West Linda Loviisa
PASCO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP RECAP | SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
Monday night was a City Council Workshop, so these were discussion and direction items rather than final votes. We covered several major issues involving the Process Water Reuse Facility, development regulations, economic growth, critical areas, and Pasco’s long-term Comprehensive Plan.
Here’s the rundown:
PROCESS WATER REUSE FACILITY — RATE INCREASES
The biggest discussion of the night for me was the proposed rate adjustments for the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF). Staff presented proposed overall annual adjustments of 7% in 2027, 7% in 2028, 7% in 2029, and 6% in 2030. I have been strongly opposed to simply placing the financial burden back on our food processors.
The City pursued this project based on projections about what it would cost and how it would perform. Staff’s own analysis now identifies operating costs exceeding the original projections as a major contributor to the financial problem.
That’s an important distinction. I agree that reasonable incremental rate adjustments should have occurred over the years instead of allowing rates to fall behind. But that’s different from asking processors to absorb the consequences of operating costs that came in substantially above projections.
Even with the proposed increases, the financial model anticipates using approximately $28 million from the PWRF Risk Reserve through 2030, while another $18–20 million investment may be necessary for nitrogen treatment.
We also heard concerns about the competitiveness and long-term viability of these processors if costs continue increasing. These facilities represent a significant number of jobs and support many additional jobs throughout our regional economy.
I want us looking at operating costs, the Burnham agreement, additional revenue opportunities, responsibility for the nitrogen system, the Risk Reserve, and the actual bill impact on each processor before committing to four years of increases.
We’re also still waiting for a nitrogen-treatment performance report expected in October, which raised another question for me: why would we make this decision before receiving information directly related to one of the system’s major issues?
Council directed staff to bring back additional information. I’m glad we’re slowing this down and getting more answers before making a decision.
STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
We also discussed changing the City’s Development Agreement approval process.
Currently, a development agreement goes through a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation before ultimately coming to City Council. The proposed change would have the City Council conduct the public hearing and make the final decision directly.
I support the change. This doesn’t eliminate the Planning Commission’s important role in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, rezones, and other land-use matters. The City’s Planning Commission continues to make recommendations to Council on those core planning matters.
Development agreements, however, frequently involve contracts, infrastructure funding, impact fees, phasing, reimbursement, and other obligations that ultimately require Council action anyway.
If we can remove an unnecessary procedural step while preserving public notice and participation, I think that’s a reasonable way to streamline government.
POLICE HQ & STATE TRAINING COMMISSION
Council also discussed an agreement with the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission that would allow the Southeast Regional Academy to request temporary use of Pasco Police Headquarters as a backup Incident Command Post during an emergency or disruptive event.
Pasco would retain control of Police Headquarters, and the agreement doesn’t automatically activate or give the State control of the facility. There weren’t significant concerns from Council on this item.
EXPANDING OUR URBAN GROWTH AREA
We then discussed supporting two Urban Growth Area expansion applications.
I support moving both forward. Pasco needs to continue planning for industrial growth, commercial development, jobs, and the revenue necessary to support a growing city.
The resolution establishes Pasco’s preferred boundary, but it does not actually expand the UGA. Franklin County will ultimately consider the applications through its Comprehensive Plan process. Countywide planning policies specifically contemplate County review of UGA boundaries during periodic updates.
There was discussion about potential challenges or appeals as these applications move forward, but we’ll see what happens through the County process.
CRITICAL AREAS & SHRUB-STEPPE
We spent considerable time discussing Pasco’s Critical Areas Ordinance, particularly how we regulate shrub-steppe habitat.
Council generally supported moving forward with Option 2, which would establish more tailored Pasco standards rather than relying primarily on evolving Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance.
This matters because not every property identified on a map has the same habitat value.
The concept we’re considering would allow an initial field review to determine what’s actually on the property before automatically requiring a full habitat study. It could then distinguish between high-, moderate-, and low-quality habitat based on actual site conditions, including native vegetation, invasive species, disturbance, fragmentation, connectivity, and surrounding development.
That’s important for predictability and for avoiding unnecessary costs on properties that may already be heavily disturbed while still protecting legitimate critical habitat. This will come back as part of the larger Comprehensive Plan and development-regulation process.
PASCO’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — PLANNING THROUGH 2046
We finished with a high-level presentation on the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update.
This is a big deal because the Comprehensive Plan guides decisions about housing, jobs, commercial and industrial land, transportation, infrastructure, parks, neighborhoods, and how Pasco grows. The City describes the plan as the guide for managing population growth, housing needs, land use, transportation, economic opportunities and capital investments.
The numbers presented Monday give you an idea of what we’re planning for by 2046:
Population: 121,290 – Additional housing units: 19,269 – Additional jobs: 12,997
We also discussed housing capacity, middle housing, commercial land, employment capacity, neighborhood businesses, transportation, parks, and shoreline connections.
One thing I’ll continue asking throughout this process is for a clear distinction between what state law requires, what our land-capacity analysis requires us to address, and what is simply a local policy choice being recommended for Pasco.
Those aren’t necessarily the same thing. I also want us protecting our best commercial and industrial employment land as we accommodate housing growth. Housing is important, but we can’t lose sight of where the jobs and economic activity supporting our community will come from.
The Comprehensive Plan is required to be periodically updated under Washington’s Growth Management Act, and Pasco’s current major update is due by the end of 2026. We’re getting closer to seeing the actual drafts, and that’s when these conversations will become even more important.
This document will help guide how Pasco grows through 2046.
As we get additional public meetings and community engagement dates, I’ll make sure to share them. In the meantime, if you have thoughts about housing, commercial and industrial development, transportation, neighborhoods, parks, or Pasco’s overall growth, reach out to City Council and City staff and make your voice heard.
Another policy-heavy workshop, but these are exactly the discussions that shape what Pasco will look like years from now.
The editor and comments are responsible for this column and information, space provided by La Voz.
