Pasco council rejects purchase agreement for 3.9-acre parcel for future Harris Road overpass; orders staff to refine needs

The Pasco City Council on Jan. 23 voted down a resolution to ratify a purchase-and-sale agreement for a roughly 3.9-acre parcel that staff said is being considered for a future Harris Road/ Road 108 overpass. After the resolution failed, council unanimously voted to strike a related capital-projects ordinance so staff can return with engineering-defined recommendations for a smaller parcel.

“This is an approximately 3.9 acres of property, that would be a future site for Harris Road Overpass, Road 108 Overpass,” Deputy City Manager Sid Bell told the council, noting the overpass concept is in the city’s capital plans and that overpasses are important because the city is bisected by a freeway. Bell said staff are “extremely preliminary” in design and that the Road 76 overpass design recently received a grant and that design costs alone can be significant. “We’re looking at about 2 and a half million dollars. So just to design an overpass, cost significant amount of money,” Bell said.

Council member Harpster urged rejecting the purchase as presented and recommended buying a much smaller portion — around 30,000 square feet — that would cover roughly three times the preliminary estimated need (Harperstert noted preliminary designs indicated about 10,000 square feet needed for the project footprint). “I think it would be very wise of us to vote this down ... My recommendation would be, to staff that we purchase a much smaller portion, around 30,000 square feet or so,” Harpster said. Harpster also said the seller should be responsible for subdividing the parcel if development proceeds, rather than the city.

A motion to approve Resolution No. 46199, ratifying the purchase and sale agreement with Gage Properties LLC for the parcel (listed in the motion as parcel number 115350010), was moved and seconded. The council recorded these votes: Council member Blaisdell — no; Council member Grimm — no; Council member Harpster — no; Council member Peralez — no; Mayor Portim Melny — yes; Mayor Serrano — yes. The motion failed 4–2.

After the failed vote, staff and several council members discussed asking staff to perform preliminary engineering or consultant work to better define the needed parcel size. Staff recommended returning with a defined parcel (for example, 30,000 square feet, 1 acre, or other) based on preliminary engineering so council could make a more informed purchase decision. The council then voted to strike Ordinance No. 4778, the companion capital-projects budget amendment related to the purchase; that motion passed unanimously.

Deputy City Manager Bell told council the project appears on the transportation impact fee project list. Staff emphasized that, absent complete design, purchasing an unconstrained 3.9-acre parcel could lock the city into paying higher, apartment-level land prices for land the city intends for transportation infrastructure.

Council directed staff to return with a narrower parcel recommendation after preliminary engineering; staff suggested they could also negotiate with the seller on parcel size and that the seller might be asked to perform subdivision work if still interested. The transcript shows a discrepancy in parcel-number references in earlier staff comments; the motion that came to a vote used parcel number 115350010. The purchase price was not stated in the public discussion.