Tuesday night, the Richland City Council will swear in newly elected councilmembers and choose someone to be mayor for the next two years. This may be a rare appearance of all the councilmembers together as Zoom attendance has become popular, and Richland councilmembers have more absences than councilmembers in Kennewick and Pasco.
The council will then vote to give French-owned Framatome an estimated $6.7 million in tax breaks over 10 years as an incentive to build a two-phase expansion of their Richland facility.
“Framatome’s Richland operation is an existing nuclear fuel manufacturing facility that produces uranium dioxide (UO2) powder, pellets, fuel rods and fuel assemblies,” according to the staff summary in the packet that accompanies the agenda.
The tax breaks are available for industrial and manufacturing businesses in the Horn Rapids area that make at least $800,000 in improvements and create at least 25 living wage jobs. More details can be found on page 477 of the packet.
The Framatome project will be on the council agenda’s consent calendar where so-called, non-controversial items have no discussion and one vote for all. .
According to documents included in the packet for the council meeting, Framatome plans to spend $39 million to repurpose an existing building that will create 20 jobs. They will receive a $700,000 tax break for that. The second phase will include a $335 million expansion that will create 200 jobs. That phase will receive a $6 million tax break. The company reported to the city that it would pay a salary of $23 an hour or more, plus health care benefits.
The 10-year tax-break period begins on Jan. 1 after the breaks are approved.
Saturday, the Tri-City Herald reported that the state requires the projects to be built in five years to qualify for the breaks. Since the Framatome project will require a lengthy Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval process, Richland will be pushing the legislature to extend that period.
The publicly owned, French utility, Electricite de France (EDF), owns just over 75% of Framatome, a $4.5 billion business created in 1956, that designs and provides equipment, services, and fuel for nuclear power plants.
Shoreline Management
Tuesday night a final vote on an update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will also be on the consent calendar and will be voted on along with the Framatome tax cuts.
The shoreline actually had a discussion at the Dec. 19 meeting when Millie Anne VanDevender, a planner with AHBL, the consulting firm hired by the city to do the update, explained the changes to the council.
After VanDevender’s presentation, Mayor Pro Tem Theresa Richardson asked her, “Is the city of Richlands’ shoreline proposal more restrictive than the state’s proposal or is it the same or does it still allow us to be a little it nimble if something comes up that we can address from the city’s perspective?”
Richardson stated her vision for riverfront property in a May 2022 email to City Manager Jon Amundson obtained by the Observer through the Washington Public Records Act, “Should we have the opportunity, I would be in favor of developing a skyline of unique high rise properties along the river front.”
VanDevender told Richardson that city had essentially adopted the state regulations and incorporated them into the city’s codes.
According to the over 400 pages of information on the shoreline plan that was included in the packet, up to 200 feet of shoreline above the high water mark will be protected.
VanDevender concluded, “All codes are meant to have an element of interpretation, if that’s what you mean by being nimble, but it is intended to protect the shoreline.”
Bye, bye, south George Washington Way pedestrian overpass
Despite Public Works Director Pete Rogalsky’s argument that a pedestrian bridge over GWay from Adams St. to Columbia Point Dr. would allow the eight lanes of traffic beneath it to move faster, Councilmembers balked at the price tag.
In addition to the price tag, the Herald reported other problems on April 23. Apparently, no one told the owners of the house on the corner of Adams St. and George Washington Way that the city was considering their home for the wrecking ball.
The project can’t be axed from the transportation plan without a public hearing. This is your chance to give the council your two cents in a three-minute comment.
City Manager and Council Comments blah, blah, blah
Since very little else is on the agenda, the meeting that starts at 6 pm will probably end around 7 pm. The public is welcome to attend the meeting at city hall or watch it on cable channel 192 or stream it on Richland City View.
How can we find out what is included in the shoreline plan? I cannot imagine anyone in the city other than those who might financially benefit who would support high-rise construction along the shoreline.
Hi Steve, I appreciate your comment. The packet of information that accompanies the agenda includes over 400 pages about the shoreline master plan. I link to the website that includes the packet. It basically incorporates the state requirements into the city’s code. Richardson’s question seems to indicate that she wants a way around any restrictions which are already minimal at best, protecting up to 200 feet of shoreline. The city is also moving to allow buildings along the river to be 8 stories, one story higher than the federal building on Jadwin. Thank you for reading the Observer. Randy
Be mindful how you interpret things. I was concerned with what I read and contacted city staff. I was assured that there are no changes proposed in the shoreline master program to the already existing height regulations. Shoreline jurisdiction is 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the river (per state law). The existing city shoreline rules allow structures up to 35 feet in height (state law) with an ability to go to 55 feet in height (max) through a relatively difficult approval process (established in 2015 during last major rule update).
This should not be confused with the proposed height changes in the waterfront zone district that would only apply to property located outside of the shoreline boundary (200 feet). So, to state that the city is moving to allow buildings along the river to be 8 stories is incorrect.
Hi Sam, I appreciate your comment, but it is confusing. First of all, I said that the city and the state law conform on the up to 200 ft. of shoreline protection. Nowhere do I mention building heights. It appears you’ve drawn a conclusion from then Councilmember Theresa Richardson’s statement about buildings along the riverfront which she herself has never explained.
Perhaps you should ask her about that. I also see that the Planning Commission at their January 10, 2024, meeting will be considering raising the height limit in the waterfront zone to 85 feet. Thank you for reading the Observer. Randy