areas ordinance outlined in Title
28.
6. What is the compatibility and impact on adjacent land uses and
surrounding neighborhoods?
The proposed minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet is significantly larger
than the 8,700-square-foot lot size presented at the December public hearing.
Accordingly, the potential development intensity and associated impacts are
expected to be substantially less.
Introducing 14,520-square-foot lots into an established neighborhood
in create can parcels shifts and half-acre by characterized one-acre
development pattern and neighborhood character. Larger lots typically feature
wider setbacks, greater separation between homes, and more private open
space, while smaller lots result in homes placed closer together with reduced
yard areas. This change in spacing, combined with differences in building
scale, architectural style, and streetscape improvements such as sidewalks or
street lighting, can create a visual contrast with older large-lot areas. These
differences may also influence perceptions of privacy, traffic activity, and
overall neighborhood feel.
However, these compatibility issues are not inherently problematic and can be
effectively addressed through thoughtful planning and design. Landscaping
buffers, fencing, and enhanced setbacks along shared edges can soften
transitions development. between large-lot and smaller-lot Architectural
standards, window placement, and streetscape design can further support
Page 66 of 309
compatibility and help new development blend with the existing character. With
these tools, an 14,520-square-foot lot pattern can integrate successfully into
older neighborhoods while still supporting the City’s housing needs and
planning objectives.
7. What are the impacts on public facilities, and utilities, transportation
system, parks, recreation, and public schools?
Development at a 14,520-square-foot minimum lot sizeis generally associated
with low to moderate impacts on public facilities and services. Compared to
larger half-acre or one-acre lots, this lot size may result in a modest increase in
dwelling stormwater, sewer, water, on demand corresponding and units
transportation, parks, and schools. These impacts are anticipated under the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan and are consistent with
planning assumptions for low-density residential development.
Overall, development at this scale is not expected to create significant or
unmanageable impacts and represents a balanced approach that limits density
while allowing more efficient use of infrastructure compared to very large-lot
development.
What is the effect on other components of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan?
The proposed density and lot pattern generally remain consistent with the
overarching goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those
related to efficient land use, housing supply, and urban growth management.
Allowing development at approximately 14,520-square-foot lots supports a
more efficient use of residential land compared to existing half-acre and one-
acre lots, helping the City meet its Growth Management Act (GMA) housing
capacity obligations. This approach aligns with Comprehensive Plan policies
that encourage compact, well-connected residential neighborhoods, more
efficient infrastructure utilization, and a balanced distribution of growth across
the community. It also supports broader goals related to equity, housing
variety, and long-term fiscal sustainability by reducing per-unit infrastructure
costs and increasing opportunities for moderately sized homes
Rezone and Text Amendment Criteria
Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.210.030, the petition for a change of zoning
classification must show the following criteria provided below followed by staff
analysis in bold italics:
(1) The date the existing zone became effective;
The existing zone was created on April 19, 1999 via ordinance 3354.
(2) The changed conditions which are alleged to warrant other or
additional zoning;
The rezone from R-S-20 to R-15 Low Density Residential District is needed to
Page 67 of 309
comply with the proposed CPA amendment change to allow for 2-5 units per
acre as a land use designation and 2-3 units per acre for the zoning.
(3) Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare;
general safety, health, public and advances amendment zoning The the
welfare by restoring regulatory consistency; ensuring safe wastewater disposal;
supporting orderly, predictable development; expanding attainable low-density
housing opportunities; improving infrastructure efficiency; maintaining
City with compliance the for and positioning compatibility; neighborhood
statewide housing requirements. The amendment resolves a conflict that
prevented lawful development and ensures development patterns that protect
environmental quality, promote public services, and preserve long-term
community well-being.
(4) The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent
property and the Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely affect the value or
character of adjacent property, as it maintains low-density residential
development patterns similar to existing neighborhoods and promotes
regulatory clarity and predictability. The amendment strengthens the
Comprehensive Plan by restoring internal consistency, aligning land use
designations with infrastructure realities, and supporting adopted policies
regarding housing, growth management, and neighborhood quality.
(5) The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not
granted;
If the zoning change is not approved, property owners within the current R-S-
20 district will remain unable to lawfully subdivide or develop their property
because the existing minimum lot size and septic requirements prevent them
from achieving the Comprehensive Plan’s required minimum density of three
dwelling units per acre. This regulatory conflict creates a functional
development moratorium, limiting the owners’ reasonable use of their land and
preventing investment, homebuilding, and property improvement. Denial would
therefore continue to restrict property rights, depress development potential,
and perpetuate uncertainty regarding future land use expectations.
(6) The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property; and
The Comprehensive Plan criterion is met because a companion amendment
establishes the Low Density Residential–Riverview designation of 2–5 dwelling
units per acre for the subject properties. This restored designation reflects the
development patterns and infrastructure limitations of the area and provides
the appropriate policy basis for the proposed R-15 zoning district. With the land
use designation and zoning aligned, the rezone is fully consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 68 of 309
(7) Such other information as the Hearing Examiner requires.
This criterion is not applicable because the request is not an applicant-initiated
petition but a legislative, area-wide rezone initiated by the City. Based on staff’s
review a process appropriate the for code applicable the of provisions,
legislative rezone is a public hearing before the Planning Commission followed
by a recommendation to the City Council. Staff notes that related procedural
sections of the municipal code will be clarified and improved during the
comprehensive code update scheduled for next year in coordination with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Public Notice & Public Comment
The public hearing notice (Exhibit 09) was processed in accordance with PMC
27.12.090. Written comments related to the public hearing notice were not
received, however, there were verbal public comments at the public hearing as
outlined in the Planning Commission meeting meetings (Exhibit 11). Written
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) comments received are addressed
below.
SEPA Notice
notice on closed 05) (Exhibit SEPA The for period comment public the
December 30, 2025. Three comments were received. One comment was
submitted by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, which staff
determined was not applicable, as the proposed action would result in lower
residential density than is currently allowed for the site. A second comment
was received from the Bonneville Power Administration and was noted by staff;
no changes were required in response.
The third comment addressed lot size and on-site septic system requirements.
Staff have responded to this comment, as provided in Exhibit 13c.
The SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (Exhibit 07) was issued on
January 27, 2026. No appeals were filed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the two proposed ordinances
during the regular meeting on March 2, 2026.
Constraints (time or other considerations)
Staff respectfully recommend timely action on this matter to resolve the code
inconsistency and lift the current prohibition on development for affected
property owners.
Next Steps
None.
Alternatively, Council May
Page 69 of 309
The City Council may:
1. Recommend Approval of the proposed ordinances;
2. Recommend Approval with Modifications;
3. Recommend Denial; or
4. Remand the issue to Planning Commission for further vetting.
Page 70 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1
Version 1.8.26
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: LOW-
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-RIVERVIEW BY REFERENCE AND
INCORPORATING SUCH INTO THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY ADDENDUM.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 on April 17,
2023, amending Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.015 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density
Table (Table LU-1) allowing gross density range for areas designated as Low Density Residential
from 2-5 dwelling units per acre to 3-6 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4663 created an unintended conflict with the R-S-20 zoning
district, where minimum lot sizes and infrastructure constraints are not compatible with the higher
density minimum density requirements; and
WHEREAS, comprehensive plan emergency amendments may be reviewed and acted
upon outside the annual amendment review cycle; and.
WHEREAS, such amendments shall be initiated by resolution approved by a vote of the
Council upon a finding that a situation exists that necessitates expeditious action to preserve the
health, safety or welfare of the public, or to support the social, economic or environmental well-
being of the City; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, The Pasco City Council ADOPTED Resolution 4679
authorizing the initiation of an emergency amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, City of Pasco Planning Staff conducted a workshop with the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2025, followed by public hearings on December 18, 2025, and
January 15, 2026, to discuss options for resolving the unintended conflict; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Planning Commission at the January 15, 2026 meeting,
passed a motion recommending the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA
2025-002, including the Land Use Map Amendment establishing the Low Density Residential-
Riverview designation of 2-5 dwelling units per acre.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Pasco adopts by reference, Exhibit A below, referred to as the 2018
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Low-Density Residential-Riverview Addendum.
Page 71 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 2
Version 1.8.26
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 _____,
202_.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 72 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 3
Version 1.8.26
EXHIBIT A
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Low-Density Residential-Riverview Addendum
City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Addendum
R-S-20 Zone & Low-Density Residential Land Use changes
1. Purpose of Addendum
This amendment is intended to correct an existing internal inconsistency between
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s zoning map by designating properties
currently zoned R-S-20 as Low Density Residential – Riverview on the Comprehensive Plan/Land
Use Map. This amendment does not increase development capacity beyond what is currently
allowed by zoning. All related Comprehensive Plan text, land use tables, and growth and capacity
analysis will be updated as part of the City’s 2025 Periodic Comprehensive Plan Update.
2. Introduction and Purpose
This addendum supplements the City of Pasco’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan to re-establish the
appropriate density range for properties within the existing R-S-20 zoning district and introduce a
new land use sub-designation, Low Density Residential–Riverview, allowing 2–5 dwelling units
per acre.
This addendum does not alter, strike, or amend the adopted Comprehensive Plan document.
Instead, it provides supplemental direction and replaces a specific portion of the Land Use Map
for the Riverview area to ensure consistency between land use policy, zoning implementation, and
infrastructure limitations.
3. Background and Need for Addendum
Following adoption of Ordinance 4663 (2023), the citywide Low Density Residential range
increased from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 du/acre. However, this amendment
unintentionally created an inconsistency for the R-S-20 zone, which allows only two units per acre
based on a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and the septic system requirements identified in Benton-
Franklin Health District Table XI.
This inconsistency resulted in subdivision denials and prevented development within the R-S-20
district. Staff analysis determined that restoration of the 2–5 du/ac density range for these parcels
is necessary to align policy with achievable development patterns and ensure internal consistency.
Page 73 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 4
Version 1.8.26
4. Supplemental Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential–Riverview
This addendum establishes a new sub-designation:
Low Density Residential–Riverview (2–5 dwelling units per acre)
This designation applies only to properties currently zoned R-S-20 and identified on the
supplemental exhibits. It supports a range of lot sizes from 14,520 sq. ft. (when sewer is available)
to 21,780 sq. ft. (for septic-dependent parcels) with lot size flexibility built into the proposed
zoning code.
This designation restores historic density assumptions for the Riverview area without changing
other Low Density Residential areas in the city.
5. Replacement of Land Use Map for the Riverview Area
To maintain the integrity of the adopted 2018 Comprehensive Plan while ensuring policy
consistency, this addendum replaces only the affected portion of the Land Use Map applicable to
the Low Density Residential–Riverview area shown in Exhibit C.
The following exhibits are hereby adopted as the controlling land use maps for all parcels shown
as Low Density Residential-Riverview in Exhibit C:
• Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Map
• Exhibit C: Low Density Residential–Riverview Supplemental Land Use Map
These exhibits replace and supersede the corresponding geographic portion of the 2018
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map without modifying any other part of the document.
All other land use designations and mapping in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan remain unchanged.
6. Scope of Supersession
• Replacement applies exclusively to the Low Density Residential-Riverview-area parcels
shown in Exhibit B.
• Outside the affected geography, the 2018 Land Use Map continues to govern.
• Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council shall rely on Exhibit C when
interpreting or applying land use designations in the Riverview area.
7. Relationship to Zoning – Implementation Through R-15 Low Density Residential
District
To implement the restored density range, the city proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new
zone: R-15 Low Density Residential District (2-3 units per acre).
This zoning district:
• Aligns with the 2–5 dwelling units per acre land use policy framework
• Supports a mix of sewer-served lots and larger septic-served lots
• Eliminates the inconsistency created by Ordinance 4663
• Prepares the City for mandatory middle housing integration under HB 1110 by 2026
Page 74 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 5
Version 1.8.26
The zoning revision does not alter the Comprehensive Plan; it implements this supplemental land
use direction.
8. Findings and Policy Basis
The proposed addendum is consistent with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan because it advances the
Plan’s goals of providing diverse and attainable housing, ensuring the efficient use of residential
land, maintaining compatibility with long-range planning assumptions, and supporting fiscally
responsible infrastructure planning. It also corrects a policy inconsistency created by Ordinance
4663, which established a minimum density that cannot be achieved under existing R-S-20
zoning or in areas dependent on septic systems. Restoring the 2–5 dwelling-units-per-acre range
at the land use level and 2-3 units-per-acre range at the zoning level aligns achievable
development patterns with the Comprehensive Plan’s intent and resolves the mismatch between
allowable density and infrastructure constraints. In addition, the proposed density range is
consistent with the City’s established planning assumptions for sewer and utility system
expansion, transportation modeling, stormwater capacity, and parks and school facility planning,
ensuring coordinated and predictable long-term growth.
9. Applicability
This addendum applies only to parcels labeled Low Density Residential-Riverview in Exhibit C.
10. Implementation and Forward Integration
This supplemental designation and map replacement remain in effect until the city completes its
2026 mandated periodic Comprehensive Plan update, at which time the land use map and density
ranges may be comprehensively evaluated and integrated.
11. Adoption
This addendum was reviewed by the Planning Commission, subject to public notice and hearing,
and adopted by the City Council as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-002,
pursuant to PMC 25.215.020.
Page 75 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 6
Version 1.8.26
EXHIBIT B
Page 76 of 309
Ordinance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 7
Version 1.8.26
EXHIBIT C
Page 77 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING AND
REPEALING SECTIONS OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE IN TITLE 17 SIGN CODE,
TITLE 21 URBAN AREA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND TITLE 25 ZONING,
RELATED TO CHANGES MADE TO THE R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT, AND FURTHER
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CLASSIFICATION FROM R-S-20 SUBURBAN
DISTRICT TO R-15 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4663 on April 17,
2023, amending Pasco Municipal Code 25.215.015 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density
Table (Table LU-1) allowing gross density range for areas designated as Low Density Residential
from 2-5 dwelling units per acre to 3-6 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4663 created an unintended conflict with the R-S-20 zoning
district, where minimum lot sizes and infrastructure constraints are not compatible with the higher
density minimum density requirements; and
WHEREAS, City of Pasco Planning Staff conducted a workshop with the Planning
Commission on November 20, 2025, followed by public hearings on December 18, 2025, and
January 15, 2026 to discuss options for resolving the unintended conflict; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Planning Commission at the January 15, 2026 meeting,
passed a motion recommending the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA
2025-002, including the Land Use Map Amendment establishing the Low Density Residential-
Riverview designation of 2-5 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Planning Commission at January 15, 2026, Planning
Commission meeting passed a motion recommending the City Council replace/rezone the R-S-20
zone with the R-15 Low Density Residential District, along with the associated Pasco Municipal
Code changes below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be
and herby is changed from the R-S-20 Suburban District to R-15 Low Density Residential District
as shown in Exhibit A:
Page 78 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 2
INSERT EXHIBIT A
Page 79 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 3
Section 2. PMC Title 17.15.010 Sign Allowance Table, is hereby amended and shall
read as follows:
Chapter 17.15 SIGN ALLOWANCE TABLE
17.15.010 Interpretation of sign allowance table.
(1) The sign allowance table, as incorporated herein, determines whether a specific sign is
allowed in a zone district or by land use activity. The zone district or land use activity is
identified in the left column and the specific sign allowances are located in the rows of the table.
(2) If no symbol or number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row,
the sign is not allowed in that category or is not subject to an allowance.
(3) If a number appears in the table box at the intersection of the column and row or in the
column or row heading, the sign may be allowed subject to the appropriate requirement and
specific conditions indicated in the table footnotes.
(4) All applicable requirements shall govern a sign whether or not the requirements are cross-
referenced in the table.
Sign Allowance Table
Permit requirement
| Material restrictions
| | Number of signs
| | | Allowable surface area in sq. ft. (1)
| | | | Height in feet (2)
| | | | | Projection over ROW to curb line
| | | | | | Spacing in linear feet (3)
| | | | | | | Visible ground plane/passage area (4)
| | | | | | | | Setback from adjacent property line
| | | | | | | | | Setback from ROW in feet (5)
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Duration (days)
| | | | | | | | | | | Notes
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Page 80 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 4
Access, landmark, and informational signs - all zones
entry/exit freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 4 4
5 0
per exit/entry
landmark wall sign/plaque yes durable 1 10 8
5 0
per building
frontage
informational -
private (6)
wall sign no durable 1 2 8
5 0
per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
no durable 1 6 4
5 0
per street
frontage
informational -
public
wall sign no durable 1 2 8
5 0
per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
no durable 1 6 4
5 0
per street
frontage
Permanent signs
Residential districts - RT, R-S-20R-15, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, RFAH-1/1A, R-2, R-3, R-4, RMHP
identification -
dwelling unit
wall sign no durable 1 2 8
5 0
per property
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
no durable 1 2 4
5 0
per property
identification - bldg
complex
wall sign yes durable 1 24 20
5 0
per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
yes durable 1 24 4
5 0
per street
frontage
daycare facility wall sign yes durable 1 16 20
5 0
per building
frontage
commercial freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
yes durable 1 16 15
5 0
per street
frontage
school/religious
use (15)
wall sign yes durable 1 24 20
5 0
per building
frontage
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (17)
yes durable 1 40 15
5 0
per street
frontage
freestanding
marquee/readerboard
sign (17)
yes durable 1 24 15
5 0
per street
frontage
Page 81 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 5
Office/commercial districts - O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3
Composite allowance - all sign surfaces
maximum per sign window sign (11) no transparent na 25% 15
per building/street
frontage
awning sign per
business
yes durable 1 24 15 (2)
8
may extend
over walkway
canopy sign yes maintained na 25% 24 (2)
8
may extend
over walkway
wall sign yes durable na 25% na
14
0
blade/projecting sign yes durable 1 125 (2)
(2)
5 0
freestanding pedestal
sign
yes durable 1 350 15 0
5 0
freestanding
marquee/readerboard
sign (17)
yes durable 1 48 15
5 0
per street
frontage
freestanding pole -
tenant directory sign (17)
yes durable 1 12 35 0
6 5 0
up to 12 tenants
per sign
freestanding pole
sign (17)
yes durable 1 350 35 0
6 5 0
freestanding billboard
sign (7)(17)
yes durable 1 250 35 0 500 6 5 0
Maximum 25
billboard sign
structures in
City.
freestanding digital
billboard sign (7)(17)
yes durable 1 250 35 0 500 6 5 0
off-premises directional
sign (14)
yes durable 1 5 15
5 0
Commercial/industrial districts - C-3, C-R, BP, I-1, I-2, I-3
maximum per sign freeway sign yes durable 1 350 70
500 6 35 35
per freeway
frontage
per freeway or freeway
interchange (9) sign
yes durable 1 480 70
500 6 35 35
per 15-acre site
minimum
frontage property and freeway
readerboard (9) sign
yes durable 1 150 35
500 6 35 35
per 15-acre site
minimum
Limited duration signs
Page 82 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 6
Undeveloped property
Residential freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 24 8
5 0 15 after closing
- lot
- tract freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 60 8
5 0 15 after last closing
Commercial freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 24 8
5 0 15 after closing
- lot
- tract freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 60 8
5 0 15 after closing
Construction wall/banner sign yes durable 1 24 8
5 0 const
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign
yes durable 1 32 8
5 0 const
Real estate sales/rentals per building or property
Residential zones window/poster sign no
1 2
0 15 after closing
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (10)
no durable 1 6 8
5 0 15 after closing
freestanding sign (10) no durable 2 2 8
5 0 15 after closing
Commercial
zones (12)
window/poster sign no
1 2
0 15 after closing
wall/banner sign no durable 1 6 20
5 0 15 after closing
freestanding
pedestal/pole sign (9)
no durable 1 6 8
5 0 15 after closing
Temporary signs
Open house - real
estate sales
sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 4 6 4
5 0
after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4
5 0
after event
Special event - sales, charities, etc.
Schools, churches,
parks, farmers mkt,
Xmas trees
sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 4 6 4
5 0
after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4
5 0
after event
Page 83 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 7
window poster no
na 50%
after event
window banner no durable 1 16
0
after event
wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20
5 0
after event
banner - mounted
freestanding pole
no durable 1 10 20 (2)
8 5 0
after event
marquee/readerboard -
portable
no durable 1 18 4
5 0
after event
balloons (12) no biodegradable 15
20
5
after event
Residential zones sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 2 6 4
5 0
after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4
5 0
after event
Commercial zones sandwich -
directional (10)
no durable 2 6 4
5 0
after event
sandwich - site (10) no durable 1 6 4
5 0
after event
window poster no
na 50%
after event
window banner no durable 1 16
0
after event
wall sign/banner no durable 1 64 20
5 0
after event
banner - mounted
freestanding pole
no durable 1 16 20 (2)
8 5 0
after event
marquee/readerboard -
portable
no durable 1 18 4
5 0
after event
balloons (12) no biodegradable 15
20
5
after event
inflatables (13) yes nonflammable 1 350 70
250
5 0
after event
SR-12/395 and I-182 inflatables (13) yes nonflammable 1 350 70
500
5 0
after event
Political (16) freestanding no durable na 6 4
5 0 10 after election
1 The area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the outer limits of the sign face, but not
including structural elements, which are not a part of the display. The area of a two-sided sign
equals the area of one side. The area of a spherical, cubical, or polyhedral sign equals 1/2 the
total surface area.
2 Height: measured from the average finished grade at the sign foundation.
Page 84 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 8
Awning signs shall be at least 8 and no more than 16 feet above the walkway.
Blade/projecting signs shall not extend more than 10 feet above the building facade or 6 feet
from the face of the building.
3 Spacing: the linear distance between signs, or sign structures, in feet.
4 The area under the sign that shall be free of obstructions to allow passage of pedestrians and
vehicles.
5 Setback: shall be that portion of any sign or sign structure that is closest to the property line.
6 Private informational signs must be for an original purpose and may not simply repeat the same
message over and over.
7 Signs visible from Washington State Highways may be subject to the Highway Advertising
Control Act of 1971 and require approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation
in additional to local approval.
8 On private property adjacent to an arterial road: not within 100 feet of a public street
intersection, 300 feet of a residential district, within 250 feet of a freestanding sign of 200 sf of
display area.
9 Freeway interchange signs must be located within 1,000 feet of an interchange, and 300 feet of
ROW, on site of business on a minimum 15-acre site.
10 Square feet per one face of a two-sided sandwich board.
11 Window signs may include credit card logos and advertise hours of operation and address.
12 Balloons shall be no larger than 18 inches in diameter, not attached to a roofline.
13 Inflatables shall be securely anchored to the ground and not create a traffic or other hazard in
the event of deflation.
Inflatables shall be measured by square feet of surface volume.
14 Off-premises directional signs shall be of the material, color, lettering font, and structure
specified by the Building Official.
15 Excepting Pasco High School Bulldogs stadium sign.
16 Campaign signs on private property are limited to 32 square feet in size.
17 Permanent freestanding pole signs are not allowed within the downtown core, as illustrated in
PMC 25.95.050(2) of the downtown Pasco overlay zone.
[Ord. 4729 § 2, 2024; Ord. 4678A § 2, 2024; Ord. 4678 § 2, 2023; Ord. 3865 § 1, 2008; Ord.
3790 § 2, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.05.010.]
Page 85 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 9
Section 3. PMC Title 17.15.030, Exempt signs, is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
17.15.030 Exempt signs.
The following signs shall not require application, fee or sign permit. These exceptions shall not
be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from responsibility for its erection, and its
compliance with provisions of this code or any other law or ordinance regulating the same:
(1) Changing of the advertising copy or message on theater marquees, readerboards, and similar
signs.
(2) Painting, repainting, cleaning, repairing and other normal maintenance, unless structural or
electrical changes are made.
(3) Signs erected or installed by or at the direction of the City, such as traffic signs, legal notices,
railroad warning signs, signs showing the location of underground public utility facilities, and
other signs of a nonadvertising nature erected for warning or emergency purposes.
(4) Interior signs; provided, that no interior sign shall be permitted in the R-T, R-S-20R-15, R-S-
12, R-S-1, R-l and R-2, R-3, R-4, R-1-A and R-1-A2 zoning districts.
(5) Temporary signs and decorations that are customary for special holidays and that are erected
on private property.
(6) Signs directly related to a municipal building, structure or installed by the City or required
by a governmental entity.
(7) Bona fide religious symbols on the buildings or grounds of religious institutions.
(8) Traffic or pedestrian control signs, signs required by law, or signs indicating scenic or
historic points of interest that are erected by or on the order of a public officer in the performance
of his public duty.
(9) Sculptures, fountains, mosaics, and design features that do not incorporate advertising or
identification.
(10) The flags of governments or noncommercial institutions such as schools, with the poles
treated as structures.
(11) Official public notices of federal, state or local governments, official court notices.
(12) Signs not intended to be viewed by the public from the street right-of-way.
Page 86 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 10
(13) Lettering or symbols painted directly onto or flush-mounted magnetically onto an operable
vehicle.
(14) Identification signs upon recycling collection containers for public, charitable or nonprofit
organizations.
(15) Emblems of local nonprofit organizations and community service clubs, including signs
less than two square feet that identify the meeting place and time.
(16) Political signs. [Ord. 3790 § 3, 2006; Code 1970 § 17.05.030.]
Section 4. PMC Title 21.15.010, Street connectivity, is hereby amended and shall
read as follows:
21.15.010 Street connectivity.
(1) Connectivity to Abutting Lands. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be
designed to provide direct and efficient connections to existing, proposed, and planned streets
adjacent to the subdivision. Wherever a proposed development abuts unplatted land or a future
development phase of an existing development, street stubs shall be provided to allow access to
future abutting subdivisions and to extend the street system into the surrounding area. Street ends
shall contain turnarounds constructed to Uniform Fire Code standards and shall be designed to
facilitate future extension in terms of grading, width, and temporary barricades.
(2) Future Street Plan. Subdivision applicants must demonstrate, pursuant to City standards, that
the proposed development does not preclude future street connections to adjacent lands.
(3) Public Street and Street Connectivity Requirements. Dedicating or deeding property for
right-of-way or a portion thereof to the City for public streets within, or along the boundaries of
all residential subdivisions or developments, shall be required as a condition of application
approval where the following can be demonstrated:
(a) Facts support that such dedication is reasonably necessary as a result of the impact created
by the proposed development;
(b) Such dedication will result in proportionate mitigation of the impact in the reasonably
foreseeable future;
(c) Connectivity to the existing or foreseeable future public right-of-way is feasible; and
(d) One or more of the following circumstances are met:
(i) A city transportation plan indicates the necessity of a new or additional right-of-way or
portion thereof for street purposes;
Page 87 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 11
(ii) The dedication is necessary to provide additions of right-of-way to existing right-of-way to
meet city road standards;
(iii) The dedication is necessary to extend or to complete the existing or future neighborhood
street pattern;
(iv) The dedication is necessary to comply with road standards and city transportation plans;
(v) The dedication is necessary to provide a public transportation system that supports future
development of abutting property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Pasco Municipal
Code.
(4) Dead-End Streets. Dead-end streets are prohibited; except, where the Comprehensive Plan or
preliminary plat indicates a street is to continue past the subdivider’s property, the City may
allow the dead end until such time as the street can be built through at a later date. Dead-end
streets may be permitted in the R-S-20 R-15 and R-S-12 districts as provided in PMC 21.15.080.
(5) Half Streets. Half streets shall be prohibited except that the City may permit their inclusion
in cases where a normal alignment of a present or future planned street will fall half on an
adjoining ownership.
(6) Street Names. Streets shall be named to conform with existing streets on the same or
reasonably similar alignment. New street names shall be reviewed by the Planning Department,
the Fire Department and/or the Emergency 911 Coordinator to ensure that no confusion with
existing street names occurs. [Ord. 4694 § 6, 2023; Ord. 3736 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999;
Code 1970 § 26.12.010.]
Section 5. PMC Title 21.15.080, hammerhead/T, is hereby amended and shall read
as follows:
21.15.080 Hammerhead/T.
Hammerhead/Ts are only permitted in R-S-20 R-15 and R-S-12 zoning districts where property
was platted in the county prior to annexation and existing development precludes the expectation
requirement that a standard cul-de-sac can be developed.
(1) Dead-end streets with hammerheads should normally be less than 300 feet, but will be
permitted up to 450 feet in length.
(2) Streets with hammerheads shall not serve more than eight lots.
(3) Right-of-Way Widths for Streets Intersecting Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths
for all dead-end streets with hammerheads serving no more than eight lots shall not be less than
40 feet, with no on-street parking.
Page 88 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 12
(4) Right-of-Way Widths for Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths for hammerheads
shall not be less than 30 feet, with no on-street parking.
(5) Roadway Widths. Minimum roadway widths for all dead-end streets with hammerheads shall
not be less than the following dimensions:
(a) Thirty-two feet from the face of curb to the face of curb;
(b) Thirty feet of pavement width where there is no curb and gutter;
(c) Twenty-eight feet of pavement for hammerheads;
(6) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Figure 21.15.080.01
or 21.15.080.02.
(6) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Figure
21.15.080.01 or 21.15.080.02.
Figure 21.15.080.01. Connecting Road
Page 89 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 13
Figure 21.15.080.02. Connecting Road
[Ord. 4694 § 6, 2023; Ord. 3736 § 3, 2005; Code 1970 § 26.12.075.]
Section 6. PMC Title 21.20.060, Lots without public street frontage, is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
21.20.060 Lots without public street frontage
(1) Purpose. These regulations are intended to implement comprehensive plan goals and policies
encouraging infill development, more efficient use of the remaining developable land, protection
of environmentally sensitive areas, and creating opportunities for more affordable housing.
(2) Applicability. All applications proposing residential lots without public street frontage may
be approved only when each of the requirements identified below have been met. These
conditions are supplemental to any other requirements found in this title. In the event of any
conflict, the conditions in this section shall apply.
Page 90 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 14
(a) All applications shall include a site map depicting proposed lot layout, including the location
of existing structures on adjacent parcels, if any;
(b) Permitted only where, due to geometric, topographic, or other physical features in proportion
to the size of the development, it would be impractical to extend or build a publicly dedicated
street;
(c) Lots without public street frontage shall not be permitted within the RS-20 R-15 zoning
district;
(d) There shall be no more than three adjoining lots created without public street frontage;
(e) Emergency Access. When the furthest point of a proposed structure is greater than 150 feet in
distance from the public right-of-way, as measured along an accessible route, an approved fire
vehicle turnaround with a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet is required as defined by the
International Fire Code;
(f) All corners shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 30 feet;
(g) Parking. No parking is permitted along the access (shared driveway) portion of the lot. The
installation of no parking signage shall be required as a condition of approval;
(h) Utilities and Improvements. All impacted and new utilities and improvements shall be
constructed to the standards identified in the Pasco Design and Construction Standards and
Specifications;
(i) Drainage and storm water shall meet the requirements of PMC 16.10.050;
(j) Signage with addresses shall be posted on the public street side for all properties that are
adjacent to any private shared driveway or access. Signage shall comply with the requirements of
PMC Title 17. All addresses shall be displayed on the same pedestal unless otherwise authorized;
(k) Structural setbacks on lots without public street frontage shall conform to the requirements
of the applicable zone;
(l) The shared access must be located no closer than five feet to any existing structure;
(m) Access, maintenance and utility easements necessary to accommodate and maintain
proposed driveway/shared access improvements and utilities shall be approved through the
subdivision process in this title and included on the face of the final plat;
(n) The shared driveway/access must be maintained by the homeowner’s association or by the
adjoining property owners. A maintenance agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy and signage on the plat and must include provisions for snow
removal, garbage pickup and any other necessary provisions as determined by the City; and
Page 91 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 15
(o) The shared driveway/access shall have a minimum paved width of 20 feet. [Ord. 4536 § 1,
2021; Ord. 4444 § 2, 2019.]
Section 9. PMC Section 25.20.010, Establishment of zoning districts, is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
25.20.010 Establishment of zoning districts.
For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City,
the City is divided into the following types of zones:
R-T District Residential Transition District
R-S-20 District
R-15
Residential Suburban District
Low-Density Residential District
R-S-12 District Residential Suburban District
R-S-1 District Low-Density Suburban Residential District
R-1 District Low-Density Residential District
R-1-A District Low-Density Residential Alternative District
R-1-A2 District Low-Density Residential Alternative District
R-2 District Medium-Density Residential District
R-3 District Medium-Density Residential District
R-4 District High-Density Residential District
RP District Residential Park District
O District Office District
C-1 District Retail Business District
C-2 District Central Business District
C-2 Overlay District Central Business Overlay District
C-3 District General Business District
C-R District Regional Commercial District
Page 92 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 16
BP District Business Park District
I-182 Overlay District I-182 Corridor Overlay District
I-1 District Light Industrial District
I-2 District Medium Industrial District
I-3 District Heavy Industrial District
MU District Mixed-Use District
[Ord. 4668 § 1, 2023; Ord. 4514 § 1, 2021; Ord. 4110 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3731 § 27, 2005; Ord.
3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.16.010.]
Section 10. PMC Chapter 25.30, R-S-20 Suburban District, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
Chapter 25.30 R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT R-15 Low Density Residential
District
Sections:
• 25.30.010 Purpose.
• 25.30.020 Permitted uses.
• 25.30.030 Permitted accessory uses.
• 25.30.040 Conditional uses.
• 25.30.050 Development standards.
Section 11. PMC Section 25.30.010, Purpose, is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.30.010 Purpose.
The R-S-20 suburban district R-15 Low Density Residential District is established to
provide a low-density residential environment permitting a gross density of two to five three
dwelling units per acre., as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan land use density table in
PMC 25.215.015. Lands within this district shall, unless specifically allowed herein,
contain suburban residential development with large lots and expansive yards. Structures
in this district are limited to single-family dwellings and customary accessory structures.
Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and
location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment. [Ord. 4575
Page 93 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 17
§ 5, 2022; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.010.]
Section 12. PMC Section 25.30.020, Permitted Uses, is hereby amended and shall read
as follows:
25.30.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R-S-20 suburban district:
(1) Single-family dwellings; and
(2) New factory-assembled homes.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of vacant
property for gardening or fruit raising. [Ord. 4575 § 5, 2022; Ord. 3731 § 3, 2005;
Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.020.]
Section 13. PMC Section 25.30.030, Permitted accessory uses, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
25.30.030 Permitted accessory uses.
The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-20 suburban
district:
(1) Detached residential garages as defined in PMC 25.15.090, provided they do not exceed the
height of 18 feet and are no larger than 1,600 square feet in area. For each additional 20,000
square feet of lot area, the gross floor area of detached shops and garages can be increased by
400 square feet. A greater height may be approved by special permit based upon the review
criteria listed in PMC 25.200.080 and 25.200.090;
(2) Home occupations as defined in PMC 25.15.100;
(3) Storage buildings cumulatively not exceeding 480 square feet of gross floor area and 15 feet
in height; provided no container storage, as defined in PMC 25.15.210, shall be permitted. For
each additional 20,000 square feet of lot area, the gross floor area of storage sheds can be
increased by 400 square feet;
(4) Agricultural uses (limited), as defined in PMC 25.15.030 (except that the keeping of animals
shall be permitted on parcels consisting of 10,000 square feet over and above an area equal in
size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel);
(5) One animal unit (as defined in PMC 25.15.030) shall be allowed for each full 10,000-square-
foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the
dwelling on the same parcel, provided all barns, barnyards, chicken houses, or corrals shall be
located not less than 25 feet from a public roadway and not less than 10 feet from any adjoining
Page 94 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 18
property held under separate ownership; and provided, that said number of chickens, fowl or
rabbits does not exceed two animal units;
(6) The keeping of dogs and cats, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs
and three cats;
(7) Family day care home in conformance with Chapter 388-73 WAC as now existing and as
amended and Chapter 25.150 PMC;
(8) Accessory dwelling units;
(9) Family home preschool in conformance with Chapter 25.150 PMC; and
(10) For lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet but less than 22,000 square feet the keeping
of dogs, cats, rabbits, and chicken hens, provided such number of animals does not exceed three
dogs and/or three cats, and/or three rabbits and/or three chicken hens, the total number of
animals not to exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other
properties; roosters are not allowed. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as
rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not
exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of
the dwelling. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise
or odor. [Ord. 4575 § 5,
Section 14. PMC section 25.30.050, “Development standards” is hereby amended and
shall read as follow: Exemptions,” is hereby added to read as follows:
25.30.050 Development standards.
(1) Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet.
Minimum Lot Area: 14,520 square feet.
Maximum Lot Size: One-half (½) acre.
Permitted Density: 2–3 dwelling units per acre.
(a) Lot Size Adjustments: The Director may approve adjustments to individual lot sizes of up to
twenty five (25) percent above or below the minimum lot area where necessary to comply with
Benton-Franklin Health Department on-site septic system requirements or to address site-specific
constraints such as soil conditions, drainage, topography, or irregular parcel configuration.
Any adjustment to individual lot size approved under this subsection shall be accommodated
through lot size averaging, such that the overall development maintains a density of 2–3 dwelling
units per acre. Development of densities outside this range is not permitted.
(2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in PMC 25.30.030(8).
Page 95 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 19
(3) Maximum lot coverage: 405 percent.
(4) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 25 20 feet.
(b) Side: 10 feet.
(c) Rear. Principal building: 25 20 feet.
Accessory buildings: Accessory buildings adjacent to an alley may be placed on the alley line,
provided there are no openings in the wall adjacent to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors
adjacent to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley, the setback
shall be 10 feet.
(5) Maximum Building Height.
(a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet.
(6) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC.
(7) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC.
(8) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC.
(9) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4575 § 5, 2022; Ord. 4110 § 8,
2013; Ord. 3731 § 4, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.22.050.]
Section 15. PMC Section 25.165.200, Vehicle-related uses, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
25.165.200 Vehicle-related uses.
(1) Any building to be used as an auto body shop, as defined in PMC 25.15.030, shall have a
spray paint room or spray paint booth which complies with the requirements of the International
Fire Code and/or International Building Code;
(2) Inoperable vehicles, as defined in PMC 25.15.240, are permitted within the R-T, R-S-20 R-
15, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and RFA-1/1-A districts and on all nonconforming
residential uses in other districts subject to the following conditions:
(a) Only one inoperable vehicle may be stored outside of a fully enclosed building on the
property, as an accessory use to a dwelling unit.
Page 96 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 20
(b) The inoperable vehicle stored outside shall not be stored upon a public right-of-way or in the
front or side yard areas of the property, and shall not conflict with other residential requirements,
such as off-street parking and lot coverage.
(c) The trunk of the outside inoperable vehicle shall be removed or locked at all times it is
unattended, and the unattended vehicle shall be completely enclosed within a six-foot fence,
which is fully sight obscuring.
(d) All vehicle parts not properly installed upon a vehicle shall be stored inside a fully enclosed
building, except that parts may be stored within the outside inoperable vehicle.
(3) In the C-3 and I-1 zoning districts, inoperable vehicles, as defined in PMC 25.15.240, and
vehicle parts, tires and accessories that are not readily movable and for immediate sale shall be
stored or parked behind screening as provided by PMC 25.180.040(1)(d). [Ord. 4700A § 14,
2023; Ord. 4121 § 3, 2013; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.70.150.]
Section 16. PMC Section 25.175.020, Setbacks, is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.175.020 Setbacks.
(1) Variable Yard Requirements. The City Council, on recommendation of the Planning
Commission, and after a public hearing held by the Planning Commission, may establish a
building line along certain streets throughout certain zones or throughout certain natural areas,
other than the setback requirements as established herein, when it is found that to do so will
protect public health, welfare and safety;
(2) Where any setback is required, no building shall be hereafter erected, altered, or placed in
the setback, except:
(a) Eaves, cornices, belt courses, and similar ornamentation may project into the setback not
more than two feet;
(b) Steps, platforms, and open porches may extend into the rear yard setback, but not more than
four feet;
(3) An open or enclosed porch shall be considered part of a building in the determination of the
front yard setback and lot coverage;
(4) (a) Where two contiguous corner lots, or two lots separated only by an alley, form the entire
frontage between two parallel streets and there is erected a solid six-foot fence, permitted
accessory buildings may be located not closer than five feet from the property line along the
Page 97 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 21
street on which there is a solid six-foot fence. This reduced setback shall not apply to
garages or accessory buildings higher than 10 feet.
(b) Where two contiguous corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel streets,
the front yard along the common flanking street shall be reduced to 15 feet. This reduction
shall not apply to garages that are accessed from the flanking street.
(c) Within the R-S-20 R-15, R-S-12, R-S-1 and R-1-A/A2 districts, where the front yard of
a lawfully existing structure is less than that required for the district in which the structure is
located, alteration or enlargement of said structure may be permitted, but shall not further
reduce the existing front yard dimension or be located closer than 15 feet from the front
property line, whichever is the most restrictive;
(d) Within the R-S-20 R-15, R-S-12, R-S-1 and R-1-A/A2 districts, where the front yards
provided for lawfully existing structures upon the majority of lots within the same block
front and on the same side of the street are of less depth than required by the applicable
district regulation, the minimum front yard requirement for the remaining unoccupied lots
within the same block front and on the same side of the street shall be reduced to a depth not
less than the average front yard dimension provided by said existing structures, but in no
case shall the front yard depth be less than 15 feet.
(e) Handicapped access ramps may encroach within the front yard setback of all residential
zoning districts, provided such ramps are built to the Washington State Building Code
standards. The ramps must also be constructed and finished to complement the dwelling
with respect to finishes and construction materials and must be built in a workmanlike
manner;
(5) Commercial Yard Exception Requirements. Where a lot in a commercial district abuts or
adjoins a front, side or rear yard in a residential district, any building on the commercial lot
shall conform to and meet the front, side or rear yard setbacks in the adjoining residentially
zoned lot;
(6) Residential Yards in Commercial Districts. Nonconforming residential uses in
commercial or industrial districts must maintain residential setbacks as provided in
PMC 25.45.050; and
(7) Vision Triangle. No building, wall, fence or other structure higher than 36 inches above
curb grade shall be placed in a C-3 or I-1 district within any vision triangle, the equal legs of
which are formed by lines measured 20 feet along the property line from the intersection of
two streets, or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and alley. [Ord. 4700A § 16, 2023;
Ord. 3603 § 1, 2003; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.74.030.]
Page 98 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 22
Section 17. PMC Section 25.185.030, General Provisions, is hereby amended and
shall read as follows:
25.185.030 General provisions.
(1) The off-street parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be established prior
to the occupancy of any new or enlarged structure;
(2) Required off-street parking spaces shall provide vehicle parking only for residents,
customers, patrons, and employees and shall not be used for the storage of equipment or
materials, or for the sale, repair or servicing of any vehicle;
(3) Any area once designated for required off-street parking shall not be used for any other
purpose unless and until equal facilities are provided elsewhere and a site plan has been
approved to reflect the change, or the primary use of the property is changed to a use requiring
less off-street parking;
(4) The required front yard in the single-family residential districts shall not be used for off-
street parking for five or more cars. The storage and parking of vehicles in front yard areas of
single-family properties shall be limited to that area formed and bounded by parallel lines
extending from the outer dimension of a garage, carport, or parking slab to the right-of-way. An
additional area between the nearest side property line and the driveway of not more than 10 feet
by 20 feet may be used for additional parking. On lots with 100 feet of frontage or more, parking
may be permitted on circular drives. All primary parking areas and driveways in front yards shall
be hard surfaced, except in the R-S-20 R-15 and R-S-12 districts, driveways may be of an all-
weather surface, provided the first 20 feet from the right-of-way is hard surfaced; and
(5) In the R-2, R-3 and R-4 residential districts off-street parking spaces for multiple-family
dwellings shall not be located in the front yard, except that a single two-lane drive may extend
through the required front yard, provided no portion of the drive is within 10 feet of a dwelling
unit entry nor five feet from any portion of a residential structure. [Ord. 4700A § 17, 2023; Ord.
3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.78.030.]
Section 18. PMC Section 25.185.140, Recreational equipment parking, is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
25.185.140 Recreational equipment parking.
Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailer, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers,
and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within the R-1, R-2, R-3 and
Page 99 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 23
R-4 districts, and only within the side and rear yards in the R-S-20 R-15, R-S-12 and R-S-1
districts. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all-weather materials such as asphalt, brick,
stone, concrete or gravel. Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in residential
districts shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in PMC 25.185.030(4). Bona fide
guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to
exceed 10 days in any 60-day period. [Ord. 4700A § 17, 2023; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970
§ 25.78.140.]
Section 19. PMC Section 25.215.015, Comprehensive Plan land use density table, is
hereby amended and shall read as follows:
25.215.015 Comprehensive Plan land use density table.
Maximum gross density of any proposed development within any zoning district, expressed as
dwelling units per acre, shall be no less than the corresponding minimum density expressed in
this section and no greater than the corresponding maximum density expressed in this section,
except as provided in Chapter 25.161 PMC.
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
Open Space/Parks Land where development will be
severely restricted: park lands, trails and
critical areas
All zoning districts
(Development of parks
and recreation facilities
requires special permit
review)
Low Density Residential -
Riverview
Variety of residential housing at a
density of 2-5 units per acre.
R-15
Low Density Residential Variety of residential housing at a
density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre
R-S-20; R-S-12; R-S-1;
R-1; R-1-A; R-1-A2
Medium Density Residential Variety of residential housing at a
density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per
acre.
R-2 through R-4; RP
High Density Residential Variety of residential housing at a
density 21 units per acre or more
R-4
Mixed
Residential/Commercial
Accommodates a diverse range of
housing, nonresidential uses,
commercial uses, neighborhood retail
and office uses, parks and recreation
R-1 through R-4; C-1 and
O; Waterfront
Page 100 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 24
areas, and civic uses at a density of 5 to
29 dwelling units per acre
Commercial Neighborhood, community and regional
shopping and specialty centers, business
parks, service and office uses
O; BP; C-1; C-2; C-3;
CR
Industrial Manufacturing, food processing, storage
and wholesale distribution of equipment
and products, hazardous material
storage, and transportation related
facilities
I-1; I-2; I-3
Public and Quasi-Public Schools, civic centers, fire stations and
other public uses
By special permit in all
districts (except I-3
which has various
restrictions)
Airport Reserve Land occupied by the Tri-Cities Airport I-1
DNR Reserve Transition lands owned and presently
managed by DNR for natural resource
production. Characteristics include, but
are not limited to, proximity to urban-
type development, road and utility
infrastructure, and market demand.
I-1
[Ord. 4663 § 2, 2023; Ord. 4575 § 14, 2022.]
Section 20. 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 21. 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.
Page 101 of 309
Ordinance – Amending PMC Titles 12, 17, 21, & 25- page 25
Section 22. 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 _____,
2026.
_____________________________
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 102 of 309
ORDINANCE NO.4663
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESCRIPTIONS AND THE
PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.215.015 "COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DENSITY TABLE" RELATED TO 2022 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DOCKET AND BROADMOOR MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act authorizes the City to, among other things,
amend the Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted workshops and public hearings
pursuant to legally required notice on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
recommended approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the proposed annual amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Future Land Use Map Descriptions
and Density Table.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that the amendment has met the decision criteria
contained in PMC 25.215.020; and that the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the goals and policies of the City.
Section 2. That Section 25.215.015 entitled "Comprehensive Plan land use density
table" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.215.015 Comprehensive Plan land use density table.
Maximum gross density of any proposed development within any zoning district,
expressed as dwelling units per acre, shall be no less than the corresponding
minimum density expressed in this section and no greater than the corresponding
maximum density expressed in this section, except as provided in Chapter 25.161
PMC.
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
Open Space/Parks Land where development All zoning districts
will be severely Development of parks
restricted: park lands, and recreation facilities
trails and critical areas
Ordinance — Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 1
Page 103 of 309
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
requires special permit
review)
Low Density Residential Stele -€ate VarietyfR-S-20; R-S-12; R-S- residential
housinL, 1; R-1; R-1-A; R-1- de,
at a density A2 of —
to 5 3 to E. dwelling units
per acre Medium
Density Single f dwel '„g-s, R-2 through R-4; RP fflilyResidential
heffies, townhoeses, patiod
eendefnifl
Variety of residential
housing, at a density
of 6 to 20 dwelling
units per acre. High
Density Residential Multiple unit a„aftmeig R-4 or-
eendaminium Variety, of
residential housing at a density
21 units per acre or
more Mixed
Allow a eambina4ion of R-1 through R-4; C-1 Residential/
Commercial ffiixed use eside,Aia eeffhffier-
eial in the sam ae,,
oel ...meat Single faiiaily
n r and
O; Waterfront homes,
t f4 e apai4fflef4s-,
effd eendeminiums
Accommodates
a diverse range
of housing, non- residential
uses commercial
uses, neighborhood
retail and office
uses, parks and recreation
areas and civic
uses at
a density of 5 to 29 dwelling
units per acre. and
k oare s, o 0
parks, rs
aREIe. Commercial
Neighborhood, O;
BP; C-1; C-2; C- community and regional
3; CR shopping and specialty
Ordinance — Future Land
Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 2
Page 104 of 309
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
centers, business parks,
service and office uses
Industrial Manufacturing, food I-1;1-2; I-3
processing, storage and
wholesale distribution of
equipment and products,
hazardous material
storage, and
transportation related
facilities
Public and Quasi -Public Schools, civic centers, By special permit in
fire stations and other all districts (except I -
public uses 3 which has various
restrictions)
Airport Reserve Land occupied by the I-1
Tri-Cities Airport
DNR Reserve Transition lands owned I-1
and presently managed
by DNR for natural
resource production.
Characteristics include,
but are not limited to,
proximity to urban -type
development, road and
utility infrastructure, and
market demand.
Medium High Density
Re i,lent'.,1
Bfe,,dRiee,- e, ly; single
te. flhe.,senT
6611deffliflieffis, and
ltif milt'; 4 15
N i.,e,-1 Use 1pAeFel,ange B-e.,.lme 1y; .,long 1 N4U-1r- ai
192 e eefftmutef
eek ele.... sef yieen an
b-Lee , e .n>
e ffiee and retail ttses-
Ordinance - Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 3
Page 105 of 309
Classification Purpose and Description Zoning
te..,ff a„sew „kift.,i;1<.
neiglbefkeed
stores, e,e• ell,
neighbefheed seale
ffiees aiidases
T iEe.l Use Deg e,...,1 Br-e.,dmee.. N4U4only; general
retaila e+•ons an
shops, gr-aeefy star -es,
s;,1e.,t;al .,be .er-e
1 /e f ee, . liig
dens t.,
dining, ePAet4aiflffiei4
use
Of4ee Weadffieer-emsy;
1e e o
to
04
Ord. 4575 § 14, 2022.]
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this Ordinance is held to be 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 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days
after approval, passage and publication as required by law.
Ordinance — Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 4
Page 106 of 309
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this 17th day of April,
2023.
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Barham, CMC
City Clerk
Published:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
e Law, PLLC
City rneys
Ordinance — Future Land Use Map &Amending PMC 25.215.015- 5
Page 107 of 309
Table XI
mum Land Area Requirement For Each Single-F:Residence or Unit Volume 11fSewage and
M nimum Usable Land Area
Soil Type (defined by WAC 246-212A-0220)
1 2 a A 5 s
Public 11,780 sq.ft-
WalerSuPPlY1.5 acres‘
Nonpublic 1.0 acre
WalerSuPPlY1.5 acres‘
0.5 acre 0.5 acre 0.5 acre 0.5 acre 13,000 sq.ft.
M mum Land Area
1.0 acre 1.0 acre 1.0 acre 2.0 acres 1.0 acres
um Usable Land Area .75 acre 6,750 sq.ft.7,500 sq.fr.9,000 sq.ft.10,000 sq.ft.10,000 sq.ft.
1 as mm:mm sewage um ind :nmv SSA:musl have a mlllmlnn ranama m z 5 am as wnc zwvznmum.
Pa
g
e
1
0
8
o
f
3
0
9
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
NOTICE OF APPLICATION/SEPA DETERMINATION
(Optional DNS Process)
Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de
Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441.
SEPA Comment Period Deadline: December 30, 2025
Proposal: On April 17, 2023, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4663, which amended PMC 25.215.015 and the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density Table (Table LU-1). The ordinance updated allowable gross densities for Low
Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre and required
that all new development meet the minimum density standards in PMC 25.215.015. In the R-S-20 zone, with a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, a one-acre lot can accommodate only two dwelling units, effectively creating
a moratorium on small-lot development. Several requests from property owners to divide land in this zone have
been denied for not meeting density requirements.
To address this issue, the Planning Division has initiated an emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment. The City
Council adopted a resolution initiating this amendment on November 17, 2025, and the proposal was presented to
the Planning Commission as a workshop on November 20, 2025. The amendment includes a land use designation of
2–5 dwelling units per acre to provide policy guidance for low-density housing, implemented at the parcel level
through zoning. Staff proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District with a
minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change allows the zoning to support the full density range permitted by
the land use designation while still accommodating larger half-acre parcels where septic systems are an option. The
proposed R-9 district is intended to restore consistency, reflect infrastructure realities, and prepare the City for
future statewide housing obligations. The proposed emergency amendment has been transmitted to the
Washington State Department of Commerce for the required 60-day agency review.
Public Comment Period: Written comments must be submitted to the Community Development Department by
5:00 p.m. on December 30, 2025. Only comments received by the referenced date will be included in the SEPA
record. If you have questions on the proposal, contact the Planning Division at (509) 544-4146 or via e-mail to:
barragani@pasco-wa.gov.
Open Record Hearing: No public hearing is required for the SEPA review. The SEPA determination will be issued
administratively by the City’s SEPA Administrator. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the
emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 18, 2025, and final action by the City Council will be
scheduled at a later date, no sooner than 60 days after November 14, 2025, in accordance with Pasco Municipal
Code.
Determination of Completeness: The application has been declared complete for the purpose of processing.
Environmental Documents and/or Studies Applicable to this Application: Environmental Determination No.
SEPA2025-036 has been assigned to this proposal. The SEPA comment period will end December 30, 2025. It is
probable that a Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance will be issued for
this proposal (WAC 197.11.355 optional DNS process). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the
environmental impacts of this proposal or to appeal any State Environmental Policy Act related decisions.
Preliminary Determination of Regulations Used for Non-Project Mitigation: To evaluate the impacts of the
proposed non-project, the following may be used for mitigation, consistency, and the development of findings and
conclusions:
Page 109 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
�� Title 12 (Streets and Sidewalks), Title 16 (Buildings and Construction), Title 21 (Subdivision), Title 25
(Zoning), Title 28 (Critical Areas) regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code, and the land use policies
contained in the Pasco Comprehensive Plan;
�� Regulations of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of
Ecology, Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation;
�� Other required agency evaluations, approvals, permits, and mitigations as necessary.
Estimated Date of the Decision: A DNS or MDNS will be issued following the close of the comment period on
December 30, 2025.
To receive notification of the threshold determination and any other information concerning this action, contact the
Pasco Planning Division at barragani@pasco-wa.gov or at the address and telephone number listed below.
Phone: 509-544-4146
Appeals:
You may appeal the subsequent threshold determination by submitting a written appeal to one of the following
addresses:
Email: barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Physical Address: City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 525 N. 3rd Avenue, First Floor
Pasco, WA 99301
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301
Appeals must be submitted within 14 days of issuance of the threshold determination. The appeal must be in writing,
include a concise statement identifying the matter being appealed, and provide the basic rationale for the appeal. A
filing fee is required in accordance with the City’s Fee Resolution.
Please note: Failure to file a timely and complete appeal shall constitute a waiver of all rights to an administrative
appeal under City Code.
All appeals should be directed to: Haylie Matson, CED Director
All comments should be directed to: Ivan Barragan, Planner III
Prepared: November 24, 2025
By: Ivan Barragan
Page 110 of 309
C-1
C-1
I-1
I-1
I-2
C-1
C-3
C-R
C-1
R-4
C-1
R-3
I-1
I-1
R-S-20
R-S-12
R-S-12
C-3
R-S-12
I-2
C-3
I-2
I-2
C-3
C-1
R-S-12
R-3
R-S-20
R-3
C-1
R-1
R-S-1
R-S-20
I-1
C-1
R-3
R-S-20
R-1
C-RR-3
R-4
R-2
C-3
R-T
I-1
I-1
I-1
I-1
R-S-20
R-S-12
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
R-4
MU
R-S-20
R-3
C-3
R-3
R-S-1
C-3
R-4
I-2
R-2
C-3
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-S-1/PUD
C-1
C-1
MU
R-S-20
R-S-20
R-S-20
R-1
R-1
I-1
C-1
MU
R-4
R-S-20
I-1
RP
I-1
I-1
I-1
I-2
BP
R-1
R-4
R-S-20
R-T
C-1
R-4
C-R
R-S-12
I-1
I-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-3
R-T
R-3
C-3
C-3
I-1
R-S-20
R-3
R-3
R-T
I-1
I-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
R-1
R-1
C-3
R-3
R-1
R-1
I-1
R-4
R-S-12
C-1
C-1
C-1
R-1
RP
I-1
C-1
R-4
R-S-1
R-1
C-1
R-4
R-1
R-1
C-3
R-S-1
C-R
RP
I-1
C-1
C-1
R-4
C-3
I-2
R-1
OR-1R-S-20
I-2
I-1
I-1
C-3
R-3
R-S-1
R-S-12
R-1
I-1
I-1
R-T
RP
R-1
I-2
R-T
R-T
R-1
I-1
RP
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-1
I-2
R-3R-2
R-3
I-1
R-T
R-1
R-4
R-S-20
I-2
I-1
R-1
R-1
C-1
R-3
R-TR-T
I-1
I-1
C-R
R-3
I-3
I-3
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
\\
g
s
d
a
t
a
s
t
o
r
e
\
G
I
S
\
G
I
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
D
e
p
t
C
E
D
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
_
F
I
L
E
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
\
Z
O
N
I
N
G
.
a
p
r
x
1:28,000
ZONING
FILE NAME
PROPOSED - ZONING
1 of 1
SHEET NUMBERSCALE
kaufmannc
CREATED BY
11/17/2025
PLOT DATE
NOTES
NOTICE: WARRANTY OF ACCURACY.
The materials provided with this product, including but not limited to,
data, maps, and tables (collectively, 'information'), are presented 'AS IS'
without any warranty, express or implied. The City of Pasco and its staff
do not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the
information and shall not be liable for any inaccuracies or omissions. The
information is subject to change and is intended solely for general
informational purposes. Users should independently verify critical
information and seek professional advice when necessary. Prior to any
digging or excavation, it is essential for safety and compliance with local
regulations that users contact 'Call Before You Dig' services by dialing
811. This ensures the location and safety of underground utilities are
confirmed before any ground is broken. The City of Pasco does not
endorse any specific commercial products or services referenced in the
information. Reliance on this information is at the user's own risk.
LEGEND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPT
GIS
Scale: 1:28,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles
²
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Zone
BP, Business Park
C-1, Retail Business District
C-2, Central Business Overlay District
C-3, General Business District
C-R, Regional Commercial District
I-1, Light Industrial District
I-2, Medium Industrial District
I-3, Heavy Industrial District
MU, Mixed Use
O, Office District
R-1-A, Low-Density Residential
Alternative District
R-1-A2, Low-Density Residential
Alternative District
R-1/PUD, Low Density Residential
Planned-Unit Development
R-2, Medium-Density Residential
District
R-3, Medium-Density Residential
District
R-3/PUD, Medium Density Residential
R-4, High-Density Residential District
R-9, Low Density Residential District
R-S-1, Low-Density Suburban
Residential District
R-S-1/PUD, Suburban Panned-Unit
Development
R-S-12, Residential Suburban District
R-T, Residential Transition District
RP, Residential Park District
Other Boundaries
City Limits
Urban Growth Areas
Road Centerlines
Interstate
Highway
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Neightborhood Collector
Local
Other
Principal Arterial Future
Major Collector Future
Minor Collector Future
Minor Arterial Future
Neightborhood Collector Future
Convert
R-S-20 to R-9
Low Density
Residential
District
Pa
g
e
1
1
1
o
f
3
0
9
THANK YOU for your legal submission!
Your legal has been submitted for publication. Below is a confirmation of your legal placement. You will
also receive an email confirmation.
ORDER DETAILS
Order Number:
IPL0293939
Order Status:
Submitted
Classification:
Legals & Public Notices
Package:
TRI - Legal Ads
Site:
tricity
Final Cost:
$790.32
Referral Code:
SEPA2025-036 NOA R-S-20 ZONE CHANGES
Payment Type:
Account Billed
User ID:
IPL0018633
ACCOUNT INFORMATION
Debra Barham
525 North Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
509-544-3096
cityclerk@pasco-wa.gov
City of Pasco
TRANSACTION REPORT
Date
November 24, 2025 4:43:34 PM EST
Amount:
$790.32
SCHEDULE FOR AD NUMBER IPL02939390
November 30, 2025
Tri-City Herald Print Publication
<< Click here to print a printer friendly version >>
PREVIEW FOR AD NUMBER IPL02939390
4.9inches x 8.91inches
11/24/25, 4:43 PM Adportal Self Service Advertising Confirmation
https://placelegal.mcclatchy.com/legals/tricity/home/confirmation.html?id=274975&returnto=1/1Page 112 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 15
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.
SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA
Page 113 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 15
A. Background Find help answering background questions
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of applicant:
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
4. Date checklist prepared:
5. Agency requesting checklist:
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
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.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
City of Pasco
11/24/2025
City of Pasco/State of Washington
525 N Third Ave509-544-4136Haylie Matson
There are no development plans associated with this request at this time. This is a citywide Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Low Density Residential designation, specifically addressing changes to the R-S-20 Zone
A non-project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed in September 2020 for the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan. This FEIS remains relevant and applicable to the current non-project proposal.
See last supplemental page for answer.
The Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment was submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce for review on November 14, 2025. At this time, no specific properties are affected; the amendment applies citywide.
City Council approval of the application at a later date. SEPA Determination. Dept. of Commerce approval.
Page 114 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 15
11. Give a 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.)
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.
See last supplemental page for answer.
Throughout all R-S-20 zoned lots and Pasco Municial Code text.
Page 115 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 15
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth Find help answering earth questions
a. General description of the site:
Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
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.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
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.
f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any.
No specific soils have been identified at this time. It would be prudent to address soil-related considerations during future, site-specific project actions.
City of Pasco R-S-20 zoned lots.
Although the City is generally flat, it is difficult to provide a specific answer, as this is a citywide, non-project proposal.
This is a citywide, non-project proposal and is not specific to any individual site or action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Existing City development regulations currently govern and control erosion during construction activities.
Page 116 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 15
2. Air Find help answering air questions
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.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any.
3. Water Find help answering water questions
a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions
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.
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.
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.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
Not applicable-non-project action.
No plans are proposed at this time, as this is a City-wide Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Specific projects will need to address this issue when they are developed.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Some lots affected by this amendment may be located near the river; however, as this is a non-project action, any specific project proposals will need to address this issue at the time of development.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 117 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 15
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.
b. Ground Water: Find help answering ground water questions
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.
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.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
a) 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.
b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so,
describe.
d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage
pattern impacts, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 118 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 15
4. Plants Find help answering plants questions
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?
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation
on the site, if any.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
5. Animals Find help answering animal questions
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.
Examples include:
• Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
• Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
• Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 119 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 15
6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions
1. 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.
2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
3. 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.
7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions
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.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
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.
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.
4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 120 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 15
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
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)?
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any.
8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions
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.
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?
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?
c. Describe any structures on the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
R-S-20
Low Density Residential
This is a City-wide amendment affecting lots currently zoned R-S-20. The nature of this proposal is non-project.
Page 121 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 15
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so,
specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any.
m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term
commercial significance, if any.
9. Housing Find help answering housing questions
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 122 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 15
10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is
the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any.
11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities
to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Page 123 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 15
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation
questions
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.
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.
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.
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.
14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions
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.
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?
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).
d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
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?
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
According to DAHP’s statewide predictive model, most of the City of Pasco has a high to very high probability of containing cultural resources. Since this proposal is non-project in nature, any specific development projects will need to address these resources at the time they are proposed.
Page 124 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 15
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.
g.Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
15. Public Services Find help answering public service questions
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.
b.Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions
a.Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
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.
C. Signature Find help about who should sign
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: Click or tap here to enter text.
Position and agency/organization: Click or tap here to enter text.
Date submitted: Click or tap to enter a date.
Community & Economic Development Department
This application was reviewed by the Planning Division of the Community & Economic
Development Department. Any comments or changes made by the Department are entered in the body of the
checklist and contain initials of the reviewer.
Signature: ______________________________________________________
Name of signee: __________________________________________________
Position: ___________________________________
Date Reviewed: _____________
____________________
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Not applicable-non-project action.
Ivan Barragan
11/24/2025
Craig Raymond
Deputy CED Director
Ivan Barragan
Planner III City of Pasco
11/24/2025
Page 125 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 15
D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions
worksheet
IT IS NOT REQUIRED to 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; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
• Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
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?
• Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
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?
• Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
See answers below question number 7, for answers to questions 1 through 7.
Page 126 of 309
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 15
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
• Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
1. This proposal is a non-project Comprehensive Plan Amendment and does not authorize any specific development, construction, or physical site activity. As such, it does not directly result in discharges to water, emissions to air, noise generation, or the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances.
Any future development that may occur under the revised land use designation or new zoning district would be reviewed through separate project-level permitting processes. At that time, all environmental impacts—including stormwater, air emissions, noise, and hazardous materials—would be evaluated in accordance with applicable City, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, no direct environmental impacts are anticipated as part of this non-project action.
Question 6 from page 2- This proposal is non-project in nature. The anticipated timeline for this emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment includes a public hearing with the Planning Commission scheduled for December 18, 2025. Final action by the City Council to adopt the amendments will occur at a later date, no sooner than 60 days after November 14, 2025, which is the date the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified.
Question 11 from page 3- This non-project proposal is an emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by City Council resolution on November 17, 2025. The amendment addresses a conflict created by Ordinance No. 4663, adopted on April 17, 2023, which revised allowable gross densities in the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation from 2–5 to 3–6 dwelling units per acre and required all new development to meet minimum density standards outlined in PMC 25.215.015. In the R-S-20 zone—classified as Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. To resolve this inconsistency, the Planning Division has been directed to initiate an amendment establishing a land use designation of 2–5 dwelling units per acre. To align zoning with this designation, staff proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District, featuring a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change would support the full permitted density range, maintain compatibility with areas reliant on septic systems, restore consistency between land use and zoning, and better position the Cityto meet future statewide housing obligations.
Page 127 of 309
2. This is a non-project, policy-level amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and does not authorize any specific development or construction activity. As such, the proposal would not directly result in increased discharges to water, air emissions, noise generation, or the release oftoxic or hazardous substances.
Any future site-specific development enabled by subsequent zoning or permit actions would be subject to separate environmental review, including evaluation of potential impacts to water, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials. Appropriate mitigation would be required at the time individual development proposals are submitted.
3. The amendment itself does not authorize construction and therefore would not directly consume or deplete energy or natural resources.
Any potential increase in development capacity resulting from future zoning changes would be evaluated during project-level permitting, at which time energy use, resource consumption, and required mitigation measures would be addressed through applicable codes and SEPA review.
4. Because this is a non-project Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it does not authorize any specific development, construction, or physical changes to the environment. As a policy-level action, the amendment only adjusts the land use designation for Low Density Residential areas and proposes replacing the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District.
The proposal does not directly affect environmentally sensitive areas, parks, critical areas, wildlifehabitat, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmland. Any future site-specific development proposals would be reviewed under existing local, state, and federal regulations, including the City’s critical areas ordinance, SEPA requirements, and applicable permitting processes. At that time, impacts to environmentally sensitive areas would be evaluated and mitigation applied as necessary.
5. Because this is a non-project legislative amendment, it will not directly change or authorize any specific land or shoreline use. The proposal adjusts the Low Density Residential land use designation to 2–5 units per acre and replaces the R-S-20 zoning designation with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District to restore consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. These changes do not expand urban growth areas, introduce new shoreline designations, or authorize development inconsistent with the City's adopted plans.
Any future site-specific development would still be required to comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, shoreline regulations (if applicable), critical areas ordinance, and all permitting requirements. Therefore, the proposal is not expected to allow or encourage land or shoreline uses that are incompatible with existing plans.
Page 128 of 309
6. Because this is a non-project policy amendment, it does not authorize any specific development and would not directly increase demands on transportation systems, utilities, or public services. The amendment revises the land use designation for areas currently zoned R-S-20 and establishes a framework for the eventual creation of a new R-9 Low Density Residential District.
Any future increase in demand for transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, police, fire, or other municipal services would depend on separate, site-specific development proposals, each of which would undergo its own permit review and SEPA evaluation.
The amendment itself is not expected to generate immediate or measurable increases in service or utility demands, and any future development resulting from zoning changes would be planned and reviewed in coordination with adopted Comprehensive Plan policies, the Capital Facilities Plan, and available infrastructure capacity.
7. The proposed amendment is a non-project action that adjusts Comprehensive Plan policy for Low Density Residential areas and replaces the R-S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential District. Because it does not authorize any specific development, it does not directly conflict with local, state, or federal environmental protection requirements. Any future development occurring under the amended land use designation andzoning would remain subject to all applicable regulations, including the City’s development standards, critical areas ordinance, stormwater requirements, and SEPA review at the project level.
While House Bill 1110 (Middle Housing) will be implemented by the City of Pasco at a later date, this amendment is a temporary policy and zoning correction intended solely to address density inconsistencies in the R-S-20 zone until HB 1110 is fully adopted.
Page 129 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
(Optional DNS Process)
Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al
Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441.
Issuance Date: January 27, 2026
Lead Agency: City of Pasco
Project Name: R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA
Project Number: SEPA2025-036
Applicant/Proponent: City of Pasco
C/o Haylie Matson
525 N 3rd Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
Proposal Description: At the direction of the City Council, the proposal includes a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the City’s Land Use Map by adding a new Low
Density Residential–Riverview designation, which would allow development at 2–5 dwelling
units per acre on properties currently designated R-S-20. The proposal also includes a rezone
and municipal code amendment to replace the existing R-S-20 zoning designation with a new R-
15 Low Density Residential zoning district.
Proposal Location: Various locations citywide within Pasco, Washington (99301).
Lead Agency: The City of Pasco, acting as lead agency for this proposal, has determined that the
proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) is issued under the optional DNS process in WAC 197-
11-355, and no further comment period will be provided. This decision is based on review of
the completed environmental checklist, consultation with legal counsel, and consideration of
other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon
request.
Appeals: You may appeal the threshold determination by submitting a written appeal to
one of the following addresses:
Email: barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Page 130 of 309
Physical Address: City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department 525
N. 3rd Avenue, First Floor Pasco, WA 99301
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301
Appeals must be submitted within 14 days of issuance of the threshold determination.
The appeal must be in writing, include a concise statement identifying the matter being
appealed, and provide the basic rationale for the appeal. A filing fee is required in
accordance with the City’s Fee Resolution.
Please note: Failure to file a timely and complete appeal shall constitute a waiver of all
rights to an administrative appeal under City Code.
All appeals should be directed to: Haylie Matson, CED Director
Responsible Official: Haylie Matson
Position/Title: Community and Economic Development Director
Phone (509) 544-4136
Address: 525 N. 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
Responsible Official: ________________________________________________
Haylie Matson, Community & Economic Development Director
Page 131 of 309
THANK YOU
We have received your amendment submission. Please allow 1-3 business days for review. Please keep the Submittal ID as your receipt and for any future
questions. We will also send an email receipt to all contacts listed in the submittal.
Submittal ID: 2025-S-11143
Submittal Date Time: 11/17/2025
Submittal Information
Jurisdiction City of Pasco
Submittal Type 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment
Amendment Type Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Categories
Submittal Category
Capital Facilities
Comprehensive Plan
Emergency
Schools
Anticipated/Proposed Date of Adoption 01/20/2026
n Yes, this is a part of the 10-year periodic update schedule, required under RCW 36.70A.130.
Brief Description
This emergency amendment updates the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain consistency with the City ’s adopted budget and
current capital planning needs. The amendment also relates to school impact fee policies and utilizes the Pasco School District ’s adopted Capital Facilities
Plan.
Amendment Information
City Council Date 11/17/2025Planning Commissions Date 11/20/2025
Planning Commissions Date 12/18/2025
Page 132 of 309
Intake Received Date 11/17/2025
Full Name Ivan Barragani
Email barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Attachments
Attachment Type File Name Upload Date
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft ____ Resolution - Initiating Emergency CPA - PSD Capital
Facilities Plan (CPA2025-001) - FINAL.pdf
11/17/2025 12:35 PM
Supporting Documentation or Analysis CPA2025-001 School Capital Facilities Plan-Agency-Notice-
Cover-Sheet.docx
11/17/2025 12:36 PM
Correspondence Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments Initial
Notice.msg
11/17/2025 12:36 PM
Correspondence RE Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments Initial
Notice.msg
11/17/2025 12:37 PM
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft ECPA Coversheet to COM.pdf 11/17/2025 12:37 PM
SEPA Materials Notice of Application CPA 2025 Emergency Amendments.pdf 11/17/2025 12:37 PM
Yes, I would like to be contacted for Technical Assistance.n
Entered by Sarah Van Etten Leupold on 11/17/2025 12:39:31 PM
Contact Information
Prefix Ms.
First Name Haylie
Last Name Matson
Title CED Director
Work (509) 544-4136
Cell
Email matsonh@pasco-wa.gov
Certification
Page 133 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
City of Pasco
NOTICE OF OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE
AMENDMENTS AND EMERGENCY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de
Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
The City of Pasco is considering proposed code amendment(s) and an emergency comprehensive plan amendment.
The Pasco Planning Commission will hold an open record public hearing and a continued open record public hearing
to receive public comment on the proposed amendments at 6:30 p.m. on January 15, 2026, in the Council Chambers
at Pasco City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington (please use the east side parking lot entrance).
Final action on the proposed Code Amendments and Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be taken by
the City Council at a later date. Please note that City Council action on the Emergency Comprehensive Plan
Amendment must occur within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Planning Commission’s findings and
recommendations. This notice also serves as notification to the general public regarding the public hearing.
At this hearing, the Planning Commission will hear public testimony regarding the following proposed amendments:
CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way: The City of Pasco Planning Commission will conduct an
open record public hearing to consider a proposed code amendment regarding the allowance of sandwich board (A -
frame) signs within the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission previously held a workshop on December 18,
2025, to discuss the proposal. The targeted amendment would allow sandwich board signs within the Downtown
Pasco Overlay District, where placement within the sidewalk area has been technically prohibited since 2006. Under
the proposed regulations, each business would be permitted one sign per frontage, all required ADA clearances must
be maintained, signs may only be displayed during business hours, and signs located near intersections must be
positioned to minimize impacts on sightlines. This regulated approach is intended to support business visibility and
streetscape activation while maintaining pedestrian safety and accessibility, preventing visual clutter, and
establishing clear standards for sign placement and oversight. For more information please contact: 509-544-4146 /
barragani@pasco-wa.gov
CPA2025-002/CA2025-003 Emergency Amendment-Low Density Residential Land Use -R-S-20 Zone Changes: The
City of Pasco Planning Commission held an open record hearing on December 18, 2025, at 6:30 p.m., to review an
emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Code Amendment. During the hearing, the Planning Commission
voted to continue the discussion to January 15, 2026, to allow for further research and review.
As part of this research, the Commission has asked staff to revise the original proposal to maintain the proposed
“Riverview” land use designation to allow 2-5 units per acre but with a zoning designation for the area that provides
for less density at 2-3 or 2-4 units per acre with revised corresponding development regulations in code relating to
lot sizes and dimensions.
ORIGINAL NOTICE: On April 17, 2023, the City adopted Ordinance No. 4663, which amended PMC 25.215.015 and
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density Table (Table LU-1). The ordinance revised allowable gross densities for
Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts from 2–5 dwelling units per acre to 3–6 dwelling units per acre, and
established that all new development must meet the minimum density requirements in PMC 25.215.015. In the R-
S-20 zone, classified as Low Density Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 squa re feet, a one-acre lot can
accommodate only two dwelling units. Under the current standards, such development is prohibited, effectively
creating a moratorium on small-lot development in the R-S-20 zone. The City has received several requests from
property owners to divide land in this zone, but those applications have been denied for failing to meet the adopted
density requirements. To address this issue, the Planning Division has been directed to initiate an amendment. The
proposed land use designation of 2–5 units per acre would provide the policy framework for low-density housing,
while the zoning code would implement this direction through parcel -level regulations. To align zoning with the
Page 134 of 309
revised land use designation, staff proposes replacing the R -S-20 zone with a new R-9 Low Density Residential
District, establishing a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This change allows zoning to support the full density
range permitted by the land use designation while still accommodating larger half-acre parcels where septic systems
are an option. The proposed R-9 district provides a balanced approach that restores consistency, reflects
infrastructure realities, and prepares the City for future statewide housing obligations. The City of Pasco has
transmitted the proposed emergency amendment to the Washington State Department of Commerce for the
required 60-day agency review. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist will be reviewed for this action and
made available for public review and comment in accordance with WAC 197-11-355, with the optional
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process applied as appropriate. For more information please contact: 509-
544-4146 / barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Public Comment Period: Written comments must be submitted to the Community and Economic Development
Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2026. Any interested party may submit written comments,
attend the public hearing to provide oral testimony, or request notification of the Planning Commission’s findings
and recommendations to the City Council, as well as the City Council’s final decision when action is taken.
To submit comments, request notification, or ask questions regarding these proposals, please contact the Planning
Division using the phone number or email address provided after the project description, or by mail or in person at
the address below. Please note that written comments submitted prior to the meeting will be accepted and
included in the official record. Oral testimony provided during the meeting will also be accepted and entered into
the record at that time.
City of Pasco – Planning Division
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
In Person:
525 N. 3rd Avenue, 1st Floor (CED)
Pasco, WA 99301
If you wish to participate in the hearing virtually, please register at least 2 hours prior to the meeting at the
following registration link: Public Comment. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
The City of Pasco welcomes full participation in public meetings by all citizens. No qualified individual with a disability
shall be excluded or denied the benefit of participating in such meetings. If you wish to use auxiliary aids or require
assistance to comment at this public meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at (509)
545-3441 or TDD (509) 585-4425 at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting to make arrangements for special
needs.
Page 135 of 309
1
Haylie Miller
From:Rodgers,Deborah (CONTR) - TERR-TRI CITIES RMHQ <dxrodgers@bpa.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, December 23, 2025 1:33 PM
To:Ivan Barragan
Cc:Connell,Valorie L (BPA) - TERR-PASCO
Subject:RE: Notice of Application-SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA
(CPA2025-002)- 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.]
Ivan,
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has had the opportunity to review Preliminary Plat Review Notice
of Application-SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA (CPA2025-002)- City of Pasco.
In researching our records, we have found that this proposal will not directly impact BPA facilities. BPA
does not have any objections to the approval of this request at this time.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (360) 624-0566 or BPA
realty specialist Valorie Connell at (509) 544-4746.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this application.
Deborah Rodgers
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(CONTR) Actalent
Right-of-Way Agent | Real Property Field Services | TERR/Tri-Cities-RMHQ
dxrodgers@bpa.gov | 360-624-0566
From: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 12:13 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Notice of Application-SEPA2025-036 R-S-20 Zone Changes Emergency CPA (CPA2025-002)- City of Pasco
Good afternoon,
In consideration of the upcoming public hearing, we want to clarify that the public hearing / Notice of
Application sent on November 21, 2025, for CPA2025-002 and the SEPA review being issued now are
separate processes. The public hearing is for the Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed
amendment, which will then proceed to City Council review at a later date, no sooner than 60 days after
November 14, 2025. The SEPA review, on the other hand, is an administrative process. However,
because both pertain to the same non-project proposal, it is worth noting them together. For the SEPA
review, we are opting for the optional DNS process under WAC 197-11-355, with a 30-day comment
period following the publication date, which is scheduled for November 30, 2025.
Page 136 of 309
2
Attached are the following materials:
· Notice of Public Hearing / Notice of Application (sent November 21, 2025)
· SEPA2025-036 Notice of Application
· SEPA2025-036 checklist
· Resolution 4680 (recently became available)
· Initial packet presented at the Planning Commission workshop on November 20, 2025
Comments on the SEPA review are due by December 30, 2025, at 5:00 PM. All pertinent materials are
available in the SEPA register.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan | Planner III | (509) 544-4146 | 525 N. 3rd Avenue | Pasco, WA 99301 | barragani@pasco-wa.gov
Notice of Public Disclosure: This e-mail and any response may be 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.
From: Ivan Barragan
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 12:29 PM
To: Ivan Barragan <barragani@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Notice of Application/Notice of Public Hearing Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA2025-001 and
CPA2025-002
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached Notice of Application/Notice of Public Hearing for two emergency
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, initiated by City Council resolutions on November 17, 2025. The
public hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2025, at 6:30 PM. Please submit any comments by
5:00 PM on December 18, 2025.
Summary of Proposals:
CPA2025-001: Emergency Amendment – Pasco School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan
The Planning Commission will hold an open record hearing to consider an emergency amendment to the
Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment updates the element to align with
the City’s adopted budget and reflect the Pasco School District’s 2025 Capital Facilities Plan, including
policies related to school impact fees. The amendment has been transmitted to the Washington State
Department of Commerce for the required 60-day review. The Community and Economic Development
Department will process it following standard Comprehensive Plan procedures. The School District’s
plan previously received a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
CPA2025-002: Emergency Amendment – Low Density Residential Land Use (R-S-20 Zone)
The Planning Commission will also consider an emergency amendment addressing a conflict between
current Low Density Residential (LDR) standards and development in the R-S-20 zone, where one-acre
lots can only accommodate two dwelling units, eBectively creating a moratorium on small-lot
development.
The amendment proposes:
· A land use designation of 2–5 dwelling units per acre
Page 137 of 309
3
· Creation of a new R-9 Low Density Residential District with a minimum lot size of 8,700 square
feet
This approach aligns zoning with the Comprehensive Plan, accommodates larger parcels where septic
systems are an option, restores consistency, reflects infrastructure realities, and prepares the City for
future statewide housing obligations.
The City has transmitted the amendment to the Washington State Department of Commerce for the
required 60-day review. A SEPA checklist will be available for public review and comment in accordance
with WAC 197-11-355, with the optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) process applied as
appropriate.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
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 138 of 309
Pa
g
e
1
3
9
o
f
3
0
9
Pa
g
e
1
4
0
o
f
3
0
9
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
South Central Region • Region 3 • 1701 South 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902-5720
Telephone: (509) 575-2740 • Fax: (509) 575-2474
December 1, 2025
Ivan Barragan
Planner III
City of Pasco Planning Division
525 N. 3rd Ave Pasco WA 99301
Subject: City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2025-002.
Dear Mr. Barragan,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA 2025-002 regarding changes in density to the low-density residential land use
zone, R-S-20. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) generally supports ability
for jurisdictions to allow high densities within the urban environment as it results in less urban
spread and greater overall protection of habitats. WDFW does have a concern with this proposal
as it relates to impacts on shoreline habitat.
There are parcels that are currently zoned with the R-S-20 designation that are either partially or
wholly within the shoreline environment of the Columbia River. WDFW is concerned that this
amendment could increase housing density within the shoreline environment, which would be
both inconsistent with the city’s shoreline master program and protection of functions and values
of the shoreline ecosystem. WDFW recommends a modification to this amendment that either
excludes these shoreline parcels from the proposed amendment or specifies that any new
dwelling units beyond the two currently allowed must be located outside of the shoreline
environment.
If you have questions regarding any of the above comments, please contact me at 509-607-3578
or Scott.Downes@dfw.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Scott Downes
Regional Land Use Lead
Cc: Troy Maikis, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist
Page 141 of 309
Page 142 of 309
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 5
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Rosa Torres, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Jay Hendler, and Jerry
Cochran, a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Austin Crawford and Dana Crutchfield
Staff Present: CED Director Haylie Matson, Deputy Director Craig Raymond, and Administrative Assistant
II Carmen Patrick
Others Present: Denise Stiffarm, Pasco School Representative
DECLARATIONS
Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
Commissioners Cochran and Lehrman declared they both live in the Riverview area, even though a
vote was not required.
Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any
of the items on the agenda.
No declarations were heard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Lehrman motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 18,
2025. Commissioner Jones seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
WORSHOP
• CPA2025-001 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Pasco School District #1 Capital Facilities Plan
Adoption
Staff provided an overview of the proposed Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment, clarifying that the
term “emergency” refers to an amendment being processed outside of the City’s normal update cycle and is
not intended to imply any immediate public safety concern. The amendment is necessary due to time-
sensitive items that cannot wait for the full periodic Comprehensive Plan update currently underway.
An emergency amendment is defined as a change to the Comprehensive Plan that arises from circumstances
requiring expeditious action. City Council determined that such an emergency exists and, on June 17, 2025,
Page 143 of 309
Page 2 of 5
adopted a resolution initiating the amendment process in accordance with City Code and RCWs. A 60-day
notice was provided to the Washington State Department of Commerce, and the proposal will come before
the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation to City Council.
The amendment incorporates the Pasco School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The School District adopted the revised plan in March 2025 following an extensive
planning process. The plan includes six primary elements:
• District standards of service
• Inventory of facilities
• Capacity by grade span
• Six-year enrollment forecast
• Facility needs and costs
• Financing plan and calculation of school impact fees
Staff noted that community concerns regarding school overcrowding frequently arise during annexation and
subdivision hearings. However, the School District actively monitors growth trends and plans accordingly
through this Capital Facilities Plan. While Pasco continues to experience significant growth, particularly in
northwest Pasco, enrollment increases have remained within manageable projections, and the District has
constructed multiple new school facilities to address capacity needs.
Following adoption of the updated Capital Facilities Plan, City Council approved Ordinance No. 4774 on
June 15, 2025, revising school impact fees. This included elimination of the single-family dwelling school
impact fee and a reduction of the multi-family fee from $4,525 per unit to $2,595 per unit.
Staff concluded the presentation by introducing Denise Stiffarm, representing the Pasco School District,
who attended the meeting virtually and was available to answer questions from the Planning Commission.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners:
Chair Cochran asked while acknowledging that the elimination of single-family impact fees and the
reduction of multi-family fees appears beneficial, he questioned whether increased zoning density and large
multi-family developments, such as the Broadmoor project, could result in greater overall impacts to
developers. He asked if any analysis had been conducted on this issue and whether feedback had been
received from the development community.
Denise Stiffarm explained that the revised school impact fees are based on updates to the School District’s
Capital Facilities Plan. Prior plans included elementary and high school projects, which carried higher
student generation rates and higher fees. Those projects are now complete and were removed from the
calculation. The current fees are based on a planned new middle school, which generates fewer students and
results in lower impact fees. Staff also noted that the elimination of the single-family fee reflects current
data showing more students are generated from multi-family development, and while multi-family fees were
reduced, they still apply.
• CPA2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
Director Matson presented the second Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment addressing a
discrepancy between the RS-20 zoning designation and the City’s residential land use designation. A 2023
Comprehensive Plan amendment allowed 2–5 units per acre in the Riverview area, while the RS-20 zone
still limited development to 2 units per acre, creating a conflict that has impacted development applications.
Staff proposes revising the land use designation for RS-20 properties to 2–5 units per acre and subsequently
renaming the zone to R-9 Low Density Residential, allowing a minimum lot size of approximately 8,700
Page 144 of 309
Page 3 of 5
square feet. This change would correct the inconsistency and allow development to proceed.
Director Matson noted that two units per acre would still allow septic systems, while densities of three units
per acre or greater would require sewer connection, which is currently limited in portions of Riverview. She
stated that the development community supports the proposal due to infrastructure constraints and
development feasibility.
She also previewed upcoming state-mandated middle housing requirements that will require all residential
lots to allow up to six units by next year. Finally, she explained that staff is requesting expedited action due
to the existing code conflict, prior applicant reliance, and staffing delays. The proposal is scheduled for a
public hearing in December, followed by City Council consideration in January.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Hendler asked whether parking requirements have been coordinated with upcoming middle-
housing mandates, noting that increased density could create significant parking challenges on some lots. He
requested clarification on current parking standards and whether any flexibility is being considered.
Director Matson explained that the State is significantly reducing parking requirements for middle housing,
generally allowing zero to one space per unit regardless of size. While Pasco currently requires two spaces
per single-family home, state law allows one space per unit on lots over 6,000 square feet and zero spaces
on lots under 6,000 square feet. Staff noted these changes may present challenges for communities like
Pasco and stated the City may consider consultant assistance during future middle housing code adoption to
address potential safety and parking impacts.
Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed approach could create future challenges, including
emergency vehicles and garbage trucks and shared initial observations for consideration as the process
moves forward.
Commissioner Jones raised concerns about potential impacts to existing residents, including whether
property owners currently on septic systems could be required to connect to and help fund sewer in the
future. He also expressed concern about how increased density and smaller lots could affect neighborhood
expectations, particularly where existing residents believed adjacent properties would remain undeveloped
or preserve views.
Director Matson stated explained that existing homeowners on septic systems are vested and generally will
not be required to connect to City sewer unless their system fails and sewer is available nearby.
Development in Riverview is limited to two units per acre when septic is used; any development at three
units per acre or more requires sewer connection under Ben Franklin Health District standards.
Staff noted that all existing setback, fire separation, and safety requirements remain in place, and cities may
adopt stricter standards in preparation for future middle-housing mandates. Regarding concerns about views
and new development, staff emphasized that the City has no authority to prevent the State’s upcoming
middle-housing requirements, which will allow increased density on all residential lots. While the City can
adjust local land-use designations, residents should not expect surrounding vacant land to remain
undeveloped, as cities are required by State law to accommodate additional housing.
Commissioner Jones asked about the potential consequences of not complying with state requirements. Staff
responded that failure to comply could result in the State withholding grant funding for City projects.
Commissioner Hendler strong concern about the impacts of increased residential density on traffic, parking,
and established low-density neighborhoods. He stated for the record that he does not support the proposed
change at this time, regardless of state mandates.
Page 145 of 309
Page 4 of 5
Chair Cochran expressed frustration with state mandates and the loss of local control, stating that reliance on
state grant funding limits the City’s ability to oppose state requirements. The Commissioner noted that while
change may require action at the state level, the City must also consider the importance of continued access
to funding for critical infrastructure and public improvements.
Director Matson stated the public hearing will be noticed per City code, and public comments will be shared
with the Commission. While lower density options remain available to support septic use, staff
recommended the proposed 2–5 units per acre range to allow smaller single-family lots, provide flexibility,
and better align with future state housing requirements for the Riverview area.
Commissioner Lehrman asked so point of clarification, at this point in time there's no lots that are currently
being built on that have more than two units per, per lot.
Director Matson explained that any higher-density development occurring in the area has likely resulted
from individual rezones to R-1 or R-4. Properties that remain zoned RS-20 are limited to two units per acre
and cannot currently develop due to the existing code conflict, which has halted new applications in recent
months. Staff emphasized that RS-20 has never allowed more than two units per acre under current
standards.
Commissioner Crawford asked when Ordinance 4663 was, you know, passed in 2023, what were they trying
to accomplish?
Director Matson explained that the 2023 density change was intended to increase residential density
citywide and reduce reliance on septic systems, as a unified sewer system is more efficient to operate and
maintain. However, with new Council members and upcoming state middle-housing requirements that will
mandate additional density regardless of local policy, staff noted that the issue has become largely moot.
Staff stated that maintaining a two-unit minimum would allow continued use of septic in Riverview, but
increasing the range to 2–5 units per acre would provide a more balanced approach for future development
in the RS-20 area.
She outlined that a public hearing is planned for December and emphasized the importance of having a
quorum. Commissioners unable to attend were asked to notify staff in advance so alternate scheduling can
be considered. Staff noted the development community is expecting resolution by year-end and will
include any public feedback received in the staff report.
OTHER BUSINESS
• Director Items
Director Matson outlined plans for a December workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss Pasco’s
economic development priorities and gather input to support the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff also
noted that monthly Planning Commission meetings will be required throughout the update process, with
parallel coordination occurring with City Council.
Director Matson introduced new City Planner II James Bagley to the Commissioners.
She also thanked the Commissioners for the work they do, that they are volunteers and appreciated their
hard work.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn.
Page 146 of 309
Page 5 of 5
Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner
Lehrman, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:33 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting: City of Pasco Planning Commission November 20, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 147 of 309
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, DECEBMER 18, 2025
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 6
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Dana Crutchfield, Jay Hendler and Jerry Cochran, a
quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Rosa Torres, Kim Lehrman, and Rob Waites
Staff Present: C& ED Director Haylie Matson, C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, and Administrative
Assistant II Carmen Patrick
DECLARATIONS
Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
No declarations were heard.
Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any
of the items on the agenda.
No declarations were heard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 20,
2025. Commissioner Hendler seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• CPA 2025-001 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Pasco School District #1 Capital Facilities
Plan Adoption
Craig Raymond presented the staff report for the Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
amendment is considered “emergency” because it is occurring outside the normal annual cycle and
during an active major Comprehensive Plan update. The City Council initiated the process by
Resolution 4679, 60-day Commerce notice has been provided, and the Planning Commission is being
asked to conduct the public hearing and make a formal recommendation to Council, which will take
final action within 60 days.
The amendment incorporates the school district’s updated Capital Facilities Plan, including service
standards, facility inventory, capacity, enrollment forecasts, facility needs/costs, financing, and impact
fee calculations. The update reflects recently completed and significant upcoming school projects, which
influenced impact fee changes.
Page 148 of 309
Page 2 of 6
Council adopted Ordinance 4774 revising school impact fees: single-family impact fees were
eliminated, and multifamily impact fees decreased from $4,525 per unit to $2,595 per unit. Despite
reductions, future facility needs remain.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Crutchfield ask what the reasoning was behind them being lowered so much. Craig
Raymond explained that they have multiple funding sources (including impact fees, bonds, and levies).
Major projects have recently been completed, and future facility needs are shifting in a different
direction.
Director Matson noted that school impact fees must have a clear nexus to new student population
generated by new development, not the city’s existing population. State law strictly limits how much
can be charged. Fees cannot be increased to make new development pay for existing deficiencies (e.g.,
an entirely new high school serving current students). Fees must be directly tied to impacts created by
new growth.
Chair Cochran opened the public hearing, nothing was heard, Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Jones moved that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-001, incorporating the Pasco School District 2025, Pasco
School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan by addendum.
Motions was seconded by Commissioner Hendler, motion passed unanimously.
• CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
Director Matson presented the staff report and asked the Commission to consider a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, companion rezone, and related text amendments to address an inconsistency between
Comprehensive Plan density requirements and RS-20 zoning in the Riverview area. The proposal
restores a 2–5 units per acre land-use designation and replaces RS-20 with a new R-9 Low Density
Residential zone to enable subdivision and development. Changes are limited to the Riverview area and
reflect sewer service constraints and larger lot character. Proposed development standards include an
8,700 sq. ft. minimum lot size, lot coverage up to 45% (previously 40%), and modest front and rear
setback reductions, with side setbacks retained. The action maintains low-density character, better aligns
with infrastructure limitations, and positions the city for future housing law compliance. Two motions
were requested: one for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and one for the zoning/text amendments.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the proposed action constitutes a true code change rather than
a simple renaming and whether notice to all affected property owners is required. She Expressed
concern that this is a significant change and that each resident and property owner in the area should be
notified in advance of the public hearing so they can understand potential impacts. Director Matson
replied that this action is treated as a citywide or area-wide rezone, and current code does not require
direct mailed notice to all affected property owners. She noted that past practice for similar broad
rezonings has not included individual mailings.
Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concern that the proposal represents a significant change for
existing Riverview neighborhoods, particularly with the potential introduction of triplexes in established
areas where residents invested with certain expectations. She recalled prior assurances about preserving
neighborhood character. Crutchfield also asked whether state law mandates construction of higher-
density housing on eligible lots or whether owners may still choose to build single-family homes.
Director Matson clarified that while 2–5 units per acre is modest in an urban context, it represents a
significant change for the Riverview area, effectively more than doubling current density. She explained
Page 149 of 309
Page 3 of 6
that the proposal follows prior City Council direction and responds to property owners seeking greater
ability to develop their land, while recognizing that opinions will differ. Director Matson emphasized
that the current proposal maintains single-family and does not allow triplexes; those discussions relate to
future state-mandated “missing middle” housing requirements under HB 1110 and will be discussed at a
later time.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated that she feels this deserves a lot more consideration and letting the
property owners in the area know because they don't as there was only newspaper notification of the
hearing. Crutchfield stated that she is aware the city is not bound to do that by code, but this is a
significant change.
Commissioner Jones asked if the City of Pasco adopted the Uniform Building Code for their rules for
how they build. What rule book did they follow and do those setbacks and those kinds of things you
talked about; do they fall into those guidelines? Director Matson answered International Building
Codes, International Resident Codes, and State-specific Energy Codes have been adopted and clarified
that building separation depends on fire code and construction standards. With appropriate firewalls,
buildings may be attached; without firewalls, typical separation is governed by required setbacks (e.g.,
10 feet between structures, 5 feet per side). Setbacks and lot coverage limits are determined by city
regulations.
Commissioner Crutchfield asked if the property owners within Franklin County, the Donut Hole area,
since they're part of the urban growth, are they subject to these changes as well? Director Matson stated
no. Commissioner Crutchfield stated she understood that the current proposal applies only to the
Riverview area, and that future citywide changes may be required later in response to state mandates.
Director Matson clarified that citywide densities are currently designated at 3–6 units per acre, and that
various zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4) already exist across the city. Citywide changes are not
automatically required at this time.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated, for the record, that she views the proposal as a significant change
affecting a relatively small portion of the city, despite being characterized as citywide. She reiterated her
concern that, if the City intends to pursue this action, the minimum level of consideration should have
included providing written notice to the affected property owners. While she acknowledged that staff
explained the City is not required to notify all property owners citywide, she emphasized that the
specific property owners impacted by the proposal should have received notice of the public hearing in
advance, so they would be aware and have an opportunity to engage before being presented with a
decision they cannot influence. She stated that, in her view, this consideration for property owners who
have invested in their properties is more important than prioritizing the development community’s
desire to receive an answer by the end of the year.
Chair Cochran expressed that the issue is complex and politically sensitive. He noted that many
`Riverview residents are concerned about increased density, especially replacement of large-lot
properties with multiple new homes, which could change neighborhood character. Suggested aligning
with Council direction in the least impactful way, potentially targeting densities closer to three units per
acre to balance development opportunities with protection of existing neighborhood feel. Chair Cochran
emphasized the desire from many homeowners to maintain the current Riverview/West Pasco lifestyle
and larger-lot character.
Director Matson clarified that in 2023 Council set a citywide density range of 3–6 units per acre and
later directed staff to pursue a 2–5 unit per acre range for the Riverview Comprehensive Plan
designation. Explained that 2–5 units per acre functions as an umbrella range, under which different
zoning options (e.g., 2–3 units per acre) could still comply. Noted that the Planning Commission is
Page 150 of 309
Page 4 of 6
making a recommendation to Council, which makes the final decision. Also cautioned that limiting
density to around three units per acre would likely remove the option for development on septic,
requiring sewer availability instead.
Chair Cochran stated we are a recommendation to the council. They can completely ignore and overrule
like they have done on occasion. That's their prerogative because they're the elected officials. But I do
think if you want a recommendation out of this body, you're going to have to come up with a more
moderate approach. Commissioner Crutchfield agreed and emphasized the importance of respecting
existing homeowners who have already invested in the area and avoiding situations where they are
surprised by nearby development that could negatively affect them.
Commissioner Hendler followed with support for maintaining lower density in the Riverview area,
noting that many larger cities are increasing density by reducing development standards, but those
pressures are not yet present locally. Emphasized the desire to keep the area livable and consistent with
its current character.
Chair Cochran opened the public hearing, nothing was heard, Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Crutchfield made a motion to send the package back to staff for rework based on some
recommendations the Commission have made.
Commissioner Crawford asked Director Matson what the item would be sent back for and what
additional information would come from that process to help the Commission. Director Matson noted
that a wide range of opinions were shared and said staff is seeking clearer direction from the Planning
Commission, especially on public noticing. She explained that if no action is taken, development would
remain prohibited in RS-20 areas, which creates some urgency, but emphasized the importance of
getting the changes right rather than rushing. She also stated that staff is willing to continue the
discussion over multiple meetings. Director Matson explained that the proposal has two main parts:
adjusting the Comprehensive Plan designation in the Riverview area from 3–6 units per acre to 2–5
units per acre and making related zoning changes.
Commissioner Jones seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.
WORSHOP
• CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way
Ivan Barragan presented a proposal to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in the
Downtown Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The intent is to permit signs along business
frontages within sidewalk or improved frontage areas, with placement standards to protect visibility at
intersections and accessibility.
Proposed code changes would also address removal of violations and clarify prohibited locations (e.g.,
travel lanes, medians, roundabouts). Examples from other cities were provided for comparison. Potential
benefits include added flexibility for downtown businesses and clearer enforcement standards.
Alternatives discussed included no action, unregulated allowance (not recommended), or expanding the
allowance citywide. Staff requested Planning Commission input and recommended scheduling a
January 15, 2026, public hearing.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Jones raised concerns about ADA accessibility and sidewalk width impacts from
sandwich board signs, noting variability in sidewalk conditions. Emphasized the need for an enforceable
ordinance and requested clarification on who would be responsible for enforcement and whether it
would be complaint-based or proactive. Staff indicated that enforcement would likely fall to Code
Page 151 of 309
Page 5 of 6
Enforcement and, given current staffing constraints, would primarily be complaint-based rather than
proactive patrols.
Commissioner Crutchfield raised concern about prohibited sandwich board signs being placed in the
public right-of-way, potentially impacting pedestrian accessibility and safety. Clarification was
requested on enforcement responsibility. Questions were also raised about allowing one sign per
business tenant in multi-tenant buildings and whether this could result in excessive sidewalk
obstructions due to lack of spacing or placement standards.
Ivan Barragan noted that, due to limited code enforcement capacity, not all prohibited signs are
currently being addressed. The proposal would allow sandwich board signs with specific restrictions.
Flexibility for multi-tenant buildings was discussed to provide signage opportunities while
acknowledging potential visual clutter. As the proposal is in the early stages, recommendations are
being considered, and the matter will move forward by consensus.
Chair Cochran asked if there's no enforcement of prohibited signs, what makes them think there would
be any change in enforcement of regulated signs?
Director Matson stated that while enforcement of sandwich board sign violations does occur, it is
limited and not a primary focus due to staffing constraints and higher-priority life safety issues.
Enforcement is generally complaint-driven, with staff responding when a sign poses a problem.
• Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development discussion
Director Matson provided an overview of the economic development element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, noting that consultants are underway and internal and partner discussions have
begun, including coordination with the Port of Pasco and economic development specialists. It was
shared that monthly workshop discussions will be brought forward to gather Council vision and
feedback, with no immediate decisions required. Key topics discussed included Pasco’s strengths and
gaps in retail, commercial, and entertainment offerings; the desire to attract destination retail and unique
uses that draw visitors to Pasco; opportunities for expanded shopping, dining, and entertainment; and
long-term healthcare needs, particularly in West Pasco. Workforce considerations were also discussed,
including Pasco’s younger and diverse workforce, the need for higher-wage employment opportunities,
and potential future industries such as aerospace manufacturing. The economic development element is
intended to be implementation-focused and actionable rather than aspirational, and Council feedback
will be shared with the consultant as the plan is developed.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Jones commented from a newer perspective; the City of Pasco and the broader Tri-Cities
area lack a dedicated fine arts venue. It was suggested that the region has sufficient population and
higher-wage employment to support such a facility, and that developing a fine arts venue could
represent a potential opportunity for Pasco’s economic development.
Commissioner Hendler emphasizing the Columbia River as a major, underutilized asset for Pasco. It
was suggested that greater focus be placed on river-oriented development, including recreation,
hospitality, and business uses, and that opportunities to better connect the city to the riverfront should be
explored despite regulatory challenges.
Commissioner Crawford stated that expanding retail in Pasco is a necessity given the City’s rapid
residential growth and increasing infrastructure demands. While Pasco has strong housing growth and a
high per capita student population, reliance as a bedroom community does not generate sufficient tax
revenue to support long-term infrastructure needs, underscoring the importance of attracting additional
retail and commercial development.
Page 152 of 309
Page 6 of 6
Commissioner Crutchfield support was expressed for the proposed ideas, with emphasis on leveraging
Pasco’s unique assets, such as the river, while continuing to pursue additional retail. The importance of
ensuring adequate transportation and infrastructure to support growth was noted, particularly along key
corridors. It was also noted that Pasco’s distinct amenities and character, when developed in synergy
with neighboring communities, can help strengthen the City’s overall economic position.
Commissioner Crawford added that economic development functions as a reinforcing cycle, with
employers and retailers evaluating factors such as household income and housing costs when choosing
locations. It was noted that Pasco currently faces stronger competition from neighboring cities in these
areas, and that falling further behind could make it increasingly difficult to attract higher-wage
employers and retail investment.
Chair Cochran reiterated for river-focused development, noting that regulatory constraints have limited
progress and that coordinated advocacy may be needed. It was also noted that attracting higher-wage
jobs may require Pasco to focus on targeted economic specializations. Focusing on specific industries
that bring higher-wage jobs. Data centers were mentioned as one possible opportunity given Pasco’s
strong power infrastructure, and targeting these types of industries could help strengthen and diversify
the local economy.
OTHER BUSINESS
Director Matson shared that another Comprehensive Plan workshop topic will be brought forward next
month. A staffing update was provided, noting the department is nearing full staffing with a senior planner
starting soon and a Planner II position still open. Despite recent changes, staff are performing well, and
major permit system improvements are underway. Online permit payments are expected to be available next
month, with fully online, fillable permit applications anticipated later this year. These updates are intended
to improve customer service, reduce phone inquiries, and streamline internal processes. Staff and IT were
thanked for their work, with acknowledgment that some initial system adjustments are expected as the new
tools are implemented.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Crutchfield made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner
Crawford, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pasco+wa+planning+commission+meeting+20025
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 153 of 309
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026
6:30 PM
Page 1 of 8
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Rosa Torres, Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Dana
Crutchfield, Miguel Miranda and Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Excused: Brian Tungesvik
Staff Present: C&ED Director Haylie Matson, C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, Senior Planner
Daniel Leavitt, Planner III Ivan Barragan and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick
DECLARATIONS
Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
Miguel Miranda recused himself on items CPA2025-002, Z2025-001 and CA2025-006, as a realtor
of the community, he has an active client that is directly impacted by the decisions made tonight.
Commissioner Lehrman wanted to clarify two meetings ago in November, she had made a
correction. She is not living in the SR20 Riverview area, and that correction during the meeting was
not reflected in the meeting minutes in December.
Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any
of the items on the agenda.
No declarations were heard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 18,
2025. Commissioner Crawford seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right-of-Way
The proposed code amendment was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in a workshop and
later advanced to a public hearing. Notice was posted at City Hall and published in the Tri-City Herald. No
public comments were received.
Staff presented a limited code amendment to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in
the Downtown Pasco Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The proposal updates the sign code,
clarifies definitions, revises the allowance table, and creates a new section, PMC 17.15.025 (Sandwich
Board Signs).
Page 154 of 309
Page 2 of 8
The amendment establishes clear standards governing placement, number of signs per business, hours of
display, ADA accessibility, intersection safety, prohibited locations, enforcement and removal procedures,
and includes a hold harmless provision, along with minor consistency updates to Title 17.
A revision from the prior proposal adjusts corner lot standards, allowing signs closer to intersections when
frontage placement is not feasible, provided a minimum 10-foot clearance from the curb radius or verge is
maintained for pedestrian safety and sight distance.
Staff noted this represents a significant update to a long-standing prohibition and provides added flexibility
for downtown businesses while maintaining pedestrian safety. Alternatives included taking no action,
allowing signs without regulation (not recommended), or expanding the allowance citywide.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration
at the February 9, 2026, workshop, with final action anticipated at the February 17, 2026, meeting.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Jones asked about a slide depicting a vehicle marked with an “X” and its purpose. Ivan
Barragan explained that the image was intended to clarify that sandwich board signs are not permitted on
vehicles.
Commissioner Lehrman stated that she appreciated the language clarifying the construction of the signs but
noted that the code does not specify that signs should be weighted. Given wind conditions in the area, she
encouraged staff to consider adding language to address this concern. Ivan Barragan commented that he
understood.
Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concerns regarding enforcement and staffing capacity, noting the
limited availability of code enforcement resources. She referenced an example observed along Court Street
near Andy’s Diner where multiple sandwich board signs—located in areas that would not be permitted
under the proposal—were placed in the middle of the sidewalk, potentially obstructing pedestrian access and
ADA compliance. She questioned how the proposed standards would be effectively enforced given these
constraints.
Director Matson explained that enforcement is complaint-based and prioritized by life-safety concerns due
to limited staffing. With two code enforcement officers handling a high volume of inquiries, issues are
triaged, with immediate hazards addressed first. Staff noted that sandwich board signs are already a citywide
issue and that the proposed amendment would establish clearer standards within downtown, where visibility
and oversight are greater. The amendment is not expected to significantly change current enforcement
practices.
Chair Cochran opened the meeting for public comment, no individuals appeared, he then closed the
public hearing for this item.
Commissioner Lehrman asked if there was insight as far as potential opportunities for additional code
enforcement staff.
Director Matson noted that a presentation to City Council on code enforcement priorities and staffing levels
is planned for later this year at the request of the City Manager’s Office. Staff explained that reductions in
staffing have required corresponding adjustments to enforcement priorities citywide. Staff recommended
bringing the issue to City Council for policy direction, noting that expanding enforcement across all issues
citywide would require additional staffing and would be a budget consideration.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated that, given the challenges facing code enforcement, she questioned the
Page 155 of 309
Page 3 of 8
wisdom of taking action on an issue that will likely require enforcement when similar activity is already
occurring in areas where it is not proposed and is difficult to enforce. She noted that while these issues may
not be as severe as other reported violations, the enforcement challenges remain.
Director Matson added that the proposal would reduce enforcement burden by allowing sandwich board
signs under clear standards rather than prohibiting them outright. Establishing defined parameters would
provide clarity for both business owners and code enforcement, reduce conflicts, and allow the Downtown
Overlay District to serve as a pilot area to evaluate compliance and effectiveness.
Chair Cochran noted an additional benefit of the proposal is reduced City liability. Establishing regulations
and a hold harmless provision would help protect the City in the event of injuries related to sandwich board
signs in the public right-of-way, as compared to having no clear standards or enforcement framework in
place.
Commissioner Lehrman asked about funding for code enforcement officers and whether Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are used. Director Matson explained that approximately $70,000
is allocated to one or both positions, but those funds are restricted by CDBG requirements and must be spent
in designated low-income areas, limiting applicability to downtown enforcement. Future funding levels are
uncertain.
Commissioner Lehrman also asked whether codifying sandwich board sign regulations could lead to
increased complaints used to harass business owners. Director Matson responded that clear, objective
standards are expected to reduce disputes rather than increase them by providing consistency, clarity, and
allowing downtown businesses to better self-manage compliance.
Commissioner Jones stated “I move that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council
approve Code Amendment CA2025-002, allowing Sandwich Board Signs within the public right of way
only in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District as proposed in Exhibit 2.” Motion seconded by
Commissioner Crawford, motion passed unanimously.
• CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment
Director Matson provided background on an inconsistency between the City’s land use map and zoning
code. In 2023, the city updated its low-density residential designation citywide to 3–6 units per acre;
however, the RS-20 zoning district retains a 20,000-square-foot minimum lot size, effectively allowing
approximately two units per acre. This conflict was identified at the staff and legal levels following a
development proposal, and development in the affected RS-20 areas has been paused.
She noted that property owners have been unable to develop for approximately 18 months due to this
inconsistency and requested Commission action to provide relief. She acknowledged broader policy
concerns and upcoming state requirements but explained that the proposal would resolve the immediate
issue while keeping the area at the lowest density in the city.
Director Matson presented a revised proposal establishing a new R-15 zoning designation allowing 2–3 units
per acre and reverting the land use designation to 2–5 units per acre. This represents a modest increase from
historic standards and maintains consistency with long-standing zoning policy. Staff noted public comments
requesting larger lots for septic feasibility but explained that RS-20 has never allowed densities below two
units per acre and that further reductions would conflict with city policy and Growth Management Act
requirements.
She emphasized that Pasco must plan for approximately 18,000 new housing units over the next 20 years
and that reducing density in the Riverview area would require increased density elsewhere in the city. The
Page 156 of 309
Page 4 of 8
proposal recognizes Riverview’s unique conditions, including larger lots and limited sewer availability,
while limiting reliance on septic systems.
Director Matson also discussed a potential lot size adjustment allowing up to a 20 percent variation to
address septic and site constraints, consistent with flexibility allowed in other zoning districts. Staff
recommended forwarding the revised 2–3 units per acre proposal to City Council, noting it represents the
lowest density staff supports, and clarified that final recommendations rest with the Planning Commission.
Questions/Comments from Commissioners
Chair Cochran thanked staff for responding to Commission direction and for balancing developer and
property owner interests while preserving West Pasco’s character. The Chair noted the proposal addressed a
code inconsistency consistent with City Council direction and emphasized the importance of resolving the
current issue independently of broader state housing policy discussions. The item was then opened for
Commission discussion.
Commissioner Crutchfield stated that staff clearly incorporated prior Commission and City Council
feedback, noting the importance of avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach and honoring commitments made to
residents at annexation regarding neighborhood character. While acknowledging that change is inevitable,
she appreciated the proposal’s attempt to balance flexibility with community character. She asked for
clarification on the purpose of a maximum lot size and whether a nearly one-acre lot could still be developed
with a single-family home.
Director Matson explained that state law allows a single-family home on any existing legal lot regardless of
size, and such development would not be denied. The maximum lot size applies only to subdivisions and is
intended to maintain the overall zoning density of 2–3 units per acre, while still allowing flexibility through
varied lot sizes. Lots larger than one-half acre would need to be balanced by smaller lots within the same
subdivision to meet density requirements. Similar density controls existed under the former RS-20 zoning.
Commissioner Lehrman asked staff to respond to concerns raised by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife regarding septic systems near the shoreline and potential Shoreline Master Program conflicts,
and whether Shoreline Master Program updates would be required if the proposal is forwarded to City
Council.
Director Matson stated that staff reviewed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comments and
found no conflict with the Shoreline Master Program, noting the proposed density is lower than the
shoreline’s allowed density range. She explained this position and stated that no Shoreline Master Program
update is proposed at this time, as the concern reflects differing agency interpretations rather than a true
conflict.
Commissioner Jones expressed concern about septic systems near the shoreline and the importance of sewer
connections to protect water quality, and thanked staff for the prior response. She asked how sewer would
be provided where it is not currently available, who would bear the cost, and whether per-foot cost estimates
exist.
Director Matson explained that extending sewer infrastructure is expensive and can make development
infeasible, which is a key reason for proposing a reduction to two units per acre to allow limited septic use
where appropriate. Under the City’s 2023 land use changes, development generally assumed sewer
connection at the property owner’s expense or delayed development until service is available. Where septic
is not feasible, sewer extension or delayed development would be required.
She explained that the City has attempted to partner with developers to extend sewer service in the area,
Page 157 of 309
Page 5 of 8
including discussions about a lift station involving City Manager Zable. These efforts have been limited by
the need for multiple easements and funding constraints, making projects infeasible. While grant
opportunities continue to be explored, no funding is currently available, and future sewer extensions would
likely require developer partnerships, which have not been successful to date.
Commissioner Crutchfield asked for clarification on the proposed administrative adjustment authority for
minimum lot sizes, questioning the City’s role given Health District oversight of septic systems and
expressing concern about administrative discretion. She suggested that Hearing Examiner review with
public notice could provide greater transparency.
Director Matson responded that the proposed 20 percent adjustment is intended to address site-specific
constraints, such as irregular lot shapes, while avoiding the added cost and time of a Hearing Examiner
process. The adjustment would allow minimum lot sizes to range from approximately 11,000 square feet up
to one-half acre, providing flexibility in lot design while maintaining overall density standards. She stressed
that the provision is optional and could be revised or removed at the Commission’s direction, noting that an
alternative would be a fixed minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet and a maximum of one-half acre with
no adjustment.
Commissioner Crawford asked whether the code amendments were intended to provide maximum flexibility
to avoid hamstringing existing properties. Director Matson confirmed that the proposal is largely developer-
and property-owner-focused and provides substantial flexibility, though it cannot resolve constraints
imposed by septic requirements. She explained that where Health District standards require larger lots,
flexibility is limited, but the proposal helps address site-specific challenges such as irregular lot shapes,
topography, or parcels divided by roads, allowing more varied lot configurations.
Commissioner Miranda commented that the proposed 20 percent adjustment may not be sufficient in some
cases, citing an example where a 2.48-acre parcel cannot be reasonably subdivided into five half-acre lots
due to septic requirements. He asked what guidance the city would provide in that situation.
Director Matson responded that in such cases, development would need to proceed at a lower intensity or
wait until sewer service is available. Allowing exceptions below two units per acre could shift overall land-
use patterns and risk broader reliance on septic systems, which would hinder long-term sewer planning. She
emphasized the need for coordinated planning for future sewer service rather than parcel-by-parcel
exceptions.
Commissioner Lehrman asked whether staff would have sufficient capacity to manage case-by-case
decisions given the City’s move toward more automated permitting systems.
Director Matson stated that the proposal is straightforward to administer and largely aligns with existing
automated processes. The built-in flexibility is workable, and in cases of uncertainty staff would likely allow
the 20 percent adjustment. She does not anticipate an increased workload for staff and noted that, after the
area being effectively paused for over a year, there may be an initial increase in applications that can be
managed with existing staffing levels.
Public Comment:
Roger Wright lives on Willow Way in the city of Pasco:
As a local civil engineer, thanked Council and City staff for their service and responsiveness. He expressed
support for the City’s goal of creating housing but emphasized the need for practical and logical standards.
He explained that on-site septic systems require a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres per Health Department
regulations, which limits flexibility when parcels do not divide evenly. He shared a current project example
where sewer service was initially pursued, including funding infrastructure, but delays in updating the sewer
comprehensive plan ultimately made sewer infeasible. As a result, the project shifted to septic, but parcel
Page 158 of 309
Page 6 of 8
configuration prevents exact half-acre lots. He stated that while the proposed 20% lot size flexibility could
help, averaging lot sizes below the half-acre minimum is not allowed by the Health Department. He
requested a workable, common-sense solution for irregular parcels while acknowledging and supporting the
City’s two-units-per-acre policy.
Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco:
Stated that the proposal may inadvertently prohibit subdivision of parcels between approximately 2.4 and
2.5 acres. With a 20% lot size adjustment, 2.4 acres is the maximum size that can accommodate four half-
acre septic lots, while 2.5 acres is the minimum needed to meet Health Department requirements, resulting
in parcels that cannot feasibly be subdivided into either four or five lots. He indicated this outcome was
likely unintended. He suggested that a larger adjustment, such as 25%, could provide a workable solution
for smaller parcels, noting that without such flexibility the result would be very low-density development,
which he did not believe was the City’s or State’s intent. He concluded that he would follow up with staff to
discuss the technical details further.
Brett Lott lives on Castle Holly Court in the city of Pasco:
Noted that he is working with staff on the same project and reiterated that sewer service was the preferred
option but is not currently feasible due to City constraints. He emphasized that while most developments fit
within standard regulations, some sites present unique conditions that do not align cleanly with rigid
standards. He expressed concern that strict policies without flexibility can unintentionally prevent otherwise
reasonable development, particularly when minor deviations exceed the 20% allowance by a small margin.
He cautioned that over time, the intent of the policy may be lost, leaving permit staff constrained by exact
language rather than intent.
He emphasized the broader housing shortage at the state and national level and stated that delays in
development directly increase housing costs. He requested additional flexibility in the policy—such as
increasing the allowable adjustment or including a provision for case-by-case consideration—to allow staff
discretion in unique situations. He provided an example where City-required road placement results in
compliant half-acre lots on one side and slightly larger lots on the other, narrowly exceeding the limit. He
concluded by encouraging the City to seek solutions that enable development rather than prohibit it, noting
that not all projects are large enough to independently fund sewer infrastructure.
Commissioner Jones observed a common theme among the speakers that additional lot size flexibility—
potentially up to 25%—could help projects move forward. He asked whether a framework that maintains a
20% standard but allows applicants to request additional flexibility through a review process might address
unique site conditions. He noted that land parcels are not always uniform and that some discretion may be
appropriate. He expressed that developers bring valuable expertise and that it may be in the City’s best
interest to work collaboratively to find solutions rather than rely solely on rigid standards. He suggested the
concept warranted further discussion.
Chair Cochran asked Director Matson whether there are potential mechanisms that would allow limited
exceptions without undermining the intent of the proposed change. He highlighted the need to balance
flexibility with maintaining the overall purpose of the policy and invited staff to share any suggestions,
based on the testimony received, that could allow discretion while preserving the framework for further
discussion.
Director Matson stated that staff does not recommend additional exceptions without undermining the intent
of the proposal. She explained that increasing flexibility to 25 percent would expand allowable density
beyond the intended 2–3 units per acre, effectively allowing densities closer to 1–3 units per acre. The 20
percent adjustment does not resolve cases where larger lots are required for septic systems, and staff
emphasized concerns about expanding long-term reliance on septic systems.
Page 159 of 309
Page 7 of 8
She stated coordinated sewer infrastructure as the preferred solution but noted progress has been limited by
funding constraints, despite coordination efforts with developers beginning in September 2025. Given
current infrastructure and timing, staff stated that a coordinated sewer solution is not realistic in the near
term and cautioned that allowing larger septic lots would likely undermine the City’s ability to implement a
future sewer system.
Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the City typically installs sewer trunk lines with connection costs
passed on to developers or property owners. Staff confirmed this remains the City’s practice and noted that
connection costs can be significant.
Director Matson explained that sewer connection fees are paid at the time of connection to cover system
capacity, treatment, and maintenance, and are typically passed through as part of development or building
permits. While costly, sewer connections provide long-term benefits by eliminating reliance on septic
systems and supporting city infrastructure.
Commissioner Lehrman asked whether developers would bear the cost of extending sewer trunk lines where
infrastructure is not in place. Director Matson confirmed that developers would be responsible in those cases
and noted that alternative funding tools, such as TIF, could potentially be explored for smaller developers.
Staff also confirmed that the Health Department continues to regulate septic systems within the city.
Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco:
Noted that Washington State has enforced strict septic system standards for decades, and that newer systems
are highly regulated and less prone to failure. He stated that the proposed 20% lot size adjustment works for
parcels larger than three acres but does not address smaller parcels, particularly those around 2.5 acres. He
expressed concern that such parcels could become unbuildable and remain vacant, which can negatively
affect surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested that a 25% adjustment, particularly for smaller parcels,
could help address these situations.
Chair Cochran closed the public hearing.
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment Motion:
Commissioner Lehrman stated “I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-002, including proposal land use map amendment
established the low-density residential Riverview designation 2-5 dwelling units per acre development. As
shown in Exhibit 2 and the 2018 conference plan addendum shown as Exhibit 7.” Commissioner Jones
seconded, motion passed unanimously.
Residential Density Amendment Motion:
Commissioner Jones stated “I move to recommend that the City Council consider approval of the rezone
replacing the R-S-20 zone with the R-15 Low Density Residential District, as shown in the zoning map
revision (Exhibit 4), and approval of the associated zoning map, Comprehensive Plan, and text
amendments identified in Exhibit 6. This includes revising PMC 21.20 to replace references to R-S-20
with R-15.” Commissioner Lehrman seconded. Motions passed with a vote of 7 ayes to 1 opposed.
Next Steps:
This will go to the City Council for a workshop, then to a regular meeting.
WORSHOP
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Director Matson introduced the city’s new Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt.
Page 160 of 309
Page 8 of 8
Informed the Commission that Framework has been contracted with the city to help with the municipal code
changes.
Stated that CED is still looking to fill vacancies for a Planner II, a Permit Tech and a Senior Plan Examiner.
Let the Commission know of the status of the new online permit system that will be implemented in
February.
Commissioner Lehrman commented towards the end of the meeting, after motions are passed, show a
graphic or flow chart of the upcoming steps in order for the motions to then become a code and that more
graphics and pictures be included for a better understanding of residents. Director Matson agreed, stating
both can be added to the PowerPoint presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner
Lehrman, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm.
YouTube link to watch full meeting: https://youtu.be/8hu7LneA_rE
Respectfully submitted,
Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 161 of 309
Emergency Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map Amendment (CPA 2025-002)
–Low Density Residential Land Use
Changes, and the R-S-20 Rezone with
Associated Text Amendments (CA2025-
006 & Z2025-011)
February 23, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
3
0
9
HISTORY
•2023:Ordinance No. 4663 amended Low Density Residential to 3–6 du/ac, creating an unintended
conflict with R-S-20 zoning standards
•2025:City Council briefed and directed staff to resolve the inconsistency
Planning Commission Process:
•Nov. 20, 2025:Workshop
•Dec. 18, 2025:Public hearing; revisions requested
•Jan. 15, 2026:Second public hearing and recommendation
Recommendation to Council:
•Approve CPA 2025-002 establishing Low Density Residential–Riverview at 2–5 du/ac
•Replace R-S-20 with R-15 Low Density Residential
•Approve associated zoning and Comprehensive Plan text amendments (incl. PMC 21.20)
Pa
g
e
1
6
3
o
f
3
0
9
KEY CHANGES
1.Comprehensive Plan Amendment –Emergency
2.Zoning Map change/Rezone
3.Pasco Municipal Code changes
Pa
g
e
1
6
4
o
f
3
0
9
Pa
g
e
1
6
5
o
f
3
0
9
Existing → Proposed Land Use:
3-6 units/acre → 2-5 units/acre
Existing → Proposed Zoning:
R-S-20 (2 units/acre) → R-15 (2-3 units/acre)
Pa
g
e
1
6
6
o
f
3
0
9
KEY CHANGES
Pa
g
e
1
6
7
o
f
3
0
9
OTHER
1.Public Comments
2.Periodic Update/Municipal Code Changes
3.Upcoming – standards for sidewalks and curbs
Pa
g
e
1
6
8
o
f
3
0
9
Questions?
Pa
g
e
1
6
9
o
f
3
0
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 18, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Kevin Hebdon, Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Ordinance Nos. 4821 & 4822 – Creation of Aquatics Center Fund &
Budget Amendment for Aquatics Center Staffing
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Ordinance - Creation of Aquatics Center Fund
Ordinance - Budget Amendment for Aquatics Center Staffing
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4821, establishing a special revenue
fund for the operation of the Aquatic Center and creating a new Chapter 3.270,
"Aquatic Center Fund", in the Pasco Municipal Code, and, further, authorize
publication by summary only.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordnance No.4822, amending the 2025-2026
Biennial Operating Budget (Ordinance No. 4749), by providing supplement
thereto; to provide additional appropriation in the City’s funds and, further,
authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Total Amount: $2,557,900
Funding Source: Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD) Revenue
General Fund: Operation and support of the Pasco Aquatics Center will
remain budget neutral to the City’s General Fund.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
The Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD), established in 2002 under RCW
35.57, develops and operates regional public facilities. Following voter
Page 170 of 309
approval of a 0.2% sales tax increase in April 2022, PPFD began construction
of a new Aquatics Facility, with completion anticipated in mid-2026.
At PPFD’s request, the City developed an interlocal agreement (ILA) to provide
management, operational, administrative, financial, and legal services for the
facility. The ILA was prepared collaboratively with PPFD and City legal counsel
to clearly define roles, responsibilities, cost structure, and risk protections.
Council previously approved the ILA. After additional review and clarification by
the PPFD Board and its legal counsel, a modified ILA was approved by the
PPFD Board on January 20, 2026. Council subsequently approved Resolution
No. 4868A authorizing the City Manager to execute the updated agreement.
V. DISCUSSION:
Establishing Fund
The ILA requires the City to prepare and provide ongoing financial reporting
related to the operation of the Aquatic Center. The City is seeking to establish a
dedicated fund to record collection of revenues of the Aquatic Center along with
related expenditures in a transparent and accountable manner.
Recommendation:
Approve the ordinance to create the Aquatic Center fund.
Alternatives:
1. Create a separate program or sub-fund within an existing fund for tracking
purposes.
2. Do not approve and maintain operations within the General Fund with
enhanced program-level reporting.
Budget Amendment
Due to the size, complexity, and risk associated with the expanded aquatics
program, a new Aquatics Division within the Parks & Recreation Department will
be established. To support both the new facility and the existing City aquatics
program, certain positions will utilize a shared cost allocation model.
There are three primary categories of expenses associated with operation of the
Aquatics Facility, all of which will be funded through PPFD revenue pursuant to
the ILA:
Start-Up Costs:
These include one-time expenses necessary to prepare the facility for
opening, such as software implementation, recruitment, staff training and
certifications, development of required policies and operational plans, and
consultant services. These costs are being incurred directly through
Page 171 of 309
PPFD.
Labor Costs:
Permanent staff salaries and benefits required to operate and manage the
facility. These positions must be incorporated into the City’s budget and
FTE authorization and are included in tonight’s request.
Operational Costs:
Ongoing services and supplies required once the City assumes
management and operational responsibility for the facility. A future budget
amendment and operation of hours final once necessary be will
programming levels are determined, allowing for accurate estimation of
temporary and seasonal staffing needs and associated operating
expenses.
Facility. Aquatics the expense of largest operational the represents Labor
Following ILA approval, staff began development of an operational plan to
support a mid-2026 opening. To meet operational, safety, and service level
requirements, recruitment must begin in advance of the facility opening.
Staff have identified the following Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) necessary to
operate and support the Aquatics Center and are requesting Council approval of
thirty-two (32) new FTEs and associated budget authority:
Position FTE
Count PPFD Allocation City Allocation
Aquatics Manager 1 75% 25%
Lead Aquatics Specialist 1 75% 25%
Aquatics Guest Services
Coordinator 1 90% 10%
Aquatics Administrative
& Customer Service
Assistant
1 90% 10%
Facility Maintenance
Worker 1 100%
Cashier / Guest
Attendant 2 100%
Head Lifeguard 3 100%
Senior Lifeguard 1 100%
Accountant 1 100%
HR Generalist 1 100%
**Lifeguard 19 100%
**Represents lifeguard coverage for year-round indoor operations. Remainder of
lifeguard and seasonal of combination staff be will temporary a positions.
Page 172 of 309
Combined FTE, seasonal and temporary lifeguard positions will total
approximately 68,000 annual labor hours.
General Fund Cost Neutrality
All staffing costs are planned to be funded through PPFD revenue pursuant to
the ILA, maintaining General Fund neutrality.
To remain cost neutral, one (1) existing Recreation Division FTE will be
reallocated to support the following partial FTE assignments:
0.25 FTE Aquatics Manager
0.25 FTE Lead Aquatics Specialist
0.10 FTE Aquatics Guest Services Coordinator
0.10 FTE Aquatics Administrative & Customer Service Assistant
Recommendation:
Approve the ordinance amending the 2025–2026 Biennial Budget and authorize
the requested FTE allocations to allow timely recruitment, operational readiness,
and a mid-2026 facility opening.
Next Steps:
If approved staff will incorporate new positions in applicable wage scales and
implement recruitment efforts.
A future budget amendment will be necessary for other operational expensed.
Alternatives:
1. FTE phased reduced with or budget the Approve amendment
authorization. This may delay recruitment, limit programming capacity,
reduce service levels, or impact the anticipated opening schedule.
2. Do not approve the budget amendment or FTE allocations. This would
delay likely staffing recruitment, postpone operational readiness, and
require revision of the projected opening timeline and service delivery
model.
Page 173 of 309
Ordinance – Creating PMC Chapter 3.270 Aquatic Center Fund - 1
Version 1.8.2026
ORDINANCE NO. 4821
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE OPERATION OF
THE AQUATIC CENTER AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 3.270,
“AQUATIC CENTER FUND”, IN THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, in April of 2022 the Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD) put to voters a
2/10th of one percent sales tax increase to acquire, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip,
reequip, repair, finance and operate an aquatics facility pursuant to RCW 82.14.048(4)(a); and
WHEREAS, voters approved the sales tax increase for an Aquatics Center; and
WHEREAS, PPFD possess, by law, all of the usual powers of a corporation for public
purposes, as well as all other powers that may now or hereafter be specifically conferred by statue,
including but not limited to the authority to hire employees, staff, and services, as well as to enter
into contracts and agreements; and
WHEREAS, the PPFD desired to contract with the City for the purpose of securing
services necessary for fulfillment of the District’s functions; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, the Pasco City Council approved Resolution No. 4686
authorizing the City Manager to execute a new Interlocal Agreement between the Pasco Public
Facilities District and the City for administrative and financial services, and for management and
operations of the new Aquatic Center; and
WHEREAS, the interlocal agreement requires the City to prepare and provide ongoing
financial reporting related to the operation of the Aquatic Center; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a dedicated fund to record collection of revenues
of the Aquatic Center along with related expenditures in a transparent and accountable manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council does hereby incorporate the above “Whereas” recitals as
findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. That a new Chapter 3.270 entitled “Aquatic Center Fund” of the Pasco
Municipal Code, which establishes the fund for the purpose of recording revenues and
expenditures related to the Aquatic Center in a transparent and accountable manner, shall be and
hereby is created and shall read as follows:
Page 174 of 309
Ordinance – Creating PMC Chapter 3.270 Aquatic Center Fund - 2
Version 1.8.2026
Chapter 3.270
Aquatic Center Fund
Sections:
3.270.010 Created.
3.270.020 Purpose.
3.270.010 Created
There is established a fund to be called the Aquatic Center Fund for the purposes of
accounting for funds received, disbursed, or expended in conjunction with the Aquatic
Center operations and services.
3.270.020 Purpose
The purpose of the fund is to account for revenue and expenses derived from the
management and operations of the Aquatic Center.
Section 3. 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 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days
after approval, passage and publication as required by law.
Page 175 of 309
Ordinance – Creating PMC Chapter 3.270 Aquatic Center Fund - 3
Version 1.8.2026
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this 2nd day of March,
2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Published: March 8, 2026
Page 176 of 309
Ordinance – 2025 – 2026 Operating Budget Amendment - 1
Version 1.8.26
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE 2025-2026 BIENNIAL BUDGET (ORDINANCE NO. 4749)
BY PROVIDING SUPPLEMENT THERETO; TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATION IN THE CITY’S AQUATIC CENTER FUND; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2024, the Pasco City Council approved Ordinance No. 4749,
adopting the 2025-2026 Biennial Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, the Pasco City Council approved Ordinance No. 4807,
amending the 2025-2026 Biennial Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, the Pasco City Council approved Resolution No. 4686
authorizing the City Manager to execute a new Interlocal Agreement between the Pasco Public
Facilities District and the City for administrative and financial services, and for management and
operations of the new Aquatic Center; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the interlocal agreement, the City is obligated to provide
employees from the City’s Parks & Recreation Department to support Aquatic Center
management and operations; and
WHEREAS, the 2025-2026 Amended Biennial Operating did not include the thirty-two
(32) full time equivalent positions in the amount of $2,557,900 that will staff the Aquatic Center;
and
WHEREAS, thirty-two (32) full-time equivalent positions will be established as City
positions, with all associated costs reimbursed at cost by the Pasco Public Facilities District as
provided in the Interlocal Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.34.200, as follows:
Fund EXPENDITURE REVENUE
169 Aquatic Center Fund $2,557,900.00
169 Aquatic Center Fund $2,557,900.00
Total $2,557,900.00 $2,557,900.00
Page 177 of 309
Ordinance – 2025 – 2026 Operating Budget Amendment - 2
Version 1.8.26
Section 2. That the additions in appropriations and expenditures are hereby declared
to exist in the above funds for the said uses and purposes as shown above, and the proper City
officials are hereby authorized and directed to issue warrants and transfer funds in accordance
with the provision of the Ordinance.
Section 3. Except as amended herein, Ordinance No. 4749 as previously adopted
heretofore shall remain unchanged.
Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and 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 _____,
2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 178 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council December 30, 2025
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: *Resolution No. 4709 - Public Works Board $3.5M Loan/Grant
Agreement - Lewis Street Underpass Demolition
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
Letter of award
Draft Loan Agreement/Grant Agreement
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 4709, authorizing the City
Manager (50% Agreement Loan/Grant Low-Interest a execute to $3.5M
Forgivable Principal) for the Lewis Street Underpass Demolition Project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
This Public Works Board Funding award of $3.5Million is expected to cover the
total estimated cost of the project.
The award consists of:
$1,750,000 in loan funding (1.06% interest rate with a loan term of 20
years);
$1,750,000 in Forgivable principal (effectively functioning as grant
funding for the City).
The loan represents a debt service of $100,000 annually for the next 20 years.
The proposed source repayment is Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This fund
has a history of reliable and consistent revenue.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
Page 179 of 309
The Lewis Street Underpass, originally constructed in 1937 and located
beneath the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway in east Pasco, was
functionally obsolete with narrow lanes, low vertical clearance, and limited sight
distance, motorists, for hazard safety bottleneck traffic a creating and
pedestrians, and bicyclists. As part of the Lewis Street Overpass project, the
new overpass roadway opened to traffic in April 2024, and the remaining
underpass structure is slated for demolition and removal to finish the corridor
improvements. The demolition and removal of the underpass is necessary to
fulfill the conditions of the agreement entered by the City with BNSF railroad as
part of the easement negotiations for the Overpass construction.
In August 2025, the Council authorized submittal of a Public Works Board
funding application for underpass demolition, recognizing that PWB financing
could provide a combination of low-interest loan and forgivable principal to
reduce local burden.
V. DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The Lewis Street Underpass Demolition Project complements the recently
completed final corridor of phase a Lewis and Overpass Street is
Improvements.
The project consists, in general terms, of:
Demolition of the existing underpass structure from 1st Avenue to
Tacoma Avenue. Specifically, the top 6 feet of the structure need to be
demolished and removed from the BNSF right-of-way;
Backfilling, grading and surface restoration for reinstallation of railroad
tracks; and
construction safe for Railroad with Coordination access, BNSF
sequencing and phasing of work to accommodate railroad activity.
After the completion of the Lewis Street Overpass, the underpass was closed
to public access and its entrances were buried to prevent entry. The structure
continues to deteriorate and poses a long-term risk if left in place.
Impacts other than Fiscal
Demolishing the underpass eliminates the hazard and fulfills the City’s final
obligation under its agreement with BNSF Railway. It also protects critical
underground utilities, including water lines, that now run through the corridor.
Leaving the deteriorated structure above these lines creates a future risk of
collapse, which could damage the utilities or block access during emergencies.
Demolition ensures that the corridor remains safe and functional as a utility
route.
Page 180 of 309
In addition, removal of the underpass enables BNSF to expand rail operations
within the yard above. Up to nine additional tracks may be added once the
structure is removed, which will improve freight capacity and support long-term
industrial growth at the Port of Pasco and throughout the region.
No future work will be required to resolve the current issues. Once demolition is
complete and the site is stabilized, the project will be considered closed and
the corridor will be fully cleared for future utility, rail, or redevelopment needs.
The demolition of the underpass will have temporary construction impacts in
nearby parcels. Anticipated heavy machinery and truck traffic can be expected.
A hauling route will be designated for backfill and debris transportation,
attempting to minimize disruption to residential areas.
Staff will strive to communicate early and often with nearby businesses and
residents.
Public Works Board Funding - Loan Terms
The Washington State Public Works Board provides financing for local
infrastructure projects through loans and grants. Depending on hardship
criteria (demographics and fiscal capacity), awards can include forgivable
principal up to 50%. The Board’s programs offer low-interest loans designed to
support essential public works improvements while minimizing fiscal impacts
on local taxpayers.
Under this award:
The City will receive a low-interest loan not to exceed $3.5 million for
this project;
Up to 50% of the principal will be forgiven (grant component) contingent
on PWB guidelines, reducing debt service exposure
Standard loan terms will apply to the non-forgivable portion.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:
1.Authorize the City Manager to execute the Loan Agreement with the
Washington State Public Works Board (PWB) for a low-interest construction
loan with a 50% forgivable principal component (grant) totaling up to $3.5
million to fund the demolition of the Lewis Street Underpass;
2.Accept the loan and forgivable grant award
Constraints
The contract must be fully executed within six months of receipt.
The fulfilment of the condition with BNSF is also on a tight timeline, securing
the fund for the demolition enables the project to move forward, safeguarding
Page 181 of 309
the partnership with BNSF and creating opportunities to pursue other
transactions with BNSF.
Next Steps
Approval of the Agreement and Acceptance of the Low-Interest Loan.
Alternatives
Council doesn't accept the PWB Loan/Grant.
Not accepting the PWB financing could delay demolition work and require the
City to identify alternative funding sources at full local cost. This will result in
failure to meet the conditions of the agreement with BNSF. If the condition
goes unmet, the Railroad may, at their discretion, perform this work at the
City's expense.
Page 182 of 309
Resolution – PW Board Loan Acceptance LSUD - 1
Version 1.9.26
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $3.5M LOW
INTEREST LOAN/GRANT AGREEMENT (50% FORGIVEABLE
PRINCIPAL) WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS BOARD FOR THE LEWIS
STREET UNDERPASS DEMOLITION PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Public Works Board is entrusted with the
management of the Public Works Assistance Account by the state legislature, and in alignment
with its mission, the Public Works Board supports infrastructure projects across the State that
promote public health and safety, protect the environment, promote community and economic
development; and
WHEREAS, the Lewis Street Underpass, originally construction in 1937 was replaced
with a new Overpass which opened in April 2024; and
WHEREAS, the underpass structure is slated for removal to complete the corridor
improvements and meet the commitments the City entered with BNSF as the Easement
acquisition for placing of the Overpass;
WHEREAS, on November, 18, 2025, the Public Works Board awarded the City of Pasco
a low interest loan and grant for the demolition of the Lewis Street Underpass; 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 this loan with the
Public Works Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco approves the terms and conditions of the Loan
between the City of Pasco and the Public Works Board, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by as Exhibit A.
Be It Further Resolved, that the that the City Council hereby authorized the City
Manager to execute the Loan Agreement between the City of Pasco and the Public Works Board;
,; and to make minor substantive changes as necessary to execute the Agreement.
Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
Page 183 of 309
Resolution – PW Board Loan Acceptance LSUD - 2
Version 1.9.26
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ____ day of
________________, 20__.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Page 184 of 309
1011 Plum St SE Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525
www.pwb.wa.gov
November 18, 2025
Harold L. Stewart II, City Manager
City of Pasco
525 N. 3rd Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301-5320
RE: PUBLIC WORKS BOARD CONSTRUCTION AWARD LETTER
Dear City Manager Stewart,
Thank you for submitting a Public Works Board Construction funding application for
consideration by the Public Works Board (Board). Congratulations, your Lewis Street
Underpass project has been selected for an award of $1,750,000 in loan funding and
$1,750,000 in grant funding. Our office has completed the underwriting for this project,
and the interest rate is 1.06% with a loan term of 20 years.
The Board approved your construction application at their October 3, 2025 board
meeting. The approval date is the award date. Any eligible costs incurred from this date
forward are reimbursable.
The Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 requires projects funded through appropriations
in the State’s Capital Budget to be reviewed prior to any ground-disturbing activities
and the expenditure of any state funds for construction, demolition, or acquisition.
Your contract will be emailed to you for signature using DocuSign once your scope of
work and milestones are approved. Applicants must fully execute contracts within six
months of receipt.
Once again, thank you for applying to the Public Works Board. Please contact your
Project Manager, Tammy Mastro by email at tammy.mastro@commerce.wa.gov if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sheila Richardson
PWB Programs Director and Tribal Liaison (564) 999-1927
cc: Maria Serra, City of Pasco, Public Works Director
Page 185 of 309
AGREEMENT FACE SHEET
Agreement Number: PC26-96410-016
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD
CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AGREEMENT
1. Contractor
City of Pasco
525 N. 3rd Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301-5320
2. Contractor Doing Business As (optional)
N/A
3. Contractor Representative
Michael Uhlman,uhlmanm@pasco-wa.gov
4. Public Works Board Representative
Tammy Mastro, tammy.mastro@commerce.wa.gov
5. Agreement Amount
$3,500,000
6. Funding Source
Federal: State:
Other: N/A:
7. Agreement Start Date
Agreement Execution Date
8. Agreement End Date
June 1, 2046
9. Federal Funds (as applicable) Federal Agency CFDA Number
N/A N/A N/A
10. Tax ID #
N/A
11. SWV #
0007164-00
12. UBI #
113-000-052
13. UEI #
N/A
14. Agreement Purpose
Fund a project of a local government for the planning, acquisition, construction, repair, reconstruction, replacement,
rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, stormwater systems, sanitary sewage
systems, or solid waste/recycling/organics facilities.
15. Acceptance of Agreement Terms and Conditions
The BOARD, defined as the Washington State Public Works Board, and the Contractor acknowledge and accept the
terms of this Agreement and attachments and have executed this Agreement on the date below to start as of the date
and year last written below. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Agreement are governed by this
Agreement and the following other documents that are incorporated by reference: Agreement Terms and Conditions
including Declarations Page; and Attachment I: Attorney’s Certification; and the Public Works Board’s Traditional
Program Policy Handbook, found on the PWB website.
FOR THE CONTRACTOR
Signature
Harold L. Stewart II
Print Name
City Manager
Title
Date
FOR PUBLIC WORKS BOARD
Vincent McGowen, Public Works Board Chair
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY
Signature on File
Dawn C. Cortez
Assistant Attorney General
Page 186 of 309
This page intentionally left blank
Page 187 of 309
DECLARATIONS
CLIENT INFORMATION
Legal Name: City of Pasco
Agreement Number: PC26-96410-016
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Lewis Street Underpass
Project City: Pasco
Project State: Washington
Project Zip Code: 99301
FUNDING INFORMATION
LOAN FUNDING:
Loan Amount: $1,750,000
Loan Term: 20 years
Interest Rate: 1.06%
Payment Month: June 1st
GRANT FUNDING:
Grant Amount: $1,750,000
% of Funding as Grant: 50%
PROJECT TOTALS:
Total PWB Funding: $3,500,000
Total Estimated Cost: $3,500,000
Anticipated Construction Start Date: 10/2026
Earliest Date for Cost Reimbursement: 10/3/2025
Time of Performance: 60 months from Execution Date of this Agreement to Project Completion
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT
N/A
LOAN SECURITY CONDITION GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT
This loan is a general obligation of the CONTRACTOR.
SCOPE OF WORK
This project will complete the demolition of the Lewis Street Underpass, including final design, environmental
documentation, coordination and inspection with BNSF, and demolition of the underpass structure in compliance with the
agreement between City of Pasco and BNSF.
The project must meet all applicable Local, State, and/or Federal standards.
Page 188 of 309
This page intentionally left blank
Page 189 of 309
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
AGREEMENT FACE SHEET .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
SECTION 1: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Authority ................................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 Purpose .................................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 Order of Precedence ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.5 Total Award, Rate and Term of Loan ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.6 Repayment and Loan Security .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.7 Default in Repayment ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.8 Recapture .............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.9 Agreement Suspension ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.10 Time of Performance ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.11 Eligible Project Costs......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.12 Reimbursement Procedures and Payment ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.13 Historical and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.14 Project Signs ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.15 Competitive Bidding Requirements ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.16 Sub-Contractor Data Collection ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.17 Reports .............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.18 Investment Grade Efficiency Audit .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.19 5-year Deferral for Start-up Systems................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.20 Certified Project Completion Report and Project Completion Amendment ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.21 Performance Incentives ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.22 Termination for Cause ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.23 Termination for Convenience ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
SECTION 2: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 ALLOWABLE COSTS ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3 ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4 AMENDMENTS ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.5 APPROVAL ............................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.6 ASSIGNMENT ....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.7 ATTORNEYS’ FEES .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.8 AUDIT .................................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.9 CODE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.10 CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Page 190 of 309
2.11 CONFORMANCE .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.12 COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.13 DISALLOWED COSTS ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.14 DISPUTES ......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.15 DUPLICATE PAYMENT ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.16 ETHICS/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.17 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.18 INDEMNIFICATION ........................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.19 INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.20 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.21 LAWS ................................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.22 LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.23 LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.24 LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORATION COORDINATION .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.25 NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCRIMINATION LAWS ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.26 PAY EQUITY ...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.27 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.28 PREVAILING WAGE LAW ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.29 PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION.............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.30 PUBLICITY ........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.31 RECAPTURE .................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.32 RECORDS MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.33 REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.34 RIGHT OF INSPECTION .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.35 LOSS OF FUNDING.......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.36 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.37 SUBCONTRACTING ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.38 SURVIVAL ......................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.39 TAXES ............................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.40 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE/SUSPENSION ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.41 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.42 TERMINATION PROCEDURES ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.43 TREATMENT OF ASSETS ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.44 WAIVER ............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
ATTACHMENT I: ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATION ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Page 191 of 309
1
AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD
CONSTRUCTION FUNDING PROGRAM
SECTION 1: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1.1 Definitions
As used throughout this Construction Funding Agreement the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below:
A. “The BOARD” shall mean the Washington State Public Works Board created in Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 43.155.030, and who is a Party to the Agreement
B. “Agreement” shall mean this Construction Funding Agreement.
C. “Contractor” shall mean the local government identified on the Agreement Face Sheet receiving funding to
complete the project described in the SCOPE OF WORK described in this Agreement and who is a Party to the
Agreement, and shall include all employees and agents of the Contractor.
D. "Declarations " and "Declared" shall refer to the project information, loan terms and conditions as stated on the
Declarations Page of this Funding Agreement, displayed within the Agreement in THIS STYLE for easier
identification.
E. The Traditional Program Policy Handbook shall mean the handbook found at the PWB Traditional Financing
Webpage and available upon request as PDF.
1.2 Authority
Acting under the authority of RCW 43.155, the BOARD has awarded the Contractor Public Works Board construction
funding for an approved public works project.
1.3 Purpose
The BOARD and the Contractor have entered into this Agreement to provide funds to enable the Contractor to undertake
a local public works project that furthers the goals and objectives of the Washington State Public Works Program. The
project will be undertaken by the Contractor and will include the activities described in the SCOPE OF WORK shown on
the Declarations page. The project must be undertaken in accordance with the Agreement terms and conditions, and all
applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances, which are incorporated by reference.
1.4 Order of Precedence
In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the
following order:
A. Applicable federal, state of Washington statutes and regulations.
B. Special Terms and Conditions including attachments.
C. General Terms and Conditions.
Page 192 of 309
2
1.5 Total Award, Rate and Term of Loan
The BOARD shall fund the Contractor a sum not to exceed the AGREEMENT AMOUNT shown on the Agreement Face
Sheet, which shall be the sum of the LOAN AMOUNT and the GRANT AMOUNT shown on the Agreement Declarations
Page, to complete the SCOPE OF WORK.
If the Contractor is awarded a loan, the interest rate shall be the declared INTEREST RATE per annum on the
outstanding principal balance. The length of the loan shall not exceed the declared LOAN TERM in years, with the final
payment due by the AGREEMENT END DATE as shown on the Agreement Face Sheet.
If the Contractor is awarded a grant, any grant funding shall be spent from the award proportionally to the % OF
FUNDING AS GRANT. The percent of grant funding shall not be changed at project completion regardless of the actual
cost of the project and the Affordability Index or other measure of financial hardship.
1.6 Repayment and Loan Security
If the Agreement includes loan funding, loan repayment installments are due on the day and month identified under the
term: PAYMENT MONTH on the Declarations Page. Payments are due each year during the term of the loan beginning
one year from the date of Agreement execution. Interest only will be charged for this payment if a warrant is issued prior to
this date. All subsequent payments shall consist of principal and accrued interest due on the specified PAYMENT MONTH
date of each year during the remaining term of the loan.
Loan Security payments shall be made as stated on the attached Declarations page and identified as LOAN SECURITY.
Repayment of a loan under this Agreement shall include the declared INTEREST RATE per annum based on a three
hundred and sixty (360) day year of twelve (12) thirty (30) day months. Interest will begin to accrue from the date each
warrant is issued to the Contractor. The final payment shall be on or before the AGREEMENT END DATE shown on the
Agreement Face Sheet, of an amount sufficient to bring the loan balance to zero.
In the event that the BOARD approves the Contractor's request for a deferral as outlined in Section 1.19, then the first
loan repayment is due sixty (60) months after Agreement execution. Interest accrues for the sixty (60) months after
Agreement execution. The accrued interest only will be charged for this payment if a warrant is issued prior to this date.
Interest and principal payments are due on the declared PAYMENT MONTH date of each year during the remaining term
of the loan. The Contractor has the right to repay the unpaid balance of the loan in full at any time or make accelerated
payments without penalty.
The Contractor will repay the loan in accordance with the preceding conditions through the use of electronic funds
transfer, a check, money order, or equivalent means made payable to the Washington State Department of Commerce, or
its successor.
1.7 Default in Repayment
If the funding under this Agreement constitutes a loan, repayments shall be made on the loan in accordance with Section
1.6 of this Agreement. A payment not received within thirty (30) days of the due date shall be declared delinquent.
Delinquent payments shall be assessed a monthly penalty beginning on the first (1st) day past the due date. The penalty
will be assessed on the entire payment amount. The penalty will be one percent (1%) per month or twelve percent (12%)
per annum. The same penalty terms shall apply at project completion if the repayment of loan funds in excess of eligible
costs are not repaid at the time of the Project Completion Amendment is executed, as provided for in Section 1.20.
The Contractor acknowledges and agrees to the BOARD’s right, upon delinquency in the payment of any annual
installment, to notify any other entity, creditors, or potential creditors of the Contractor of such delinquency.
The Contractor shall be responsible for all legal fees incurred by the BOARD in any action undertaken to enforce its rights
under this section.
Page 193 of 309
3
1.8 Recapture
In addition to the recapture provisions in Section 2.31, the right to recapture shall exist for a period not to exceed six (6)
years following Agreement termination. In the event that the Board is required to institute legal proceedings to enforce the
recapture provision, the BOARD shall be entitled to its costs, including attorney’s fees.
1.9 Agreement Suspension
In the event that the Washington State Legislature fails to pass and the Governor does not authorize a Capital Budget by
June 30 of each biennium, the Washington State Constitution Article 8 and RCW 43.88.130 and RCW 43.88.290 prohibit
expenditures or commitments of state funds in the absence of appropriation.
In such event, all work under this Agreement will be suspended effective July 1. The Contractor shall immediately suspend
work under this Agreement and take all reasonable steps necessary to minimize the cost of performance directly
attributable to such suspension until the suspension is cancelled.
The BOARD shall notify the Contractor immediately upon lifting of the Agreement suspension.
1.10 Time of Performance
No later than sixty (60) months after the date of Agreement execution the Contractor must reach project completion of the
SCOPE OF WORK.
Failure to meet Time of Performance shall constitute default of this Agreement. In the event of extenuating circumstances,
the Contractor may request, in writing, that the BOARD extend the deadline for project completion. The BOARD may
extend the deadline.
The term of this Agreement shall be for the entire term of any loan provided under this Agreement, regardless of actual
project completion, unless terminated sooner as provided herein.
1.11 Eligible Project Costs
The Eligible project costs must consist of expenditures eligible under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 399-30-030,
be related only to project activities described in the declared SCOPE OF WORK and documented according to the
requirements set forth in the Traditional Program Policy Handbook. Eligible costs for reimbursement shall be construed to
mean expenditures incurred and paid, or incurred and payable within thirty (30) days of the reimbursement request. Only
costs that have been incurred on or after EARLIEST DATE FOR COST REIMBURSEMENT shown in the Declarations
are eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement.
The Contractor assures compliance with WAC 399-30-030, which identifies eligible costs for projects assisted with
BOARD funding.
These terms supersede the terms in Section 2.2 Allowable Costs.
1.12 Reimbursement Procedures and Payment
If funding or appropriation is not available at the time the invoice is submitted, or when this Agreement is executed, the
issuance of warrants will be delayed or suspended until such time as funds or appropriation become available. Therefore,
subject to the availability of funds, warrants shall be issued to the Contractor for reimbursement of allowable expenses
incurred by the Contractor while undertaking and administering approved project activities in accordance with the declared
SCOPE OF WORK.
The Contractor shall submit all Invoice Vouchers (“A-19s” or “A19s”) and all required documentation per guidance in the
BOARD Traditional Program Policy Handbook, which is incorporated by reference.
The BOARD shall reimburse the Contractor for eligible project expenditures up to the maximum funding amount under this
Agreement, as identified in Section 1.11. When requesting reimbursement for costs incurred, the Contractor shall submit
all Invoice Vouchers and any required documentation electronically through the Department of Commerce’s
Page 194 of 309
4
(COMMERCE) Contracts Management System (CMS), which is available through the Secure Access Washington (SAW)
portal, or its successor. If the Contractor has constraints preventing access to COMMERCE’s online A-19 portal.
Requests for reimbursements for costs related to construction activities will not be accepted until the Contractor
provides:
Proof of compliance with Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, as described in Section 1.13, and
Signed Public Works Board Notice of Contract Award and Notice to Proceed, which follows the formal award of a
construction contract.
If the Contractor receives funding in the form of both a grant and a loan, the Contractor shall bill to the loan and grant
proportionally until and if funds are exhausted.
The BOARD will pay the Contractor upon acceptance of the work performed and receipt of properly completed invoices.
Invoices shall be submitted to the BOARD at least quarterly, as appropriate.
Payment shall be considered timely if made by the BOARD within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of properly
completed invoices. Payment shall be sent by means of an electronic funds transfer or to the address designated by the
Contractor.
The BOARD may, at its sole discretion, terminate the Agreement or withhold payments claimed by the Contractor for
services rendered if the Contractor fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Agreement.
No payments in advance or in anticipation of services or supplies to be provided under this Agreement shall be made by
the BOARD.
BOARD shall not release the final five (5) percent of the total funding amount until acceptance by BOARD of project
completion report.
Duplication of Billed Costs. If the Contractor is entitled to payment or has been or will be paid by another source for an
eligible project cost, then the Contractor shall not be reimbursed by the BOARD for that cost.
Disallowed Costs. The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own
organization or that of its subcontractors.
In no event shall the total Public Works funding exceed 100% of the eligible actual project costs. At the time of project
completion, the Contractor shall submit to the BOARD a Project Completion Amendment certifying the total actual project
costs, other funding, and local share. The final BOARD funding disbursement shall bring the total funding to the lesser of
100% of the eligible project costs or the total declared funding under this Agreement. The Project Completion Amendment
shall serve as an amendment to this Agreement determining the final loan and grant amounts, loan term, and interest rate.
In the event that the final costs identified in the Certified Project Completion Report indicate that the Contractor has
received BOARD monies in excess of 100.00%of eligible costs, all funds in excess of 100.00% shall be repaid to the
BOARD by payment to the Department of Commerce, or its successor, prior to the execution of the Project Completion
Amendment.
1.13 Historical and Cultural Resources
Prior to approval and disbursement of any funds awarded under this Agreement related to any land acquisition,
demolition, construction, or other ground-disturbing activities, the Contractor shall cooperate with the BOARD to complete
the requirements of Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or the Contractor shall complete a review under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, if applicable. Contractor agrees that the Contractor is legally and financially responsible
for compliance with all laws, regulations, and agreements related to the preservation of historical or cultural resources and
agrees to hold harmless the BOARD and the state of Washington in relation to any claim related to such historical or
cultural resources discovered, disturbed, or damaged as a result of the project funded by this Agreement.
In addition to the requirements set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor shall, in accordance with Governor’s Executive
Order 21-02 as applicable, coordinate with the BOARD and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (“DAHP”), including any recommendation consultation with any affected tribe(s), during Project design and
prior to construction to determine the existence of any tribal cultural resources affected by the Project. Contractor agrees
Page 195 of 309
5
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to the cultural resource as a continuing prerequisite to receipt of funds under this
Agreement.
The Contractor agrees that, unless the Contractor is proceeding under an approved historical and cultural monitoring plan
or other memoranda of agreement, if historical or cultural artifacts found during the construction, the Contractor shall
immediately stop construction and notify the local historical preservation officer and the state’s historical preservation
officer at DAHP, and the BOARD Representative identified on the Face Sheet. If human remains are uncovered, the
Contractor shall report the presence and location of the remains to the coroner and local enforcement immediately, then
contact DAHP and the concerned tribe’s cultural staff or committee.
The Agreement shall require this provision to be contained in all subcontracts for work or services related to the Scope of
Work attached hereto.
In addition to the requirements set forth in the Agreement, the Contractor agrees to comply with the following laws and
regulations:
RCW 27.44 regarding Indian Graves and Records
RCW 27.53 regarding Archaeological Sites and Resources
RCW 68.60 regarding Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves
WAC 25-48 regarding Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permits.
Completion of the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act shall substitute for completion of
Governor’s Executive Order 21-02. The Contractor shall not proceed with any land acquisition, demolition, construction, or
other ground-disturbing activities until the BOARD certifies completion of Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or adopts the
completion of the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
In the event that the Contractor finds it necessary to amend the SCOPE OF WORK of the Agreement, the Contractor may
be required to re-comply with Governor’s Executive Order 21-02 or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
1.14 Project Signs
If the Contractor displays, during the period covered by this Agreement, signs or markers identifying those agencies
participating financially in the approved project, the sign or marker must identify the Washington State Public Works Board
as a participant in the project. Public Works Board logo files are available upon request.
1.15 Competitive Bidding Requirements
The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of RCW 43.155.060 regarding competitive bidding requirements for
projects assisted in whole or in part with money from the Public Works Program.
1.16 Sub-Contractor Data Collection
Contractor will submit reports, in a form and format to be provided by the BOARD and at intervals as agreed by the
parties, regarding work under this Agreement performed by sub-contractors and the portion of the Agreement funds
expended for work performed by sub-contractors, including but not necessarily limited to minority-owned, women-owned,
and veteran-owned business sub-contractors. “Sub-Contractors” shall mean sub-contractors of any tier.
1.17 Reports
The Contractor shall furnish the BOARD with:
A. Project progress reports per guidance in the BOARD’s Traditional Program Policy Handbook;
B. Quarterly Reports;
C. Certified Project Completion Report at project completion as described in Section 1.20;
Page 196 of 309
6
D. Pictures and short videos of various stages of the project, and
E. Other reports as the BOARD may require.
1.18 Investment Grade Efficiency Audit
For projects involving repair, replacement, or improvement of a wastewater treatment plant, or other public works facility
for which an investment grade audit is obtainable, the Contractor must undertake an investment grade efficiency audit.
Costs incurred as part of the investment grade audit are eligible project costs.
1.19 5-year Deferral for Start-up Systems
If the project financed by this Agreement is to develop a system to deliver previously unavailable services, and revenue
from those services is to repay the loan, the new system is eligible for a deferral of loan payments for sixty (60) months
after the Agreement execution date. The Contractor may provide a written request to the BOARD requesting a 5-year
deferral for an eligible system. The BOARD may approve the deferral request.
Interest accrues for the aforementioned sixty (60) months. The accrued interest only payment is due June 1 of the 6th
year of the loan term. Interest and principal payments are due on June 1 of the 7th year of the loan term.
1.20 Certified Project Completion Report and Project Completion Amendment
The Contractor shall complete a Certified Project Completion Report when all activities identified in the SCOPE OF
WORK are complete as defined by the BOARD’s Project Completion and Holdback Policy. The BOARD will supply the
Contractor with the Certified Project Completion Report form, which shall include:
A. A certified statement that the project, as described in the declared SCOPE OF WORK, is complete and, if
applicable, meets required standards.
B. A certified statement of the actual dollar amounts spent, from all funding sources, in completing the project as
described in the SCOPE OF WORK.
C. Certification that all costs associated with the project have been incurred and have been accounted for. Costs
are incurred when goods and services are received and/or Agreement work is performed.
D. Pictures of Completed Project.
The Contractor will submit the Certified Project Completion Report together with the last Invoice Voucher for a sum not to
exceed the balance of the total funding amount. The final Invoice Voucher payment shall not occur prior to the completion
of all project activities identified in the SCOPE OF WORK and the BOARD's receipt and acceptance of the Certified
Project Completion Report.
The Project Completion Amendment shall serve as an amendment to this Agreement determining the final loan amount,
grant amount (if applicable), loan term, and interest rate.
1.21 Performance Incentives
Timely Draws Incentive
The Contractor may receive up to a 0.10% reduction in their interest rate if:
The Contractor’s first draw from the funds is within six (6) months of the date of Agreement execution,
AND
The Contractor draws funds approximately monthly after the first draw until the Contractor reaches 5% of the total
funding amount remaining or the Contractor’s final payment to their general construction contractor of retainage,
whichever comes first.
Construction Completion Incentives
Page 197 of 309
7
The Contractor shall complete the project no later than sixty (60) months after the date of Agreement execution.
Should the Contractor submit the Certified Project Completion Report within forty-eight (48) months of the date of
Agreement execution, the Contractor may choose one of the two following incentives upon project completion:
Option A: The repayment period will be increased by twenty-four (24) months, not to exceed the life of the asset,
OR:
Option B: The interest rate will be decreased by one-quarter of one percent (0.25%).
Should the Contractor submit the Certified Project Completion Report within thirty-six (36) months of the date of
Agreement execution, the Contractor may choose one of the following two incentives upon project completion:
Option C: The repayment period will be increased by sixty (60) months, not to exceed the life of the asset,
OR:
Option D: The interest rate will be decreased by up to one-half of one percent (0.50%).
Pursuant to the BOARD’s Performance Incentives policy, the Contractor shall only be eligible for performance incentives
C or D if the Project’s Notice to Proceed date is no more than three (3) months after the ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION
START DATE identified on the Declarations page of this Agreement.
Once an eligible option is selected, the Agreement shall be modified to note the appropriate change and no further
adjustment to the Agreement for Performance Incentives shall be authorized. Irrespective of the performance incentive(s)
applied, at no point in time shall the loan interest rate be less than 0.25%.
The calculation of any interest rate and term adjustments will apply to the remaining payments beginning from the date
the Project Completion Amendment is executed.
1.22 Termination for Cause
If the Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, or fails to use the funds only for those activities identified
in the SCOPE OF WORK, the BOARD may terminate the Agreement in whole or in part at any time. The BOARD shall
notify the Contractor in writing of its determination to terminate, the reason for such termination, and the effective date of
the termination. Nothing in this section shall affect the Contractor's obligation to repay the unpaid balance of a loan.
These terms supersede the terms in Section 2.40 Termination for Cause/Suspension.
1.23 Termination for Convenience
Notwithstanding anything in Section 2.41 Termination for Convenience, the BOARD may suspend or terminate this
Agreement in the event that funds are no longer available to the BOARD, or are not appropriated for the purpose of
meeting the BOARD’s obligations under this Agreement. Termination will be effective when the BOARD sends written
notice of termination to the Contractor. Nothing in this section shall affect the Contractor’s obligation to repay the unpaid
balance of the loan.
Page 198 of 309
8
SECTION 2: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
2.1 DEFINITIONS
As used throughout this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below:
A. “Authorized Representative” shall mean the Public Works Board Chair and/or the designee authorized in writing to
act on the Chair’s behalf.
B. "Contractor" shall mean the entity identified on the face sheet performing service(s) under this Agreement, and
shall include all employees and agents of the Contractor.
C. “BOARD” shall mean the Washington State Public Works Board created in Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
43.155.030, and which is a Party to the Agreement
D. “Personal Information” shall mean information identifiable to any person, including, but not limited to, information
that relates to a person’s name, health, finances, education, business, use or receipt of governmental services or
other activities, addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, driver license numbers, other identifying
numbers, and any financial identifiers.
E. ”State” shall mean the state of Washington.
F. "Subcontractor" shall mean one not in the employment of the Contractor, who is performing all or part of those
services under this Agreement under a separate contract with the Contractor. The terms “subcontractor” and
“subcontractors” mean subcontractor(s) in any tier.
2.2 ALLOWABLE COSTS
Costs allowable under this Agreement are actual expenditures according to an approved budget up to the maximum
amount stated on the Agreement Award or Amendment Face Sheet.
2.3 ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or
otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.
2.4 AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they
are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties.
2.5 APPROVAL
This Agreement shall be subject to the written approval of the BOARD’s Authorized Representative and shall not be
binding until so approved. The Agreement may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by
both parties.
2.6 ASSIGNMENT
Neither this Agreement, nor any claim arising under this Agreement, shall be transferred or assigned by the Contractor
without prior written consent of the BOARD.
2.7 ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Unless expressly permitted under another provision of the Agreement, in the event of litigation or other action brought to
enforce Agreement terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Page 199 of 309
9
2.8 AUDIT
A. General Requirements
If requested by the Board at any time during the Agreement period and six (6) years following termination of
the Agreement, Contractor will obtain an audit, at its own expense.
Contractors are to procure audit services based on the following guidelines.
The Contractor shall maintain its records and accounts so as to facilitate the audit requirement and shall
ensure that Subcontractors also maintain auditable records.
The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions incurred by its own organization or that of its
Subcontractors.
The BOARD reserves the right to recover from the Contractor all disallowed costs resulting from the audit.
Responses to any unresolved management findings and disallowed or questioned costs shall be included
with the audit report. The Contractor must respond to the BOARD’s request for information or corrective
action concerning audit issues within thirty (30) days of the date of request.
B. State Funds Requirements
In the event an audit is required, if the Contractor is a local government entity, the Office of the State Auditor
shall conduct the audit.
Audits of non-profit organizations are to be conducted by a certified public accountant selected by the
Contractor.
The Contractor shall include the above audit requirements in any subcontracts.
In any case, the Contractor’s financial records must be available for review by the BOARD.
2.9 CODE REQUIREMENTS
All construction and rehabilitation projects must satisfy the requirements of applicable local, state, and federal building,
mechanical, plumbing, fire, energy and barrier-free codes. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 28
C.F.R. Part 35 will be required, as specified by the local building Department.
2.10 CONFIDENTIALITY/SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION
A. “Confidential Information” as used in this section includes:
All material provided to the Contractor by the BOARD that is designated as “confidential” by the BOARD;
All material produced by the Contractor that is designated as “confidential” by the BOARD; and
All personal information in the possession of the Contractor that may not be disclosed under state or federal
law, including but not limited to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and
the Public Record Act, RCW 42.56.
B. The Contractor shall comply with all state and federal laws related to the use, sharing, transfer, sale, or disclosure
of Confidential Information. The Contractor shall use Confidential Information solely for the purposes of this
Agreement and shall not use, share, transfer, sell or disclose any Confidential Information to any third party
except with the prior written consent of the BOARD or as may be required by law. The Contractor shall take all
necessary steps to assure that Confidential Information is safeguarded to prevent unauthorized use, sharing,
transfer, sale or disclosure of Confidential Information or violation of any state or federal laws related thereto.
Upon request, the Contractor shall provide the BOARD with its policies and procedures on confidentiality. The
BOARD may require changes to such policies and procedures as they apply to this Agreement whenever the
BOARD reasonably determines that changes are necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosures. The Contractor
shall make the changes within the time period specified by the BOARD. Upon request, the Contractor shall
Page 200 of 309
10
immediately return to the BOARD any Confidential Information that the BOARD reasonably determines has not
been adequately protected by the Contractor against unauthorized disclosure.
C. Unauthorized Use or Disclosure. The Contractor shall notify the BOARD within five (5) working days of any
unauthorized use or disclosure of any confidential information, and shall take necessary steps to mitigate the
harmful effects of such use or disclosure.
2.11 CONFORMANCE
If any provision of this Agreement violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to
conform to that statute or rule of law.
2.12 COPYRIGHT PROVISIONS
Unless otherwise provided, all Materials produced under this Agreement shall be considered "works for hire" as defined by
the U.S. Copyright Act and shall be owned by the BOARD. The BOARD shall be considered the author of such Materials.
In the event the Materials are not considered “works for hire” under the U.S. Copyright laws, the Contractor hereby
irrevocably assigns all right, title, and interest in all Materials, including all intellectual property rights, moral rights, and
rights of publicity to the BOARD effective from the moment of creation of such Materials.
“Materials” means all items in any format and includes, but is not limited to, data, reports, documents, pamphlets,
advertisements, books, magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions.
“Ownership” includes the right to copyright, patent, register and the ability to transfer these rights.
For Materials that are delivered under the Agreement, but that incorporate pre-existing materials not produced under the
Agreement, the Contractor hereby grants to the BOARD a nonexclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license (with rights to
sublicense to others) in such Materials to translate, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, and
publicly display. The Contractor warrants and represents that the Contractor has all rights and permissions, including
intellectual property rights, moral rights and rights of publicity, necessary to grant such a license to the BOARD.
The Contractor shall exert all reasonable effort to advise the BOARD, at the time of delivery of Materials furnished under
this Agreement, of all known or potential invasions of privacy contained therein and of any portion of such document which
was not produced in the performance of this Agreement. The Contractor shall provide the BOARD with prompt written
notice of each notice or claim of infringement received by the Contractor with respect to any Materials delivered under this
Agreement. The BOARD shall have the right to modify or remove any restrictive markings placed upon the Materials by
the Contractor.
2.13 DISALLOWED COSTS
The Contractor is responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by its own organization or that of its
Subcontractors.
2.14 DISPUTES
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, when a dispute arises between the parties and it cannot be resolved by
direct negotiation, either party may request a dispute hearing with the Chair of the BOARD, who may designate a neutral
person to decide the dispute.
The request for a dispute hearing must:
be in writing;
state the disputed issues;
state the relative positions of the parties;
provide a copy of all relevant documents or other evidence to be considered;
state the Contractor's name, address, and Agreement number; and
Page 201 of 309
11
be mailed to the BOARD Chair and the other party’s (respondent’s) Representative within three (3) working days
after the parties agree that they cannot resolve the dispute.
The respondent shall send a written answer to the requestor’s statement, and provide a copy of all relevant documents or
other evidence to be considered, to both the Chair or the Chair’s designee and the requestor within five (5) working days.
The Chair or designee shall review the written statements and reply in writing to both parties within ten (10)working days.
The Chair or designee may extend this period if necessary by notifying the parties.
The decision shall not be admissible in any succeeding judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.
The parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the parties’ choice of a mutually acceptable alternate dispute
resolution (ADR) method in addition to the dispute hearing procedure outlined above.
2.15 DUPLICATE PAYMENT
The Contractor certifies that work to be performed under this Agreement does not duplicate any work to be charged
against any other agreement, contract, subcontract, or other source.
2.16 ETHICS/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In performing under this Agreement, the Contractor shall assure compliance with the Ethics in Public Service Act, RCW
42.52 and any other applicable local, state or federal law related to ethics or conflicts of interests.
2.17 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington, and the venue
of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County.
2.18 INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the state of Washington,
COMMERCE, BOARD, agencies of the state and all officials, agents and employees of the state, from and against all
claims for injuries or death arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Agreement. “Claim,” as used in this
Agreement, means any financial loss, claim, suit, action, damage, or expense, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees,
attributable for bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or injury to or the destruction of tangible property including loss of
use resulting therefrom.
The Contractor’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless includes any claim by Contractor’s agents,
employees, representatives, or any subgrantee/subcontractor or its employees.
The Contractor’s obligation shall not include such claims that may be caused by the sole negligence of the State and its
agencies, officials, agents, and employees. If the claims or damages are caused by or result from the concurrent
negligence of (a) the State, its agents or employees and (b) the Contractor, its subcontractors, agents, or employees, this
indemnity provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Contractor or its
subcontractors, agents, or employees.
The Contractor waives its immunity under RCW 51 to the extent it is required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
state and its agencies, officers, agents or employees.
2.19 INDEPENDENT CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTOR
The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The Contractor and its
employees or agents performing under this Agreement are not employees or agents of the state of Washington or the
BOARD. The Contractor will not hold itself out as or claim to be an officer or employee of the BOARD or of the state of
Page 202 of 309
12
Washington by reason hereof, nor will the Contractor make any claim of right, privilege or benefit which would accrue to
such officer or employee under law. Conduct and control of the work will be solely with the Contractor.
2.20 INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of RCW 51, Industrial Insurance. If the Contractor fails to
provide industrial insurance coverage or fails to pay premiums or penalties on behalf of its employees as may be required
by law, the BOARD may collect from the Contractor the full amount payable to the Industrial Insurance Accident Fund.
The BOARD may deduct the amount owed by the Contractor to the accident fund from the amount payable to the
Contractor by the BOARD under this Agreement, and transmit the deducted amount to the Department of Labor and
Industries, (L&I) Division of Insurance Services. This provision does not waive any of L&I’s rights to collect from the
Contractor.
2.21 LAWS
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations and policies of local and state and
federal governments, as now or hereafter amended.
2.22 LICENSING, ACCREDITATION AND REGISTRATION
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal licensing, accreditation and registration
requirements or standards necessary for the performance of this Agreement.
2.23 LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY
Only the Authorized Representative or Authorized Representative’s designee by writing (designation to be made prior to
action) shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, or waive any clause or condition of
this Agreement.
2.24 LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORATION COORDINATION
Where applicable, Contractor shall participate in local public transportation forums and implement strategies designed to
ensure access to services.
2.25 NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCRIMINATION LAWS
During the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor shall comply with all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination
laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Contractor’s non-compliance or refusal to comply with any
nondiscrimination law, regulation or policy, this Agreement may be rescinded, canceled or terminated in whole or in part,
and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further contracts with the Board. The Contractor shall, however, be given
a reasonable time in which to cure this noncompliance. Any dispute may be resolved in accordance with Section 2.14
Disputes.
2.26 PAY EQUITY
The Contractor agrees to ensure that “similarly employed” individuals in its workforce are compensated as equals,
consistent with the following:
A. Employees are “similarly employed” if the individuals work for the same employer, the performance of the job
requires comparable skill, effort, and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.
Job titles alone are not determinative of whether employees are similarly employed;
B. Contractor may allow differentials in compensation for its workers if the differentials are based in good faith and
on any of the following:
Page 203 of 309
13
a. A seniority system; a merit system; a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
a bona fide job-related factor or factors; or a bona fide regional difference in compensation levels.
b. A bona fide job-related factor or factors may include, but not be limited to, education, training, or
experience that is: Consistent with business necessity; not based on or derived from a gender-based
differential; and accounts for the entire differential.
c. A bona fide regional difference in compensation level must be: Consistent with business necessity; not
based on or derived from a gender-based differential; and account for the entire differential.
This Agreement may be terminated by the BOARD if the BOARD, the Department of Commerce, or the Department of
Enterprise Services determines that the Contractor is not in compliance with this provision.
2.27 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Political activity of Contractor employees and officers are limited by the State Campaign Finances and Lobbying
provisions of RCW 42.17A.
No funds may be used for working for or against ballot measures or for or against the candidacy of any person for public
office.
2.28 PREVAILING WAGE LAW
The Contractor certifies that all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the Project shall comply with state
Prevailing Wages on Public Works, RCW 39.12, as applicable to the Project funded by this contract, including but not
limited to the filing of the “Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages” and “Affidavit of Wages Paid” as required by RCW
39.12.040. The Contractor shall maintain records sufficient to evidence compliance with RCW 39.12, and shall make such
records available for the BOARDs review upon request.
2.29 PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF BONUS OR COMMISSION
The funds provided under this Agreement shall not be used in payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of
obtaining approval of the application for such funds or any other approval or concurrence under this Agreement provided,
however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical consultant, managerial, or other such services, other than actual
solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as project costs.
2.30 PUBLICITY
The Contractor agrees not to publish or use any advertising or publicity materials in which the state of Washington or the
BOARD’s name is mentioned, or language used from which the connection with the state of Washington’s or the
BOARD’s name may reasonably be inferred or implied, without the prior written consent of the BOARD.
2.31 RECAPTURE
In the event that the Contractor fails to perform this Agreement in accordance with state laws, federal laws, and/or the
provisions of this Agreement, the BOARD reserves the right to recapture funds, in addition to any other remedies available
at law or in equity.
Repayment by the Contractor of funds under this recapture provision shall occur within the time period specified by the
BOARD. In the alternative, the BOARD may recapture such funds from payments due under this contract.
2.32 RECORDS MANAGEMENT
The Contractor shall maintain all books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this Agreement and
performance of the services described herein, including but not limited to accounting procedures and practices which
Page 204 of 309
14
sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this Agreement.
Contractor shall retain such records for a period of six years following the date of final payment.
If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until
all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been finally resolved.
2.33 REGISTRATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
If required by law, the Contractor shall complete registration with the Washington State Department of Revenue.
2.34 RIGHT OF INSPECTION
At no additional cost all records relating to the Contractor’s performance under this Agreement shall be subject at all
reasonable times to inspection, review, and audit by the BOARD, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal and state
officials so authorized by law, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and quality assurance under this
Agreement. The Contractor shall provide access to its facilities for this purpose.
2.35 LOSS OF FUNDING
In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective
date of this Agreement and prior to normal completion, the BOARD may terminate the Agreement under the "Termination
for Convenience" clause, without the ten business day notice requirement. In lieu of termination, the Agreement may be
amended to reflect the new funding limitations and conditions.
2.36 SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement that can be given effect without the invalid provision, if
such remainder conforms to the requirements of law and the fundamental purpose of this Agreement and to this end the
provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.
2.37 SUBCONTRACTING
The Contractor shall maintain written procedures related to subcontracting, as well as copies of all subcontracts and
records related to subcontracts. For cause, the BOARD in writing may: (a) require the Contractor to amend its
subcontracting procedures as they relate to this Agreement; (b) prohibit the Contractor from subcontracting with a
particular person or entity; or (c) require the Contractor to rescind or amend a subcontract.
Every subcontract shall bind the Subcontractor to follow all applicable terms of this Agreement. The Contractor is
responsible to the BOARD if the Subcontractor fails to comply with any applicable term or condition of this Agreement.
The Contractor shall appropriately monitor the activities of the Subcontractor to assure fiscal conditions of this Agreement.
In no event shall the existence of a subcontract operate to release or reduce the liability of the Contractor to the BOARD
for any breach in the performance of the Contractor’s duties.
Every subcontract shall include a term that the BOARD and the State of Washington are not liable for claims or damages
arising from a Subcontractor’s performance of the subcontract.
2.38 SURVIVAL
The terms, conditions, and warranties contained in this Agreement that by their sense and context are intended to survive
the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Agreement shall so survive.
Page 205 of 309
15
2.39 TAXES
All payments accrued on account of payroll taxes, unemployment contributions, the Contractor’s income or gross receipts,
any other taxes, insurance or expenses for the Contractor, other than sales taxes owed for goods or services provided for
this Agreement, or its staff shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.
2.40 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE/SUSPENSION
In the event the BOARD determines the Contractor has failed to comply with the conditions of this Agreement in a timely
manner, the BOARD has the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement. Before suspending or terminating the
Agreement, the BOARD shall notify the Contractor in writing of the need to take corrective action. If corrective action is not
taken within 30 calendar days, the Agreement may be terminated or suspended.
In the event of termination or suspension, the Contractor shall be liable for damages as authorized by law.
The BOARD reserves the right to suspend all or part of the contract, withhold further payments, or prohibit the Contractor
from incurring additional obligations of funds during investigation of the alleged compliance breach and pending corrective
action by the Contractor or a decision by the BOARD to terminate the contract. A termination shall be deemed a
“Termination for Convenience” if it is determined that the Contractor: (1) was not in default; or (2) failure to perform was
outside of his or her control, fault or negligence.
The rights and remedies of the BOARD provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are, in addition to any other
rights and remedies, provided by law.
2.41 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement the BOARD may, with ten (10) business days written notice, beginning on
the second day after the notice is sent, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part. If this Agreement is so terminated,
the BOARD shall be liable only for payment required under the terms of this Agreement for services rendered or goods
delivered prior to the effective date of termination.
2.42 TERMINATION PROCEDURES
Upon termination of this contract, the BOARD, in addition to any other rights provided in this Agreement.
The rights and remedies of the BOARD provided in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other
rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.
After receipt of a notice of termination, and except as otherwise directed by the Authorized Representative, the Contractor
shall:
A. Stop work under the Agreement on the date, and to the extent specified, in the notice;
B. Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, services, or facilities except as may be necessary for
completion of such portion of the work under the Agreement that is not terminated;
C. Assign to the BOARD, in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized Representative, all
of the rights, title, and interest of the Contractor under the orders and subcontracts so terminated, in which case
the BOARD has the right, at its discretion, to settle or pay any or all claims arising out of the termination of such
orders and subcontracts;
D. Settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and subcontracts, with the
approval or ratification of the Authorized Representative to the extent the Authorized Representative may require,
which approval or ratification shall be final for all the purposes of this clause;
E. Transfer title to the BOARD and deliver in the manner, at the times, and to the extent directed by the Authorized
Representative any property which, if the Agreement had been completed, would have been required to be
furnished to the BOARD;
F. Complete performance of such part of the work as shall not have been terminated by the Authorized
Representative; and
Page 206 of 309
16
G. Take such action as may be necessary, or as the Authorized Representative may direct, for the protection and
preservation of the property related to this contract, which is in the possession of the Contractor and in which the
BOARD has or may acquire an interest.
2.43 TREATMENT OF ASSETS
Title to all property furnished by the BOARD shall remain with the BOARD. Title to all property furnished by the Contractor,
for the cost of which the Contractor is entitled to be reimbursed as a direct item of cost under this contract, shall pass to
and vest in the Contractor.
2.44 WAIVER
Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall
not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated to be such in writing and signed by
Authorized Representative of the Board.
Page 207 of 309
17
ATTACHMENT I: ATTORNEY’S CERTIFICATION
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD
CONTRACTOR: City of Pasco
Agreement Number: PC26-96410-016
I, , hereby certify:
I am an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of Washington and the duly appointed attorney of City of Pasco
(the CONTRACTOR); and
By my initials below, I acknowledge that one of the following is true:
I have also examined any and all documents and records which are pertinent to the Agreement, including the
application requesting this financial assistance.
As to questions of fact material to the opinions expressed herein, I have relied upon the certifications and
representations of the Contractor without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation.
Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that:
1. The CONTRACTOR is a public body, properly constituted and operating under the laws of the state of
Washington, empowered to receive and expend federal, state and local funds, to enter into an Agreement with the
state of Washington, and to receive and expend the funds involved to accomplish the objectives set forth in their
application.
2. The CONTRACTOR is empowered to accept the BOARD’s financial assistance and to provide for repayment of
the loan as set forth in the Agreement.
3. There is currently no litigation in existence seeking to enjoin the commencement or completion of the above-
described public facilities project or to enjoin the CONTRACTOR from repaying any loan extended by the BOARD
with respect to such project. The CONTRACTOR is not a party to litigation which will materially affect its ability to
repay such loan on the terms contained in the Agreement.
4. Assumption of this obligation would not exceed statutory and administrative rule debt limitations applicable to the
CONTRACTOR.
Signature of Attorney Date
Daniel P. Kenny
Name
Page 208 of 309
Pasco City Council
March 2, 2026
Regular Meeting
Pa
g
e
2
0
9
o
f
3
0
9
Lewis Street Underpass Demolition
Public Works Board
Funding Award
March 2, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
2
1
0
o
f
3
0
9
Lewis Street Underpass Demolition
Pa
g
e
2
1
1
o
f
3
0
9
Pa
g
e
2
1
2
o
f
3
0
9
Lewis Street Underpass Demolition
Pa
g
e
2
1
3
o
f
3
0
9
Lewis Street Underpass Demolition
Pa
g
e
2
1
4
o
f
3
0
9
Lewis Street Underpass Demolition
Pa
g
e
2
1
5
o
f
3
0
9
Public Works Board Award
Public Works Board Funding: $3.5Million
•$1,750,000 in Low interest loan
at 1.06% interest rate 20-Year term;
•$1,750,000 in Forgivable principal
functions as a grant;
•No match required
•Annual repayment obligation of $100,000
from REET Fund
Pa
g
e
2
1
6
o
f
3
0
9
Questions?Pa
g
e
2
1
7
o
f
3
0
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 5, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 4710 - Third Amendment to RH2 Engineering, Inc.
Professional Services Agreement for Irrigation System Expansion
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION:City the authorizing 4710, No. to approve move I Resolution
Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 for the professional services agreement
with and for services construction design RH2 for Inc. Engineering, the
Irrigation Systems Expansion Project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with
RH2 Engineering, Inc. (RH2) for the Irrigation System Expansion project not to
exceed $539,743.
Summary:
Original PSA $ 295,662
Amendment No. 1 $ 0
Amendment No. 2 $ 233,857
Amendment No. 3 (proposed) $ 539,743
New PSA Total $ 1,069,262
Adopted budget for this project is currently $7.6 million, with sources as follows:
$7,591,971 are in a revenue bond for this purpose, to be repaid by
future utility revenues.
$41,274 are paid through the Irrigation Utility fund (end balance).
Page 218 of 309
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background:
In 2018, a detailed evaluation of the City's irrigation system found supply
deficiencies within the existing area of service, resulting in low pressure areas
with no capacity for expansion. In response, a series of projects and
operational changes were initiated by the City.
A large part of the effort over the past several years has involved the United
States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the South Columbia Basin Irrigation
District (SCBID) in order to plan and implement a project where the City
purchases water from USBR and it is delivered (wheeled) to the City by SCBID
at a location at the end of their canal system. Through collaboration the
agencies have developed a viable plan that if fully implemented will be of
benefit to all parties.
On April 26, 2022, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement
(PSA) with RH2 to perform a final design for the Municipal & Industrial (M&I)
Pump Station and to work with SCBID and Barker Ranch (developer) on
delivery and pipeline details to serve both the upper and lower zones within the
expanded service area. RH2 was to prepare plans and specifications required
for a complete set of bid documents, and cost estimate for review and
feedback and finalize documents for bidding, however as a result of the
special permitting processes, and ongoing negotiations with SCBID and Barker
Ranch, the project needs evolved and design needed to be adjusted.
Amendment No. 1 of the PSA was executed on November 28, 2023, and was a
no cost contract extension. During the additional time, the City and RH2 had
been pursuing an agreement and requirements for the USBR water contract
(now complete), as well as changes to the pump station site within the
proposed Barker Ranch development.
Amendment No. 2 scope primarily focused on updates to the design to
coincide with the USBR Municipal & Industrial (M&I) Agreement and the
requirements for taking water delivered by SCBID. This amendment also
incorporated the changes to the site plan and the characteristics of irrigation
pump station in coordination with the plat adjustments for Barker Ranch and
special permit conditions issued by the hearing examiner. This amendment
included scope and fee for design beginning at 60% and continued assistance
in coordination with USBR, SCBID and private development stakeholders.
Impact (other than fiscal):
The proposed upgrades will provide the distribution and irrigation infrastructure
needed to increase the supply of Irrigation system for the City and allow better
service for current users and sustainable expansion to serve new customers.
Page 219 of 309
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed Amendment No. 3 to RH2 Professional services agreement
addresses the additional work needed for the building surrounding the pump
station, needed to meet noise level limits. Additionally, this project has proven
to be a heavy coordination effort as we anticipate all three entities will have
contractors season. off irrigation during time, The the at site on same
subdivision the rehabilitation, canal the for needed infrastructure SCBID
construction and the pump station itself have significant overlap, an example of
that is the roadway and utility crossing from Broadmoor onto the Atlantic Drive
roadway alignment. These final efforts are collaborative, and expected to
render efficiencies and flexibility to the parties involved. The ultimate goal is a
well-coordinated infrastructure construction.
The amendment also adds consultant services during bidding and construction,
to be able to support the project through completion.
The project is currently expected to be advertised for bids in early late
March/early April.
Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed and recommends approval of Amendment No. 3 to the PSA
with RH2 Engineering in the amount of NOT TO EXCEED of $539,743.00 for
the Irrigation System Expansion project.
Constraints (Time or other considerations):
The construction of this project needs to be completed during the 2026/2027
Irrigation off season. The City has made commitments with developers in the
area for irrigation service to be available during the 2027 season.
Additionally the city holds an agreement with USBR for the lease of water,
which is an ongoing expense. It is not in the best interest of the utility to delay
system availability.
Next Steps:
Provided the Council approves the amendment, staff will work with the
consultant to complete all necessary contractual documentation in the
upcoming weeks and advertise the project for bids promptly.
Alternatives:
Council may choose to reject the amendment. This is not recommended
since the construction and operational timeline is needed to meet the
2027 deadline.
Page 220 of 309
Page 221 of 309
Resolution - Irrigation System Expansion PSA Amendment No. 3 - 1
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
APPROVES CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3 FOR THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RH2 ENGINEERING, INC.
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS EXPANSION PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (City) and RH2 Engineering, Inc., entered into a
Professional Service Agreement on April 26, 2022, to provide Engineering services with respect
to the Irrigation System Expansion Project (previously titled: NW Irrigation Systems Expansion);
and
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering Inc., entered into Amendment No. 1 on
November 28, 2023, to additional time of performance; and
WHEREAS, the City and RH2 Engineering Inc., entered into Amendment No. 2 on April
23, 2025, to provide additional professional engineering services; 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. to provide additional professional engineering services, services
during construction, and additional time of performance
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 222 of 309
Resolution - Irrigation System Expansion PSA Amendment No. 3 - 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ____ day of March,
2026.
Charles Grimm
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Krystle Shanks Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
Page 223 of 309
1
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
Scope of Work
Amendment No. 3
City of Pasco
Irrigation System Expansion
February 2026
Background
As part of the City of Pasco’s (City) Irrigation System Expansion project (previously identified as the
Northwest Irrigation System Upgrade project), the City engaged RH2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) to
design a Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Pump Station within the Barker Heights development in
northwest Pasco with supply from the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District (SCBID). The project
has evolved through ongoing coordination among the City, SCBID, and the Barker Heights developers
since 2022 and is nearing completion, with the goal of delivering irrigation water at some point
during the 2027 irrigation season.
Earlier design concepts for the M&I Pump Station assumed an outdoor configuration. As part of the
City’s Special Use Permit, a nighttime noise limit of 45 decibels was imposed for the site. During
development of the 90-percent design, the City directed RH2 to perform a preliminary noise
evaluation. The evaluation included measurements at existing indoor and outdoor pump stations in
the Tri-Cities area, as well as ambient noise measurements at the project site, to estimate potential
impacts to nearby residences.
The noise evaluation indicated that compliance with the permit’s nighttime noise limit could not be
reliably achieved with an outdoor pump station configuration. Based on these findings, the City
directed RH2 to revise the design to enclose the pump station within a concrete masonry unit (CMU)
building during the 90-percent design phase. In addition, during the 90-percent design review
meeting, the City directed RH2 to incorporate a gantry crane/hoist into the structure, requiring
further redesign.
Incorporating the enclosed structure and crane represented a substantial change from the prior
design direction and required significant redesign across civil, mechanical, electrical, controls,
structural, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning disciplines. In parallel, assumptions made
earlier in the design regarding the finalized status of the Barker Heights development plat proved
inaccurate, as the plat has continued to evolve in ways that materially affect the project, including
revisions as recent as February 2026. As a result, additional engineering effort is required to complete
the redesign and advance the project from 90 -percent design to bid-ready design.
This Scope of Work identifies the remaining effort required to complete bid-ready design updates,
replenishes budget previously expended, at the City’s direction, on structural design revisions , and
expands services during construction beyond the limited scope previously authorized . Funds
originally allocated for permitting assistance, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and
control system coordination, services during bidding, and services during construction were
EXHIBIT A
Page 224 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
2
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
redirected to support the building design and are replenished through this amendment. Tasks
previously authorized under earlier scopes of work that are unchanged are not restated herein;
rather, replenished funds may be used to complete previously agreed-upon services where available
budget was reallocated. Portions of the work described in this Scope of Work have already been
performed.
This Scope of Work will be supported by RH2’s subsidiary, Control Systems NW LLC (CSNW), via
intercompany subcontract services agreement.
Task 6 – Services During Construction (Amended Task)
Objective: Provide engineering and construction support services during project construction to
assist the City. Perform regular site visits as Engineer of Record to observe construction progress,
coordinate with the City and its designated representatives, and respond to technical questions and
construction issues that arise during construction.
Approach:
6.1 Attend Weekly Construction Meetings: Attend weekly construction meetings. Prepare
meeting agendas, attend meetings, facilitate discussions, document and distribute meeting
minutes, and coordinate follow-up items. Time associated with travel to and from the project
site is included. Up to two (2) RH2 staff members (typically the Project Manager and a Project
Engineer) are assumed to attend most meetings. It is assumed that up to forty-four (44)
meetings will occur, requiring an average of four (4) hours per meeting for all related services.
6.2 Maintain Contractor and City Communication: Communicate with the contractor and the City
throughout construction to respond to questions, provide clarification of construction
contract documents, and coordinate resolution of construction-related issues.
Communication may include phone calls, emails, and face-to-face discussions occurring
outside of scheduled site visits or meetings.
6.3 Review Submittals: Review contractor submittals and resubmittals for conformance with the
construction contract documents and design intent. Prepare written comments and
coordinate with the City as needed. This subtask assumes approximately eighty (80) total
submittals (including resubmittals), with an average review effort of 2½ hours per submittal.
6.4 Review RFIs, Construction Directives, and Change Orders: Review and respond to requests for
information (RFIs), prepare or assist with construction directives, and support evaluation of
change orders. Provide technical review, coordinate with the City, and prepare written
responses or recommendations. This subtask assumes approximately thirty (30) total items at
an average of four (4) hours each.
6.5 Provide Limited Pay Request Support: Provide limited assistance with pay request review,
which may include quantity verification and reconciliation and, if requested, on-site
confirmation of quantities. The City intends to review, prepare, and process contractor pay
requests. RH2’s involvement under this subtask is anticipated to be occasional and
supplemental in nature. This subtask assumes an allowance of up to approximately four
(4) hours per month.
Page 225 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
3
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
6.6 Perform Construction Observations: Perform regular site visits to observe construction
progress and conformance with the construction contract documents. Observe progress,
coordinate with the contractor, travel t o and from the site, and prepare Observation Daily
Reports (ODRs). ODRs may consist of handwritten field notes or typed reports depending on
the nature of the observation. ODRs and construction documentation will be posted to a
shared file site on a weekly basis for City reference and recordkeeping. Regular observation
efforts are intended to be targeted and efficient, with the goal of maintaining close
coordination with the contractor while avoiding redundant observation of work that will
remain accessible for future observation. The level of effort may vary depending on contractor
performance, superintendent capabilities, and prior experience of the City and RH2 with the
contractor. This subtask assumes an average of three (3) site visits per week at four (4) hours
per visit.
6.7 Provide Limited Special Inspection Support: Provide observation and technical support as
requested during selected special inspection activities associated with critical construction
elements. Attend portions of special inspections as a secondary set of eyes to observe work,
provide engineering interpretation of the construction contract documents, and assist the City
in resolving technical questions that arise during these activities. The City will provide
construction inspection services through its designated inspector and retain special inspection
and materials testing consultants directly. Subgrade, concrete, and rebar inspections and
associated testing will be performed by the City’s materials testing agency and are outside of
RH2’s Scope of Work. RH2 will not be responsible for performing, directing, or certifying special
inspections or materials testing. Coordination of special inspections will be led by the City and
its inspection consultants, with RH2 providing coordination support as requested. This subtask
includes an allowance of up to one hundred eighty (180) hours of RH2 time to support spec ial
inspection activities; however, it is not anticipated that the full allowance will be utilized.
6.8 Attend Startup and Testing: Provide engineering support during startup and testing activities.
Services may include observation of pipe pressure testing, observation and technical support
during mechanical equipment checkout, assistance with testing of controls, alarms,
generators, and automatic transfer switches, and preparation and coordination of punchlist
items with the City and contractor. Startup and testing activities will be performed by the
contractor, with RH2 and CSNW providing observation, engineering interpretation, and
technical assistance as requested.
6.9 Provide Construction Contract Administration: Provide construction contract administration
services, assistance with preparation of the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed,
preparation of letters of substantial and final completion, development of the construction
completion report, and support for project closeout.
6.10 Prepare Record Drawings: Prepare record drawings based on contractor markups and other
construction documentation. Incorporate markups and perform limited coordination with the
contractor and City for clarification and internal quality control review.
Page 226 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
4
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
Assumptions:
• Construction is anticipated to last ten (10) months.
• Services are limited to those described herein and will be performed to the level of effort
identified in the attached Fee Estimate. If additional effort is needed, that extra work will by
mutually determined by the City and RH2.
• RH2 is not responsible for site safety or for directing the City’s consultants or contractors in
their work.
• Deliverables will be provided in electronic format (PDF) unless otherwise noted.
Provided by City:
• Attendance at weekly construction meetings.
• Processing of monthly pay requests.
• Full-time construction inspection.
• Coordinate, schedule, retain, and oversee special inspections and materials testing firms.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Weekly construction meeting agendas, attendance, and minutes.
• Written responses to submittals.
• Written responses to RFIs and change order requests.
• Review of pay requests.
• On-site observations and applicable field observation reports and documentation.
• Observation of selected special inspections.
• Attendance at startup and testing.
• Project punchlist.
• Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed.
• Substantial and final completion letters.
• Construction completion report.
• Record drawings.
Task 8 – Project Management (Amended Task)
Objective: Administer, manage, and monitor the RH2 project team, resources, communications,
scope progress, budget, files, and records throughout bid-ready design and construction phases.
Approach:
8.1 Monitor Progress: Review and monitor project progress, schedule, scope, and budget.
Page 227 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
5
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
8.2 Manage Team: Manage the RH2 project team and resources.
8.3 Prepare Invoices: Provide monthly invoices with progress reports documenting work performed
and budget status.
8.4 Communicate with City: Communicate with the City regarding project progress, invoicing, and
schedule.
8.5 Maintain Files: Maintain electronic project files and records.
RH2 Deliverables:
•Monthly invoices and progress reports.
Task 9 – BPS Structure Design Updates (New Task)
Objective: Prepare bid-ready design plans, specifications, and an Engineer’s opinion of probable
construction cost (OPCC) for the project incorporating revisions associated with the addition of the
BPS building and crane, as well as updates resulting from re-platting the Barker Heights development.
Approach:
9.1 Prepare Structural Design: Prepare bid-ready structural design documents, calculations, and
details for the proposed CMU pump station structure , gantry crane/hoist, ancillary supports,
and structural elements.
9.2 Prepare Civil Design: Prepare bid-ready civil design documents, including the following:
a)Coordinate with SCBID to finalize the pump station suction line and emergency overflow
wasteway culvert design. Prepare bid-ready design plans for the PPL 6.0 wasteway culverts.
Coordinate with SCBID regarding construction sequencing requirements and delineation of
construction responsibilities for inclusion in the specifications.
b)Coordinate with the Barker Heights developer’s representative, JF Engineering, Inc.,
(JF Engineering), to obtain the most current AutoCAD base mapping and topographic files
for the Barker Heights Subdivision. Use consistent boundary and topographic data for the
M&I Pump Station and associated transmission main improvements.
c)Prepare bid-ready cover sheets, general information drawings, and construction phasing
plans.
d)Prepare bid-ready site and civil plans showing existing site conditions, temporary erosion
and sediment control measures, site grading, proposed facility layout, surface
improvements, and utility improvements. Prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
and Traffic Control Plan.
e)Prepare bid-ready design plans for off-site transmission mains and coordinate points of
connection with JF Engineering.
9.3 Prepare Mechanical Design: Prepare bid-ready mechanical design plans, including mechanical
drawings showing proposed piping layouts and equipment installations revised to account for
the added BPS building.
Page 228 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
6
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
9.4 Prepare Electrical Design: Prepare bid-ready electrical, instrumentation, and control design
documents, including power distribution, standby generator systems, process instrumentation
and controls, and telemetry systems compatible with the City’s existing SCADA infrastructure ,
revised to account for the added BPS building.
9.5 Prepare Engineer’s OPCC: Prepare a bid-ready OPCC based on the completed 99-percent design
and bid-ready documents, revised to account for the added BPS building.
9.6 Prepare Technical and Non-Technical Specifications: Prepare bid-ready non-technical (front-
end) and technical specifications. Front-end documents will include the advertisement for bids,
instructions to bidders, general conditions, construction contract, insurance requirements, and
standard public works forms, based on City-provided templates and modified by RH2 for this
project. Technical specifications will include Division 1 (General Requirements) through Division
18 (Measurement and Payment) based on RH2’s modified Construction Specifications Institute
format.
9.7 Perform Internal QA/QC Review: Perform an internal quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) review of the 99-percent and bid-ready design plans, specifications, and OPCC.
9.8 Attend 99-Percent Design Review Meeting: Submit the 99-percent design plans, specifications,
and OPCC to the City, SCBID, and JF Engineering for review. Prepare a meeting agenda, attend
one (1) review meeting with the City, and prepare meeting minutes. Review and respond to
comments from any third-party review of the 99-percent design documents, if applicable.
9.9 Prepare Bid-Ready Documents: Incorporate 99-percent design review comments, QA/QC
comments, and applicable permitting conditions into the plans and specifications. Prepare
bid-ready construction documents and a final OPCC.
Assumptions:
• SCBID reviews will be limited to components related to delivery of water from the PP L 6.0,
retrieval of water from the PPL 6.0 wasteway, and improvements either crossing or located
within the PPL 6.0 wasteway.
• SCBID will design or provide adequate details to be incorporated into the plan set for the
30-inch-diameter delivery on the PPL 6.0 that will be connected to the M&I Pump Station
suction line.
• Power extensions for the project will include sufficient three-phase power to the Phase 1, Lot 1
site. The electrical service provider will bring a ground-level pad-mounted transformer to the
site for use on this project.
• RH2 will rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information, data, and materials
generated or produced by the City or others in relation to this Scope of Work. RH2 assumes
that the entity providing such information is either the owner of such information or has
obtained written authorization from the owner to distribute said information.
• Meetings are assumed to take place at the City’s public works and engineering offices but may
take place virtually as requested. The City and RH2 will mutually agree on the meeting format.
Page 229 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
7
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
• The design will utilize City standard details and City general contractual conditions and forms
to the extent applicable.
• The design does not include additional provisions for other utilities. If additional utilities are
added to this Scope of Work, an amendment will need to be mutually determined between
the City and RH2.
• Upon reviewing information, materials, or data provided by others in relation to this project,
RH2 will coordinate with the City to identify missing or incomplete information deemed
necessary to complete the work. Any work outside of this Scope of Work will be negotiated as
part of an amendment. It was previously assumed that the Barker Heights development plat
map and proposed M&I BPS site reviewed with the City on December 3, 2024, reflect ed the
final configuration of the Barker Heights development, and there would be no additional
developer-driven changes requiring another re-design of the M&I BPS. It is now assumed that
the Barker Heights development plat map submitted to the City in November 2025 by the
developer’s representatives reflects the final configuration of the Barker Heights development
and once incorporated into the M&I BPS plans, there will be no additional developer-driven
changes requiring another re-design of the M&I BPS. Any additional work triggered by future
changes to the Barker Heights development will be considered work performed outside of this
Scope of Work.
• It is assumed that the irrigation main construction will be done in the right-of-way, within
dedicated streets of the proposed subdivision, or within a defined easement; therefore, there
is no need to research or provide services for easement acquisition.
• It is assumed that no utilities with cathodic protection are present in the vicinity of the
proposed alignment.
• Services during bidding will be provided in accordance with the scope of work previously
authorized under Amendment No. 2. Funds originally allocated for services during bidding that
were expended at the City’s direction to support the structural design revisions during
development of the 90-percent plans will be replenished through this amendment. No
additional funds are requested for services during bidding or for any other scope items
previously authorized under Amendment No. 2.
Provided by City:
• Front-end bid forms and construction contract documents in MS Word format.
• Review comments on 99-percent design documents.
• Attendance at 99-percent design review meeting.
RH2 Deliverables:
• Structural calculations.
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Traffic Control Plan.
• 99-percent plans, specifications, and OPCC.
Page 230 of 309
City of Pasco Amendment No. 3
Irrigation System Expansion Exhibit A – Scope of Work
8
2/10/2026 4:20:15 PM \\CORP.RH2.COM\PROJECTS\PROJECT\DATA\PSC\22-0079\00 CONTRACT\AMEND NO. 3\AMEND NO. 3_SOW_IRR SYSTEM EXPANSION.DOCX
• Meeting agenda, attendance, and minutes for the 99-percent design review meeting.
• Bid-ready plans, specifications, and OPCC.
Project Schedule
Project advertisement is anticipated in March 2026. Contract award and submittal reviews are
anticipated in summer 2026. On-site construction is anticipated to begin in fall 2026 and continue
into summer 2027. Startup, testing, and project closeout is anticipated to take place in late summer
or fall 2027.
Page 231 of 309
EXHIBIT B
Fee Estimate
Amendment No. 3
City of Pasco
Irrigation System Expansion
Feb-26
Description
Total
Hours
Total RH2
Labor
Total
Hours
Total CSNW
Labor
Total ALL
Hours
Total ALL
Labor
Total RH2
Expense
Total CSNW
Expense
Total
Expense
Total Cost
Task 6 Services During Construction 1,596 348,786$ 12 2,888$ 1608 351,674$ 25,815$ 72$ 25,887$ 377,561$
Task 8 Project Management 140 33,741$ --$ 140 33,741$ 954$ -$ 954$ 34,695$
Task 9 BPS Structure Design Updates 537 118,200$ --$ 537 118,200$ 9,287$ -$ 9,287$ 127,487$
PROJECT TOTAL 2,273 500,727$ 12 2,888$ 2,285 503,615$ 36,055$ 72$ 36,128$ 539,743$
\\corp.rh2.com\projects\Project\Data\PSC\22-0079\00 Contract\Amend No. 3\Amend No. 3_FEE_Irr System Expansion 2/10/2026 3:32 PM
Pa
g
e
2
3
2
o
f
3
0
9
RATE LIST RATE UNIT
Professional I $179 $/hr
Professional II $196 $/hr
Professional III $217 $/hr
Professional IV $240 $/hr
Professional V $256 $/hr
Professional VI $274 $/hr
Professional VII $298 $/hr
Professional VIII $324 $/hr
Professional IX $328 $/hr
Technician I $138 $/hr
Technician II $152 $/hr
Technician III $172 $/hr
Technician IV $186 $/hr
Technician V $205 $/hr
Technician VI $224 $/hr
Technician VII $243 $/hr
Technician VIII $254 $/hr
Control Specialist I $179 $/hr
Control Specialist II $196 $/hr
Control Specialist III $217 $/hr
Control Specialist IV $240 $/hr
Control Specialist V $256 $/hr
Control Specialist VI $274 $/hr
Control Specialist VII $298 $/hr
Control Specialist VIII $324 $/hr
Control Specialist IX $328 $/hr
Control Technician I $138 $/hr
Control Technician II $152 $/hr
Control Technician III $172 $/hr
Control Technician IV $186 $/hr
Control Technician V $205 $/hr
Control Technician VI $224 $/hr
Control Technician VII $243 $/hr
Control Technician VIII $254 $/hr
Administrative I $93 $/hr
Administrative II $108 $/hr
Administrative III $127 $/hr
Administrative IV $151 $/hr
Administrative V $178 $/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 $0.7250
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. Page 233 of 309
Pasco City Council
March 2, 2026
Regular Meeting
Pa
g
e
2
3
4
o
f
3
0
9
PSA Amendment No. 3 –
Irrigation System Expansion
3/2/2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
2
3
5
o
f
3
0
9
Irrigation System Expansion
Project Overview
Pa
g
e
2
3
6
o
f
3
0
9
Irrigation System Expansion
Professional Services Costs
The proposed Amendment No. 3 adds $539,743.00 to the project and brings the total
professional services agreement amount to $1,069,262.00. The added services for Amendment
No. 3 are summarized below:
❑ Task 6 – Amended Services during construction.
❑ Task 8 – Amended Project Management.
❑ Task 9 – Booster Pump Station Structure Design Updates.
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
2
3
7
o
f
3
0
9
Irrigation System Expansion
Professional Services Costs
Professional Services Agreement Cost
Original PSA $ 295,662.00
PSA Amendment No. 1 $ 0.00
PSA Amendment No. 2 $ 233,857.00
PSA Amendment No. 3 $ 539,743.00
New Professional Services Agreement $1,069,262.00
Pa
g
e
2
3
8
o
f
3
0
9
Questions?
Pa
g
e
2
3
9
o
f
3
0
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 2, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Public Works Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Updated Street Lighting Standards (5 minute staff presentation)
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Updated Street Lighting Standards
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
A lighting study and related standard update was performed by DKS
Associated, led collaboratively by Public Works (PW) and Community &
Economic Development (CED) staff.
Ultimately, this investment eliminates, in most cases, the need to perform
individual capital transportation every and each for studies development
project. This will save time and money.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Background
The City of Pasco’s 2022 Design Standards require street illumination to meet
the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommended levels of illuminance.
Previously, the Franklin Public Utility District (FPUD) standards included a
maximum this removed FPUD 2025, In spacing 300 of streetlight feet.
maximum spacing from their standards, shifting the focus toward meeting
illumination performance, as established in the City's standards Design and
Construction Standards. To clarify a common misconception: FPUD never
established a “typical” luminaire spacing—only a maximum/up to, which has
now been removed.
Page 240 of 309
The City's 2022 Design and Construction Standards require all projects
(Private Development and Capital projects) to conduct a lighting study to
ensure safety the project the meets specified luminaire and pole for
requirements for illumination. This process resulted in additional time and
effort in each project, and sometimes rendered inconsistent pole placement
between projects.
To ensure compliance with City standards for safety and promote consistency,
staff initiated a comprehensive lighting study. The study was conducted by
DKS determined study This staff. coordination with in Associates City
appropriate spacing and luminaire configurations based on actual performance
and current lighting technologies rather than outdated assumptions.
The goal is to establish clear, predictable standards that ensure safety, reduce
the need for individual lighting analyses by developers, and align Pasco’s
practices with best practices used by neighboring cities such as Richland.
Impact
The lighting study provides clear, data-driven standards that allow developers
and City staff to design compliant street lighting without conducting separate
lighting analyses for each project. The updated standards define appropriate
spacing and luminaire wattage for local, collector, and arterial streets, including
various intersection configurations, to meet illumination requirements.
By establishing consistent, predictable criteria, the updated standards will
streamline the design and review process for both private development and
capital projects. It will improve safety, ensure compliance with IES standards
and/or WSDOT guidelines, and reduce delays or inconsistencies in street
lighting design across the City.
V. DISCUSSION:
This item was discussed on November 2, 2025. The Council directed staff to
perform outreach to developers presenting the new standards and collecting
feedback.
A development community focused outreach event took place on Friday
January 30,2026. A developer mailing list provided the invitation and reminder
of the event, overview of the purpose of the outreach event and draft proposed
standards for review and comment. Social media and a Monday morning
KONA radio segment were also used to advertise the event. Attendance
included 5 participants online and 3 in person. Prior to the meeting written
comments were received and incorporated into the proposed draft standards,
as well. The feedback was supportive of the update, recognizing the value of
Page 241 of 309
predictability, time and money savings. Staff also addressed some clarifying
questions on updated lighting standard implementation.
Recommendation
Staff recommends incorporating the updated streetlighting standards into the
City’s Design and Construction Standards.
The study established standardized streetlight spacing and configurations for
various roadway types and intersections in typical conditions. The proposed
standards:
Meet IES/WSDOT guidelines, and City illumination requirements;
Enhance public safety by ensuring consistent and adequate lighting; and
Reduce the burden on developers and capital projects by eliminating, in
most cases, the need for separate lighting studies on each project.
For projects with atypical roadway geometry, including vertical, horizontal
curves, or intersection approach angles that may negatively impact lighting
levels, the engineer of record shall complete a lighting analysis using AGI
software. The analysis shall conform to the illuminance requirements shown
below and be submitted to the City for review prior to plan approval.
Next Steps
Staff will publish the updated standards and provide notice to development
community and design engineers.
Alternative
Keep current standard, which requires a lighting study for each project and
increased time and cost for private development and capital projects alike.
Page 242 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
Page 1
ILLUMINATION REQUIREMENTS
Typical Conditions
Street lighting shall be provided for all public and private roadways in accordance with City
Standards.
Typical luminaire spacing and initial lumens shall conform to the tables provided in this
section.
The placement of luminaires at intersections shall meet the requirements shown in
the Intersection Luminaire Placement Table.
All equipment and materials shall comply with Franklin County PUD standards and
specifications.
Mid-block crossing shall include two luminaires, positioned approximately 20 to 30 feet
in advance of the crossing in each direction. The exact location may be adjusted as
needed to accommodate other features such as driveways, fire hydrants, utility meter
boxes, property lines, or similar constraints.
Intersections require 2 to 4 luminaires depending on the number of legs of the
intersection and the classifications of the intersecting roadways.
All signalized intersections, regardless of classification, shall receive specific design
consideration and require additional lighting analysis.
Typical Roadway Luminaire Spacing Requirements
City of Pasco
Functional
Classification
Initial Lumens
Typical Pole
Spacing
(alternate sides)
Typical Pole
Spacing-1/2 Street
(same side)
Arterial 15,000 ± 500 120’ 240’
Collector
9,000 ± 500
155’
310’
Local Access 6,000 ± 500 180’ 360’
Page 243 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
Page 2
Typical Four-Leg Intersection Luminaire Placement Requirements
City of Pasco
Functional
Classification
Initial Lumens
Number of Luminaires
Required
Arterial/Arterial 15,000 ± 500 4
Arterial/Collector 15,000 ± 500 4
Arterial/Local
Access 15,000 ± 500 4
Collector/Collector 9,000 ± 500 4
Collector/Local
Access 9,000 ± 500 4
Local Access/Local
Access 9,000 ± 500 2
Page 244 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
Page 3
Typical Three-Leg Intersection Luminaire Placement Requirements
City of Pasco
Functional
Classification
Initial Lumens
Number of Luminaires
Required
Arterial/Arterial 15,000 ± 500 3
Arterial/Collector 15,000 ± 500 3
Arterial/Local
Access 15,000 ± 500 3
Collector/Collector 9,000 ± 500 3
Collector/Local
Access 9,000 ± 500 2
Local Access/Local
Access 9,000 ± 500 2
Page 245 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
Page 4
Typical Mid-Block Crossing Luminaire Placement Requirements
City of Pasco
Functional
Classification
Initial Lumens
Number of Luminaires
Required
Mid-Block Crossing
(all classifications)
Per Roadway
Classification 2
Atypical Conditions and Lighting Analysis
For projects with atypical roadway geometry, including vertical, horizontal curves, or intersection
approach angles that may negatively impact lighting levels, the Developer’s Consultant shall
complete a lighting analysis using AGI software. The analysis shall conform to the illuminance
requirements shown below and be submitted to the City for review prior to plan approval.
A lighting analysis may be deferred; however, it must be submitted, approved, and the results
implemented prior to project acceptance.
The Owner/Developer is solely responsible for the design and installation of all lighting
infrastructure needed and approved for the development.
Page 246 of 309
Community Development Department
PO Box 293, 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301
P: 509.545.3441 / F: 509.545.3499
Page 5
Illumination Requirements at Intersections
City of Pasco
Functional
Classification
Avg
Avg/Min
Target Avg
Target Avg/Min
Arterial/Arterial 1.27 2.54 1.2 4:1
Arterial/Collector 1.51 3.78 1.4 4:1
Arterial/Local
Access 1.57 3.14 1.2 4:1
Collector/Collector 1.22 2.03 1.1 4:1
Collector/Local
Access 1.29 1.84 0.9 4:1
Local Access/Local
Access 0.85 2.83 0.7 6:1
Illumination Requirements on Roadways
City of Pasco
Functional
Classification
Avg
Avg/Min
Target Avg
Target Avg/Min
Arterial 0.95 3.17 0.6 4:1
Collector 0.7 2.33 0.4 4:1
Local Access 0.33 3.30 0.3 6:1
Existing Facilities
Existing lighting within public rights-of-way abutting a development project that does not meet
current City Standards shall be upgraded, supplemented, or relocated, as applicable, at the
Developer’s expense.
The Owner/Developer shall be responsible for the design, installation, and verification of all
lighting infrastructure as needed and approved to serve the development.
Design Process
The lighting design shall begin by positioning all required luminaires at intersections and mid-
block crossings. Remaining luminaires shall then be placed along the roadway to achieve uniform
illumination, ensuring that spacing between luminaires does not exceed the values specified in
the Typical Roadway Luminaire Spacing Requirements Table.
Placement of luminaires for atypical roadway segments and intersections shall be consistent with
the results of any required lighting analysis.
Page 247 of 309
Pasco City Council
March 2, 2026
Regular Meeting
Pa
g
e
2
4
8
o
f
3
0
9
Street lighting
Standards Update
March 2, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
2
4
9
o
f
3
0
9
Current Street lighting Standards
PMC 21.35.070 Street lighting
Street lighting shall be installed and conform to the standards
and requirements of the City Engineer.[Ord. 3398 §2, 1999;
Code 1970 §26.32.070.]
2022 issued City of Pasco Design and Construction Standards
Chapter 8 – Street Improvements
Pa
g
e
2
5
0
o
f
3
0
9
Applicable Lighting Standards
2022 adopted Standards
CURRENT and APPLICABLE
•Individual lighting study is required
for every project
Proposed Updated Standards
NOT ADOPTED AT THIS TIME
•Individual lighting study no longer
required (in most cases)
•Increased consistency and
predictability. It streamlines lighting
design
•Supersedes 2022 Standard
Standards prior to 2022
•Required lighting layout to be
approved by PUD
•Superseded in 2022
Pa
g
e
2
5
1
o
f
3
0
9
Study for Street Lighting Standard Update
Assumptions and recommendations:
•All luminaire models used in this analysis are AEL models (40W, 60W, 100W) from the
recommended list from Franklin PUD standards.
Pa
g
e
2
5
2
o
f
3
0
9
Proposed Street Lighting Standard Update
Pa
g
e
2
5
3
o
f
3
0
9
Proposed Street Lighting Standard Update
Pa
g
e
2
5
4
o
f
3
0
9
Proposed Street Lighting Standard Update
Pa
g
e
2
5
5
o
f
3
0
9
Pa
g
e
2
5
6
o
f
3
0
9
Current Street lighting Standards
Pa
g
e
2
5
7
o
f
3
0
9
Current Street lighting Standards
SOURCE:
https://www.franklinpud.com/wp -
content/uploads/2025/10/Street -
Light -Construction-Standards-10-
01-2025.pdf
Since October 2025
Pa
g
e
2
5
8
o
f
3
0
9
Timeline and Next Steps
Alternative
A) Keep current standard (requires a lighting study per each project)
September 2025 Staff began study to update lighting standards
October 2025 Council discussed lighting standards during Misc. Discussion –
both raising a concern related to adequate lighting and development requirements.
October 2025 City Manager's Report provided an update on status of the Lighting study
progress
November 2025 Staff presented the recommended updates to the lighting standards
to Council. Council directed staff to perform outreach with the development and
design consultants community.
January 30, 2026 – Outreach Event
March 2, 2026 – council presentation sharing feedback and describing next steps
Next step: Publishing of Updated Standards
Pa
g
e
2
5
9
o
f
3
0
9
Questions?
Pa
g
e
2
6
0
o
f
3
0
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 25, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager
City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Krystle Shanks, City Clerk
City Manager
SUBJECT: Housing Authority of the City of Pasco & Franklin County Board of
Commissioners Appointment of Position No. 5
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution No. 4651
Candidate Applications
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to appoint _________________, to the Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners under Position No. 5 effective March 2, 2026, through
January 27, 2031.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Housing Authority of the City of Pasco & Franklin County (Housing
Authority) is a separate municipal corporation governed by its appointed board
of commissioners. The Housing Authority’s basic mission is to provide safe and
habitable housing for households with incomes below 80% of the regional
medium household income. In the case of the Pasco Housing Authority, it owns
and operates about 300 housing units in Pasco and offers other housing
opportunities as other federal programs are made available and deemed
appropriate by the Board.
A Joint Housing Authority for the City of Pasco and Franklin County was
formed in 1981 by joint resolution. The Housing Authority Board is comprised
of five Commissioners who are appointed for a term of office of five years. The
Commissioners for Position Nos. 1 and 3 are selected by the Franklin County
Commissioners. Likewise, the Commissioners for Position Nos. 2, 4, and 5 are
Page 261 of 309
selected by the City of Pasco, and must reside within the City.
The Council Boards & Commissions Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Grimm
and Councilmembers Perales and Cotta met on February 24, 2026, and
interviewed Amanda Brown and Mack Funk.
Of note, one other application was received for this position; however, the
applicant withdrew at this time.
V. DISCUSSION:
The Council Boards & Commissions Subcommittee is requesting that the City
Council confirm the appointment Mack Funk to Position No. 5 on the Joint
Housing Authority Board of the City of Pasco & Franklin County.
Page 262 of 309
Resolution – City Council’s BC Amended Interview & Appointment Process - 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4651
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL’S
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco maintains several citizen boards and commissions to assist
the delivery of municipal services, as well as to advise the City Council in making policy decisions;
and
WHEREAS, the appointment process prescribed throughout the Pasco Municipal Code
requires the Mayor, or City Manager, to appoint qualified individuals to vacancies on such boards
or commissions, subject to confirmation of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the last amendment to the City’s Boards and Commissions appointment
process was passed by council on October 24, 2022, through Resolution No. 4262; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has identified opportunities to streamline and improve the
processes related to the appointment, reappointment, and term management of City boards and
commissions to enhance efficiency, consistency, and administrative clarity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to establishing an appointment process for
boards and commissions that is both collaborative and efficient, promotes consistency in term
management, and provides a clear and accessible experience for all involved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
Section 1: Terms of service for members of City boards and commissions shall expire on
December 31st or June 30th unless otherwise governed by State law. Any term currently set to
expire on a different date shall be modified to the expiration date as outlined in applicable sections
of the Pasco Municipal Code.
Section 2: Applications for vacancies on City boards and commissions shall be solicited
by the City Clerk’s Office on behalf of the City Council twice annually. In instances where a mid-
term vacancy occurs, the vacancy will be included in the next recruitment cycle unless the City
Council directs that the position be filled with an ad-hoc recruitment when it determines that doing
so is necessary to support the essential functions of the board or commission.
Section 3: The selection process will be completed by a Council subcommittee appointed
by the Mayor, which shall include the Mayor and two Councilmembers. The Council
subcommittee shall be ad-hoc and appointed when applications cycles are set to begin for current
vacancies or vacancies for upcoming position term expirations.
Page 263 of 309
Resolution – City Council’s BC Amended Interview & Appointment Process - 2
Section 4: Prior to recruitment process commencing 1) the Council subcommittee will
identify dates for interviews to include with advertisement; and 2) a list of incumbents who have
not served more than two consecutive terms since their last interview will be provided by the City
Clerk to the Council subcommittee to identify if vacancy is necessary to be posted. If eligible
incumbent is selected to proceed to reappointment without interview and is interested in continuing
to serve, the incumbent will proceed to confirmation by City Council and the position will not be
recruited for.
Section 5: Application packets of those candidates meeting the qualification for the board
or commission position(s), shall be reviewed by a Council subcommittee. The Council
subcommittee shall select those candidates it deems best suited for the respective
board/commission but not more than three candidates for each vacancy to be filled. The Council
subcommittee shall consider the following factors, including, but no limited to:
a) Geographic representation.
b) Gender representation.
c) Ethnic representation.
d) Familial and financial relationships of board members.
e) Qualifications and expertise related to the subject matter of the respective Board or
Commission.
Section 5: The Council subcommittee shall conduct the interviews of the selected
candidates. At a City Council meeting following such interviews, an interviewed candidate shall
be selected by the Mayor for appointment/reappointment to each vacant position. Any candidate
selected by the Mayor shall be subject to confirmation vote by the City Council; a majority vote
of the quorum present at such meeting shall be required to confirm the Mayor’s appointments.
Section 6: Any prior Resolutions of the City Council in conflict with the provisions in this
Resolution shall be superseded by this resolution.
Be It Further Resolved, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this 6th day of October,
2025.
_____________________________
David Milne
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 264 of 309
BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION
Received Date:January 20, 2026
Application Type:Housing Authority of the City of Pasco
and Franklin County
Name Mack Funk
Address
Phone
Alternative Phone
Email Address
District of Residence:
Registered Voter:Yes
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Length of Residency Currently 1 year
and previously 12
years, 1984-1996
What gender do you identify with?
Race or Ethnicity
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
Employment Status
Retired
Employer
Not applicable
Present Employment
Not applicable
Educational Background
BS Agricultural Science & Management Univ. of Cal. at Davis
Real Estate Course CBC
Reason for Applying
I want to be active in my community.
Relevant Experience
10+ years residential landlord
45+ years public service= 8.5 years federal + 38 years local
Community Involvement
Bike Tri-Cities Board, Friends of Badger Mt. volunteer, Tutor of 4th grade student
Pasco Masonic Lodge member
Have you served on this board, commission, or committee in the past and if so, how many terms did
you serve?
No
Page 265 of 309
Mack Funk
Do you have any financial or personal conflicts of interest that would interfere with your participation
on this board/commission?
No
I am available to participate in the regularly scheduled board/commission meetings
Yes
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
Length of Residency:
Currently 1 year and previously 12 years, 1984-1996
Race or Ethnicity:
What gender do you identify with?
Disibility:
APPLICATION AGREEMENT
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are
true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and
submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the
date submitted. I also understand that this application and supporting documents may be available for
public inspection.
☒I Agree
Signature:
Mack L Funk
Page 266 of 309
BOARD/COMMISSION APPLICATION
Received Date:January 13, 2026
Application Type:Housing Authority of the City of Pasco
and Franklin County
Secondary Choices:Arts and Culture Commission
Name Amanda Brown
Address
Phone
Alternative Phone
Email Address
District of Residence:
Registered Voter:Yes
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Length of Residency 9
What gender do you identify with?
Race or Ethnicity
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
Employment Status
Employed
Employer
Kennewick School District
Present Employment
I am in my tenth year of teaching in Kennewick School District. I taught general education
kindergarten for two years, fourth grade dual language for seven years and I now teach middle
school English language development and academic support.
Educational Background
I have a Bachelor's degree in Elementary Education, a Master's Degree in English Language
Learning Education and a Certificate in Educational Leadership and School Administration from
WSU.
Reason for Applying
As a school board member and educational leader, I see every day how stable, affordable housing
directly impacts student success, family engagement, and long-term community outcomes in Pasco.
Serving on the Housing Authority Commission would allow me to extend my commitment to equity
and public service beyond schools and into the systems that shape families’ ability to thrive. I am
motivated to bring a collaborative, data-informed, and community-centered perspective to ensure
housing decisions reflect the needs and voices of Pasco’s families
Relevant Experience
I currently serve on the Pasco School Board of directors and I have been in this elected role for the
past three years. I also serve the Tri-Cities community working in our local schools in Kennewick
School District.
Page 267 of 309
Amanda Brown
Community Involvement
I serve on the Pasco School Board of Directors and I have also served and volunteered on the
Kennewick School District's Instructional Materials Committee.
Have you served on this board, commission, or committee in the past and if so, how many terms did
you serve?
This would be my first experience serving on a board or commission at the city level.
Do you have any financial or personal conflicts of interest that would interfere with your participation
on this board/commission?
I do not.
I am available to participate in the regularly scheduled board/commission meetings
Yes
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS: Arts and Culture Commission:
What type of position on the Commission are you applying for?
Community Member
How can public art improve a community?
I believe that public art improves a community by creating shared spaces where people feel seen,
represented, and connected; especially when it reflects the cultures, languages, and stories of the
families who live there. As an educator and school board leader, I have seen how creative
expression builds belonging, pride, and engagement, particularly for young people and historically
underrepresented communities. Thoughtfully integrated public art can strengthen community identity,
spark dialogue, and serve as a powerful tool for education, healing, and long-term civic connection.
What is the role of an Arts and Culture Commissioner based on PMC Chapter 2.135.
An Arts and Culture Commissioner serves as the City’s primary resource and advisory voice on
public art and culture by reviewing and guiding the acceptance, placement, maintenance, and
funding of public art, promoting educational and community engagement, and acting as a catalyst
that brings together government, artists, and the broader community for the public good.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
Length of Residency:
9
Race or Ethnicity:
What gender do you identify with?
Disibility:
APPLICATION AGREEMENT
I agree that all of the information contained in my responses to the questions on this application are
true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further agree that, by checking the box below and
submitting this application, online or otherwise, I am affixing my digital signature to this form as of the
date submitted. I also understand that this application and supporting documents may be available for
public inspection.
☒I Agree
Page 268 of 309
Amanda Brown
Signature:
Amanda Sue Brown
Page 269 of 309
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Maria Serra, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Understanding Traffic Calming: Purpose and Approaches
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Information Only
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Today’s presentation does not request action and therefore does not have an
immediate fiscal impact.
Implementation of traffic calming measures are subject to Council approval and
budget appropriation.
The Adopted 2026-2031 TIP included a Traffic Calming program, but due to
budget constraints in the current biennium, activities are not funded. City staff
pursues grant funding to deliver projects with components specific to traffic
calming.
Non-grant funded activities specifically directed by the governing body have
been funded via the Streets Fund, from programs such as Streets Maintenance
and Traffic Devices, redirecting funds from regular roadway maintenance
activities.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Traffic calming refers to a set of planning and engineering strategies used by
municipalities to manage vehicle speeds and improve safety for all roadway
users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. These measures are
typically applied on local and collector streets where speeding, cut-through
Page 270 of 309
traffic, or collision patterns indicate a need for intervention.
The primary objectives of traffic calming are to reduce vehicle speeds, improve
safety for people walking and biking, discourage inappropriate cut-through
traffic, and increase driver awareness in residential and school areas. Traffic
calming programs are widely used across Washington State and nationally as
part of a comprehensive transportation safety strategy consistent with Vision
Zero principles.
V. DISCUSSION:
Traffic calming strategies generally fall into three categories:
vertical deflection,
horizontal deflection,
and visual or regulatory measures
deflectionVertical humps, speed as such raised includes features
crosswalks, and raised intersections that physically require drivers to slow
down.
Horizontal deflection uses design elements like curb extensions, chicanes,
traffic circles or roundabouts, and median islands to change the driving path
and visually narrow the roadway, encouraging lower speeds.
Visual and regulatory measures, such as enhanced signage, pavement
markings, radar speed feedback signs, and high-visibility crosswalks, focus on
increasing driver awareness and reinforcing appropriate behavior without major
construction.
Traffic calming is most effective when applied using objective, data-driven
criteria rather than relying solely on perceptions of speeding or traffic volume.
Municipalities typically consider documented speeding patterns, traffic volumes
that exceed a street’s intended function, crash history (especially involving
pedestrians or bicyclists), proximity to schools and community facilities, and
street design that encourages higher speeds. Traffic studies often evaluate
85th-percentile speeds, average daily traffic, crash frequency and severity,
sight these Using uses. land and width, roadway distance, surrounding
measures helps ensure that resources are directed to locations with the
greatest and in fairness consistency benefit and safety promotes
implementation across Washington State and nationally.
Traffic calming is most commonly applied on local residential streets and
neighborhood collectors, particularly where speeding, cut-through traffic, or
higher are streets documented. is These bicycle and pedestrian activity
intended to prioritize access and safety rather than high traffic throughput, and
traffic and calming reinforces that function by maintaining lower speeds
discouraging non-local traffic.
Page 271 of 309
In contrast, major arterials and thoroughfares are designed to serve regional
travel, freight movement, and transit. Applying traditional traffic calming on
these roads can reduce mobility, increase congestion, create safety tradeoffs
such as rear-end collisions, delay emergency response, interfere with freight
and transit operations, and divert traffic onto nearby residential streets. For
these corridors, safety is typically addressed through other tools such as signal
timing, access management, corridor-wide speed management, targeted
enforcement, and intersection improvements.
A structured, data-based traffic calming program allows the City to improve
safety while preserving emergency access, balance neighborhood concerns
with mobility needs, prioritize projects transparently, and match treatments to
the replace to intended not is Traffic type. street appropriate calming
enforcement, but to complement it by shaping street environments in ways that
naturally encourage safer driving behavior.
City traffic it where calming implementing is history a has Pasco of of
warranted and funded from grant programs specifically for improvement of
safety.
The City evaluates areas that have been identified through studies, such as
Roadway Safety Plans and Comprehensive Safety action plans, and through
complaints from community members. Potential solutions are identified. Some
solutions are implemented through capital projects, while others are addressed
via operational changes.
A recent example of a planning study is a Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) grant for injury minimization citywide. As part of this process,
speed analysis across arterials and collectors in the city have been performed.
Critical speeding issues have been identified. An implementation plan includes
speed limit sign addition and feedback signs, modified striping, the
implementation needs exceed the funding available through the federal grant,
and therefore improvements are being prioritized. A presentation focused on
these needs and prioritization is forthcoming in the spring.
Recent examples of effective traffic calming are the Sylvester Street Safety
Improvement project and the Road 96 modification of roadway configuration.
The Sylvester Street Safety Improvement project was funded via two grant
programs state HSIP Federal funds. and with matched and local
pedestrian/bicyclist (PBP) programs recognized the crash history in the corridor
and the documented speeding issues, exacerbated by the lack of pedestrian
facilities on the western segment of the corridor (West of US395). The project
addressed lane these issues, with a speed reduction, reconfiguration,
pedestrian crossings equipped with flashing beacons and designated ped/bike
facilities. Road 96 corridor modifications responded to consistent speeding
patterns 15MPH above speed limit and the use of this street as a cut-through
Page 272 of 309
route. Public Works crews installed speed cushions as a deterrent to that
behavior.
Looking forward, the upcoming Clark Street project will apply traffic calming
measures to a downtown corridor in accordance with the vision set by the
Downtown Masterplan. The Court Street corridor has also been evaluated and
traffic calming measures implemented. Clark Street and Court Street corridors
will be discussed in further detail during future meetings.
Page 273 of 309
Pasco City Council
March 2, 2026
Regular Meeting
Pa
g
e
2
7
4
o
f
3
0
9
Understanding Traffic
Calming: Purpose and
Approaches
March 2, 2026
Pasco City Council
Pa
g
e
2
7
5
o
f
3
0
9
Understanding Traffic Calming
Traffic calming refers to a set of planning and engineering
strategies used by municipalities to manage vehicle speeds
and avoid cut-through to improve safety for all roadway users,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
Traffic calming is best applied on local
streets and neighborhood collectors.
Arterial streets and major collectors
are not good candidates for traffic
calming measures.
Pa
g
e
2
7
6
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Strategies
Horizontal Deflection
•curb extensions,
•chicanes,
•traffic circles, roundabouts, and
•median islands
Visual or Regulatory
measures
•enhanced signage
•pavement markings,
•radar speed feedback
signs, and
•high-visibility crosswalks,
Vertical deflection
•speed humps,
•raised crosswalks, and
•raised intersections
Physically requires
driver to slow down
Visually narrows the lane
and changes the driving path
encouraging lower speeds
Increases awareness and
reinforces good behavior
Pa
g
e
2
7
7
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Strategies
SOURCE: Active Transportation Programs Design Guide Webinar Training Session 1
Pa
g
e
2
7
8
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Strategies
SOURCE: Active Transportation Programs Design Guide Webinar Training Session 1
Pa
g
e
2
7
9
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Strategies
SOURCE: Active Transportation Programs Design Guide Webinar Training Session 1
Pa
g
e
2
8
0
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Strategies
SOURCE: Active Transportation Programs Design Guide Webinar Training Session 1
Pa
g
e
2
8
1
o
f
3
0
9
Data-driven approach: Speed
+9 to 11 mph
+12 to 14 mph
+8 to 9 mph
+9 to 11 mph
+8 to 14 mph
+10 to 12 mph +12 to 13 mph
Pa
g
e
2
8
2
o
f
3
0
9
Data-driven Approach: Crashes
Pa
g
e
2
8
3
o
f
3
0
9
Data-driven Approach: Crashes
Pa
g
e
2
8
4
o
f
3
0
9
Data-driven Approach: Context
Source: WSDOT Functional Classification Map
Pa
g
e
2
8
5
o
f
3
0
9
Data-driven Approach: Context
Source: Regional-Pedestrian-Trails-Plan---Public-Comment-04Jan26
Pa
g
e
2
8
6
o
f
3
0
9
Data-driven Approach: Context
Source: Safe Routes to School
Pa
g
e
2
8
7
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming in Pasco: Sylvester St.
Before After
Pa
g
e
2
8
8
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming in Pasco: Sylvester St.
Before After
Pa
g
e
2
8
9
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming in Pasco: Road 96
AfterBefore
Pa
g
e
2
9
0
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Implementation
Grants
•Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
•Safe Street for All (SS4A)
•Pedestrian & Bicycle improvement program (Ped/bike)
•Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
•Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
•Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
Project Planning
•Transportation Improvement Plan
•Capital Improvement Plan
•Long-range planning (masterplans)
Data analysis, public input,
vision setting and
prioritization of projects
External sources supporting
Capital projects with
Traffic Calming measures
Pa
g
e
2
9
1
o
f
3
0
9
Traffic Calming Implementation
Council’s involvement
•Plan and Program approvals
•Budget Setting – local funding allocation
•Complete Streets Policy
•Speed limit setting via Ordinance
•Policy decisions regarding adequate roadway infrastructure
for all road users
Pa
g
e
2
9
2
o
f
3
0
9
Questions?Pa
g
e
2
9
3
o
f
3
0
9
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 23, 2026
TO: Harold Stewart, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 3/2/26
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Deputy City Manager
City Manager
SUBJECT: Procedural Discussion Regarding Upcoming Appeal
I. ATTACHMENT(S):
None
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
City Attorney Daniel Kenny will discuss with Council the procedures for an
upcoming appeal hearing and get direction from Council on the topics.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 294 of 309
Page 9 of 9
TO: Mayor, Charles Grimm
Members of the City Council
FROM: Harold Stewart, City Manager
DATE: March 2, 2026
City Manager:
Chief Roske has tendered his notice of retirement and will conclude his service to the Pasco
community on March 27th. Chief has had a long and impactful career with the City and leaves
the Police Department in a strong and positive condition. A national search will be conducted to
find the next police chief, and the process will include an opportunity for the public to meet
candidates and provide feedback.
A significant amount of the City Manager’s time over the last couple of weeks has been spent on
internal matters and high priority projects.
While the Department Heads will provide updates specific to their responsibilities here are
several priorities identified by the City Manager since taking office being worked on in addition
to the regular day to day operational duties (Changes/updates from the last report are
highlighted in red):
1. Broadmoor Development- Meetings are ongoing discussing developer interest,
progress, and potential City partnership. Agreements are being negotiated.
2. HAPO Center- Lease expired after December 2025. County and City discussing future,
roles and partnership going forward. Lease extension has been provided to the County.
3. Animal Shelter- Serves the entire Tri-Cities. Cost sharing between the three
jurisdictions needs re-evaluated and agreed upon. In addition, some issues have arisen
with the old facility that will require significant investment to repair. Staff is preparing and
identifying the anticipated needs and associated costs to discuss with Council in the
near future. A deeper conversation amongst the Tri-Cities city managers will be
scheduled to discuss the Animal Shelter further.
4. Transportation Benefit District- Staff is proceeding with the creation of the TBD
Governing Board. A meeting for the governing board will be set up for early April.
5. Hiring City Attorney-Position has been reposted with a first review date in mid-
February. Management is also evaluating continuing to contract out the service.
6. Grievances/Personnel Matters
7. Reviewing Boulevard Design, Traffic study, Lighting, and Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk
Policies-All in various stages of review. See Community and Economic Development
Directors report for more information.
8. Evaluating Executive Structure (CM, DCM, ACM) and responsibilities-Ongoing.
Potential redistribution of department reporting structure.
Page 295 of 309
Page 9 of 9
9. Consideration of annexation into Library District-Ballot measure passed. City will
work with Library District and Franklin County Assessor's Office to ensure smooth
transition for property tax levies. Furthermore, staff will need to review its facilities use
agreement with the District and evaluate it for any changes needed.
10. Consideration of annexation into Conservation District- Was to be discussed at the
October 27th Council Agenda, however, staff has been working with legal counsel and
the Conservation District to verify the proper process and actions. There is some
unclarity due to State law language and the fact the City opted out of the District years
ago. This action is now scheduled for presentation on March 9th Council Workshop and
will also include options for citywide contract for shrub steppe mitigation to remove
development barriers.
11. Water Conservation Program- Since the August 25 presentation, staff have advanced
key water conservation initiatives, including public outreach, irrigation retrofits, and
updated development and boulevard standards. Work is also underway on a City facility
water audit, landscape conversion projects, and potential residential incentives to
promote xeriscaping.
12. Court Street Traffic Concerns- Staff has begun review of the data and will have on a
Council agenda in March.
13. Pop up Vendors- Ongoing monitoring by staff and coordination with the Health District.
14. FY 27/28 Budget-Staff is beginning the process of establishing a timeline for budget
development, and internal processes for preparation.
15. Public Dollars for Public Benefit- Staff is researching as directed by Council at the
February 2nd meeting.
16. Aquatics Facility- Staff is working on staffing and hiring needs and coordinating with the
PFD regarding an achievable date for opening the facility which allows for proper training
of staff. Attached is an initial opening readiness report.
Meetings attended since the last report: Communication meetings with the Mayor, Mayor Pro
Tem, and all Council members; attended BFCOG Congressional Connections meeting; attended
the Tacos y Mas Grand Opening and ribbon cutting; attended the MLK Community Center
Phase 1 ribbon cutting; attended the Pasco Chamber Board of Directors meeting; monthly
communication meeting with Pasco School Superintendent; HAPO Advisory Board meeting;
Fire Department ride along; BCES Executive Board meeting; BIPIN Executive Board meeting;
Swagg Coffee Bar Grand Opening; Hayden Homes groundbreaking; TRIDEC Exec Committee
meeting; several legislative session related meetings; and many other internal communication
and project meetings.
Assistant City Manager, Angela Pashon
City Clerk
• Recruitment is underway to fill position. First review will be conducted on March 2nd.
• Public Records Request Processing
o 2026 Received: 226
o 2026 Closed Requests: 237 (higher than received due to closure of 2025
requests)
o Currently Open: 126
Communications
• Conducting self-audit of website, video services, and public documents related to
Website Content Accessibility
Page 296 of 309
Page 9 of 9
Risk & Safety
• Coordinating in-person training for staff on first amendment audits. The goal of this
training is to ensure staff understand the legal framework, know their roles and
responsibilities, and feel confident responding professionally and appropriately.
• ACM will attend locally held WCIA training
Parks & Recreation Director, Jesse Rice
Tri -Cities Animal Services:
General Information
• Recruiting for Animal Control Officer.
• ACA Meeting on February 12th.
• Began to modify drain troughs in the dog kennels to prevent overspray and allow more
enrichment items for dogs.
Monthly Stats
• Current Animals in Care: 89
• Dogs: 59
• Cats: 30
• Animals Impounded: 99Cats/63Dogs = 162
• Animals Released: 104Cats/106Dogs = 210
• Animal Control Cases: 216
Community Outreach and Education
• Kennewick Highschool toured the animal shelter on February 4th.
• HAPO Group toured the animal shelter on February 11th.
• New Horizon Highschool toured the animal shelter on February 18th.
• Home School Group touring the animal shelter on February 23rd.
Recreation Services:
General Information
• Securing A&E Services for the Memorial Park Conversion of Play Fields Project
Sponsorships
• The Pasco Economic Development Project: $10,000 Cinco de Mayo
• Edison Valerio State Farm: $1,000 Cinco de Mayo
• Port of Pasco: $10,000 – ($5,000 Cinco de Mayo, $2500 Farmers Market, $2500 Fiery
Foods Festival)
• Gesa Credit Union: $5,000 Cinco de Mayo
• Les Schwab: $5,000 Cinco de Mayo
Aquatics
• Held a successful Grand Opening of the Memorial Pool Dome
• Hosted two Mid-Columbia Conference high school dive meets
• Began February Session of Swim Lessons
• Began holding weekend open swim sessions
Special Events
Page 297 of 309
Page 9 of 9
• Held successful 6th annual Big Cross Frozen Tundra Run event – 132 Registered
Participants (Largest event to date)
• Cinco De Mayo Celebration – Securing entertainment, beginning booth and vendor
recruitment, issued call for parade grand marshal nominations.
• SeattleFWC2026 Fan Zone – Starting to ramp up planning, securing fun zone activities.
Adult Programs and Leagues
• Adult Basketball League – Completed regular season and are now beginning the post
season tournament
• Adult Drop-in Volleyball – began offering Wednesday drop-in Volleyball at MacLoughlin
Middle School. Now offering Drop-in Volleyball three days a week.
• Women’s Basketball League – Taking registrations – Starts in March
Youth Programs and Leagues
• Youth Basketball Program – 2/3 of the way through the season. Scheduled to be
completed on Saturday, March 28
• Taking Registrations for:
o Spring PR Runners Youth Cross Country League (1st - 6th graders) – Starts
March 2
o Youth Volleyball League (5th – 8th Graders) – Starts beginning of April
o Youth Softball League (K – 5th Graders) – Starts end of April
Parks:
Parks
• Landscape bed pruning
• Tree removal Animal Control for electrical line troubleshooting
• Hazardous tree removal in ROW
• Stump Grinding at Public Works
• Shrub pruning multiple locations
• Vacant lot mowing
• Irrigation clock updates and wiring
• Removal of overgrown shrubs and junipers
• Vandalized chain link fence repair
• Daily maintenance
CIP/Projects Updates
• Downtown Cleanup RFQ out for bid
Athletic Fields
• Fence panel repair
• Leveling out of low spots in the playing area
• Preparations for overseeding
Facilities:
Cartegraph Work Order Monthly Stats
• 150 completed last month
• 92 completed this month
Cemetery
• 6 funerals last month
Page 298 of 309
Page 9 of 9
• 5 funerals this month
• 11funerals this year
Special Events (completed this month and upcoming next month)
• Started planning for Memorial Day.( CM office confirmed keynote speaker. Working with
local music director. Confirmed cadets.)
Projects
• Filter change for all city owned buildings. Designed and installed prototype splash guard
for Animal Control kennels. Contractor installed central controls for HVAC at Post Office.
Removed closet at Station 82, repaired sheetrock and installed water for new
refrigerator.
IT Director, Arman Rashid
Completed High-Level Projects:
• Trakit.net to Central Square Cloud Service Migration – Community Development
migration to cloud/payments modernization.
o Initiative: Economic Vitality, and Quality of Life
o Status: The new Community Development software is online and in use.
Active Projects (In Progress)
Community Services (Citizen-Facing)
• Police Department Axon Fusus (75%-) – Police Real-Time Crime Center platform
integrating live video, AI insights, and public/private feeds.
o Initiative: Community Safety
o Status: Phase 2 has officially kicked off. Single Sign on and Computer Aided
Dispatch deployed. Pending Flock, Drone and final camera configuration.
• Gesa Stadium IT Infrastructure (90% unchanged) – New stadium IT build (access
control, cameras, fiber, door systems).
o Initiative: Quality of Life
o Status: Still pending Door strikes from Vendor
Citywide Initiatives:
• Validated Architecture Design Review (VADR) (34%-unchanged) – Addressing
Cybersecurity issues in Pasco’s water infrastructure SCADA systems.
o Initiative: Cybersecurity
o Status: 12 of 35 actions taken; remediation ongoing.
• AD Automation (55%) – Automating new employee account creation using New World
data to speed up onboarding and reduce manual work.
o Initiative: Automation & Process Improvement
o Status: Applications Team is finishing their work before hand off to Operations for
configuration then implementation
• Laserfiche Invoice Workflow (99%) – “Scan and Toss” Account Payable (AP) workflow
automation.
o Initiative: Lean Process Improvement
o Status: Pending adding Management to workflow (Finance approval required)
Page 299 of 309
Page 9 of 9
• Change Management (95% - unchanged) – Formalizing IT change control process.
o Initiative: Governance & Process Improvement
o Status: Pending remaining user adoption. Operations team has implemented the
new process for all new changes
• Intune (30%) – Migrating SCCM tasks like computer update distribution, system
compliance settings, and endpoint protection to Microsoft Intune (Autopilot, app
deployment).
o Initiative: Cloud & Endpoint Modernization
o Status: SCCM policies have been migrated pending remaining group policies
Departmental Support:
• Cisco Umbrella (15% - unchanged) – DNS security and web filtering for internet traffic.
o Initiative: Cybersecurity
o Status: Working out Latency issues with the agent before moving forward
• Barracuda (99%) – Managing Barracuda Message Archiver storage (currently 95% full).
o Initiative: Storage & Compliance
o Status: Storage cleanup continues, with storage use increasing from 94% to
95%. Lists of accounts that no longer need to be retained have been submitted
and are going through the required approval process. Updates to record-
retention rules are also being developed that would allow some messages to be
kept for a shorter time in the future, helping reduce storage use.
• GIS Enterprise Server Geo-Database Migration (75%) – ESRI consulting to stabilize
GIS infrastructure.
o Initiative: GIS Optimization
o Status: Finalizing remaining layers, Working with Open Gov to resolve an issue
that was found. Once completed and tested on the test server the Team will
complete the server performance upgrade.
• Park Finder Art Map (90%-unchanged) – Interactive parks and attractions finder app.
o Initiative: Citizen Engagement
o Status: Unchanged as we are still awaiting final images and upload training.
• Cartegraph Facility Module (90%-) – Migrating facility assets into new dedicated
Cartegraph module.
o Initiative: Facilities Modernization
o Status: Working with Facilities to standardize remaining layers then once
approved the project will be handed off
• Replace Fire Station Locution Dashboards (20%)– Replacing problematic Locution
Dashboards with First Arriving displays.
o Initiative: Public Safety Technology
o Status: New dashboards have arrived, and we are in the process of
configuration prior to deployment
Helpdesk Service Requests
New Tickets Received: 129
Tickets Resolved: 119
Page 300 of 309
Page 9 of 9
Currently Active: 159
Helpdesk Incident Requests
New Tickets Received: 302
Tickets Resolved: 316
Currently Active: 283
Ticket Categories:
Desktop Hardware 7.62%
Email 0.66%
General 64.57%
Internet 0.33%
Network 0.66%
Not Assigned 15.56%
Printers 0.66%
Software 3.64%
User Administration 2.65%
VDI 1.99%
Vehicle Hardware 1.66%
IT Customer Satisfaction Survey Score: 100%
System Metrics
• Network Uptime – 99.98%
Threat analytics: Malicious attacks
• Total attempts: 9
• Total incidents: 2
Project Metrics
• Active: 20
• Backlog: 4
• On Hold: 14
• Proposed: 8
Fire Chief, Kevin Crowley
February 2026 (February 1 – February 17):
Month Fire Calls Structure
Fires
Wildland
Fires EMS Calls MVA’s Total Calls
December 7 2 0 261 11 384
Hires, Promotions, and Retirements
• Will be conducting interviews for a new Administrative Assistant.
Community Engagement Events
Page 301 of 309
Page 9 of 9
• Provided a “Water Salute” for Allegiant Air on their new flight from Pasco to Orange
County.
• 4th grade students from Robert Frost Elementary prepared “care bags” for our crews to
pass out to children in need.
Collaboration
• Worked with Benton-Franklin Health District to prepare of needed storage space for
medical supplies in the event of another pandemic or natural disaster. Looked at how to
organize and inventory items at our Logistics Center (1011 E Ainsworth).
Training
• The Tri-Cities Recruit Academy (TCRA 26-1) began this month. This is a 16-week
academy the involved 4 agencies (Pasco, Kennewick, Richland, and West Richland).
• We have launched two new training programs called “Engine Series” and “Truck Series”.
These programs were developed by our Training Division with the goal of standardizing
our firefighting practices across all shifts and all stations.
Miscellaneous Items
• Crews completed their annual wellness physicals. We have improved these physicals to
include and extensive blood work panel and organ scanning as a proactive and
aggressive approach to pre-cancer screening.
Page 302 of 309
Page 9 of 9
• Reviewing contacts, ILAs, and agreements with our regional partners. There are several
that we are working through to update.
• Continued with contract negotiations with our Non-Uniformed Staff (First Contract).
Chief of Police, Ken Roske
Field Operations Division:
• Detectives conducted an undercover operation involving a money delivery connected to an
ongoing fraud investigation in which the victim had previously been defrauded of
approximately $1.3 million. A detective was introduced into the delivery operation, and the
suspect was arrested without incident. The investigation remains active as detectives pursue
additional leads generated by the arrest.
• Detectives continue to investigate a vehicular homicide case that has since been filed as
Murder in the Second Degree.
• Detective Sagan from the Kennewick Police Department has joined our detective unit as
part of our collaborative efforts to establish a regional forensic laboratory. Regionalizing the
lab will consolidate resources, reduce costs, and improve turnaround times for forensic
analysis for the two cities.
Professional Standards Division:
• BLEA Class 937 began on February 9. We currently have four recruits attending the
academy. They are in the early stages of training, which includes classroom instruction,
physical conditioning, and foundational law enforcement skills.
• February training topics included crowd control, First Amendment considerations related to
auditors, and a legal update. These sessions focused on reinforcing best practices, officer
safety, and ensuring personnel remain current with legal standards and department
expectations.
• The UAS program completed a total of 164 flights in January, accounting for 30.40 flight
hours.
o Training Deployments: 36 flights totaling 6.94 hours
o Calls for Service: 128 flights totaling 23.46 hours
The drone program continues to support both training and operational needs by providing
aerial assistance during calls for service and maintaining pilot proficiency.
Support Operations Division:
• We were pleased to participate in Coffee with a Cop at Columbia Basin College on January
27, where we had the opportunity to engage directly with students, faculty, and staff in an
informal setting. Events like this allow us to build trust, answer questions, and strengthen
relationships within the campus community. The conversations we shared helped foster
mutual understanding and reinforced our commitment to being approachable, visible, and
supportive partners in public safety.
• Our team also attended the regional Peregrine Kickoff meeting, which marked an important
step forward in enhancing regional collaboration through real-time crime analysis
technology. By working alongside neighboring agencies and partners, we are improving
Page 303 of 309
Page 9 of 9
information-sharing capabilities and strengthening coordinated responses to public safety
challenges. This effort supports a more unified regional approach to crime prevention and
community protection.
• We were honored to be recognized by the Washington State Traffic Safety Committee for
our proactive work in DUI enforcement. This recognition not only highlights the dedication
of our officers to keeping roadways safe, but it also resulted in the procurement of critical
equipment that will help us meet City Council traffic safety goals. These resources will
further enhance our ability to deter impaired driving and protect our community.
• Congratulations to Officer Kaiden Rivera on successfully completing the Field Training
Officer (FTO) program. This milestone reflects months of hard work, learning, and
demonstrated competencies across a wide range of patrol responsibilities. Officer Rivera is
now serving as a solo patrol officer, and we are confident he will continue to provide
excellent service to our community.
Page 304 of 309
City of Pasco
Pasco Aquatics Facility Readiness Report
February 23, 2026
Executive Summary
In partnership with the Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD), staff are targeting a public opening
date of Saturday, June 13, 2026.
Meeting this date is dependent upon completion of operational, staffing, fiscal, facility, IT, and
regulatory milestones outlined below. Several critical items require Council action on March 2.
1. Opening Timeline & Critical Path
1. May 22, 2026 – Construction complete and occupancy formally transferred to the City of Pasco
2. Development and approval of required operational plans and policies (PPFD and Health
District approvals as applicable)
3. Development and approval of required financial policies (PPFD approval)
4. Recruitment and hiring of adequate staffing levels
5. Completion of required staff training
6. Data infrastructure and network functionality
7. Payment system implementation
8. Aquatics management software implementation
9. Benton-Franklin Health District inspection and approval
Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 represent primary schedule risks.
2. Operational Readiness
2.1 Required Plans & Policies
Consultant-Developed Plans (Quotes being obtained; PPFD approval required)
• Emergency Action Plan (EAP)
• Biohazard Action Plan
• Pre-Service Training Plan
• Staffing Plan
• Maintenance Plan
• Operations Plan
• Chemical Handling & Safety Plan
Page 305 of 309
City-Developed Plans (In Progress; PPFD Approval Required)
• Hours of Operation
• Programming Plan (Schedules & Activities)
• Admission Pricing Plan
2.2 Systems & Compliance
• Aquatics Management Software – Vendors under review
• On-Site Safety Audit – To be conducted by consultant
• Health District plan review and final inspection required
• Insurance – Property (PPFD), Liability (City), Errors & Omissions (PPFD)
3. Staffing Readiness
Permanent Positions (FTE)
• Aquatics Manager (1 FTE)
• Lead Aquatics Specialist (1 FTE)
• Aquatics Guest Services Coordinator (1 FTE)
• Aquatics Guest Services Assistant (1 FTE)
• Facility Maintenance Worker (1 FTE)
• Cashier / Guest Attendant (2 FTE)
• Head Lifeguard (3 FTE)
• Senior Lifeguard (1 FTE)
• Accountant (1 FTE)
• HR Generalist (1 FTE)
• Lifeguard (19 FTE – Year-Round Coverage)
Combined seasonal and temporary staffing will bring total lifeguard labor to approximately 68,000
annual hours.
Temporary / Seasonal Positions
• Senior Lifeguard
• Lifeguard
• Cashier
Council Action Required (March 2)
• Ordinance approving FTEs
• Budget amendment for permanent staffing
4. Facility Readiness
• Water Quality Management Program
Page 306 of 309
• Operations & Maintenance Plan Build-Out
• Pool Rules and Facility Restrictions
5. Fiscal Readiness
• Creation of Aquatics Center Fund (March 2 Council agenda)
• Budget Amendment – Permanent Staffing (March 2 Council agenda)
• General Ledger Code Creation (post fund establishment)
• Aquatics Center Purchasing Policy Appendix (in progress)
• Payment System – DaySmart selected
• Time Reporting System – Options under review
• Capital Improvement Program Policy (City draft; PPFD approval required)
• Renewal & Replacement Policy (City draft; PPFD approval required)
• Regular Reporting Framework (City draft; PPFD approval required)
6. IT Readiness
• Data Infrastructure Implementation
• Security and Access Control Programming
7. Communications Readiness
• Website Development
• Phone System – Secure number established; menu system in development
• Marketing Campaign Planning
Overall Risk Assessment
• Lifeguard recruitment and certification timelines
• Consultant plan development post-occupancy
• Health District inspection timing
• Software implementation sequencing
• March 2 Council action (FTEs, budget amendment, fund creation)
• PPFD approval of operational and fiscal policies
Page 307 of 309
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 308 of 309
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 309 of 309