Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.09.26 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. September 26,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program Allocations and Annual Work Plan: 1. Agenda Report from Richard J. Smith, Community &Economic Development Director and Cruz Gonzalez, Urban Development Coordinator dated September 21, 2005. 2. 2006 Summary of CDBG Applications for Funding. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated July 21, 2005 Workshop and Public Hearing and August 18, 2005 Planning Commission Action. 4. Resolution Approving 2006 Allocations and Annual Work Plans. (b) Sale of Personal Property Surplus to City Need: 1. Agenda Report from Webster Jackson, Administrative Services Manager dated September 9, 2004. 2. Proposed Resolution. (c) Amendment to Lease Agreement-Levee 12-1: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated September 19, 2005. 2. 8/22 Letter from Corps of Engineers. 3. Proposed Amendment. (d) Proposed Code Amendment for PMC Title 26 (Hammerhead Turnarounds) (MF #05- 125-CA): 1. Agenda Report from David 1. McDonald, City Planner dated September 21, 2005. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. Memo to Planning Commission: dated 9/7/05. 4. Planning Commission Minutes: dated 9/15/05. (e) Community Survey: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated September 23, 2005. 2. Memorandum dated 9/23/05, reference Clarification. 3. Workshop Agenda Report dated 9112/05, reference Community Survey. 4. Memorandum.from Management Assistant dated 9/9/05, 4. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. ADJOURNMENT. REMINDERS: 1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, September 26 - Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS) AGENDA REPORT NO. 76 FOR: City Council DATE: September 21, 2005 WORKSHOP: 9/26/2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager REGULAR: 10/3/2005 FROM: Richard J. Smith, Director Community & Economic Development Cruz Gonzalez, Urban Development Coordinator SUBJECT: 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program Allocations and Annual Work Plan I. REFERENCE(S).- A. 2006 Summary of CDBG Applications for Funding B. Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2005 Workshop and Public Hearing and August 18, 2005 Planning Commission Action C. Resolution Approving 2006 Allocations and Annual Work Plans II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCILISTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/26/2005: DISCUSSION 10/3/2005: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. regarding the City's 2006 CDBG Allocations and Annual Work Plan. III. FISCAL IMPACT It is estimated for 2006, there will be approximately $858,000 available including an entitlement grant of $698,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, plus a $160,000 of program income. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. A summary of requests for 2006 CDBG funds is attached (Reference "A"). The City received twenty-two (22) requests for funds totaling $1,431,775. A total of approximately $858,000 is available. B. All proposed activities are eligible for funding under U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department regulations. The City has a longstanding policy of declining outside public service requests because the 15% federal limit is consumed by established municipal service programs. C. The Planning Commission held a workshop and Public Hearing on July 21, 2005. The Public Hearing which was advertised in the Tri-City Herald and Giant Nickel in Spanish and solicited public comment on applications for funding from Pasco's 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program. At the workshop eleven (11) people made presentations relating to their proposals. Planning Commission action was on August 18, 2005. V. DISCUSSION A. At the August 18, 2005 City Planning Commission meeting, staff presented recommendations for funding. The Planning Commission recommended that the staff funding recommendations be approved. B. It is necessary that Pasco's. Annual Plan be submitted to HUD by November 15, 2005. Therefore, it is recommended the funding as outlined in the summary of 2006 Planning Commission recommendations be approved. 3(a) CITY OF PASCO Exhibit A 2006 CDBG Proposal Summary& Requests Attachment 2 PLANNING CITY STAFF COMMISSION COUNCIL ACTIVITY REQUEST RECOMMEND RECOMMEND APPROVAL 1 CDBG Program Administration $ 120,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 2 Code Enforcement $ . 48,000.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 48,000.00 3 Downtown Fagade Improvement $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 4 Abatement (Dangerous Buildings) $ 50,000.00 $ - $ - I * 5 Recreation Program -Civic Center $ 37,500.00 $ 37,500.00 $ 37,500.00 * 6 Recreation Specialist–MLKCC $ 37,500.00 $ 37,500.00 $ 37,500.00 I * 7 Senior Citizens Program $ 29,000.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 29,000.00 8 Economic Development Incentives $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - 9 Volunteer Park Restroom upgrade $ 150,000.00 $ 115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 and ADA trail 10 Sacajawea Heritage Trail $ 150,000.00 $ 192,000.00 $ 192,000.00 11 Street Reconstruction $ 50,000.00 $ - $ - East Pasco Underground Power 12 $ 150,000.00 $ - $ Lines I 13 Handicap ramps (city-wide) $ 80,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 * 14 Alpha Men of Tomorrow Mentoring $ 5,000.00 $ - $ - Program 15 Boys & Girls Club—Facility rehab $ 145,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 * 16 CAC-Choices Continuum of Care $ 6,775.00 $ - $ - Center 17 CAC-Energy Home Program $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 18 Catholic Family& Child Services- $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Low Income minor repairs 19 Pasco Downtown Development $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 Association-Comm. Kit. * 20 Pasco School Dist. (classes using $ 30,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 Pasco Com. Kit.) 21 The Manna Project $ 20,000.00 $ - $ - 22 Habitat for Humanity $ 78,000.00 $ - $ - TOTAL $ 1,421,775.00 $ 858,000.00 $ 858,000.00 $ - Estimated FY 2006 Entitlement $ 698,000.00 Program Income $ 160,000.00 Total Funds Available $ 858,000.00 * Community Services subject to 15% cap. CITY OF PASCO 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Attachment 1 1. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ($120,000 The Community&Economic Development Department is requesting funds to offset the City's costs for operating the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for 2006. HUD regulations specify that a maximum 20% of the program allocation can be spent on administration. The 2006 request is approximately 17% of the allocation. 2. CODE ENFORCEMENT ($48,000): The Community Development Department is requesting funds to help defray the expenses of operating a Code Enforcement Program to address blighted conditions and to create a more viable living environment for low to moderate-income families in low to moderate-income areas in Pasco. This amount covers part of the program delivery costs of code enforcement officers who are responsible for these areas in Pasco. 3. DOWNTOWN FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ($40,000):. The City Council authorized the use of$20,000 in CDBG funds to be used as matching grants to encourage downtown property owners to improve their fagades. This request for additional funds will allow the program to continue into 2006. 4. ABATEMENT (DANGEROUS BUILDINGS): ($50,000): As a result of code enforcement activities, selected facilities may be found to be unsafe and a risk to the public. After inspections, notice to owners, and a hearing, such facilities will be removed and final disposition of the property will be determined. 5. RECREATION PROGRAM- CIVIC CENTER($37,500): The Administrative & Community Service Department is requesting funding for a staff person to manage recreation programs at the Civic Center Activity Building. The majority of these programs serve area youth (preschool through school age). Programs are offered during the school year and summer. Programs are targeted to "at-risk" youth. Most participants walk to the facility, located in low-moderate income neighborhoods. 6. RECREATION SPECIALIST -M.L.K. COMMUNITY CENTER($37,500) The Administrative &Community Services Department is requesting partial funding for a full time staff person to manage youth programs at.the Martin Luther King Community Center. The Center, located in a low-income neighborhood provides a range of recreational opportunities for area youth. The highest concentration or minority students live around the Martin Luther King Center. Programs are coordinated with the YMCA, Salvation Army, and Campfire USA. 7. SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAMS ($29,000): The Administrative & Community Service Department is requesting funds to support senior citizens programming at the senior center. Funds are used for staff and program costs. Programming has increased for seniors over the past several years and the increased activity level necessitates continuing these services. Primary beneficiaries are the City's low-income elderly. 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES: ($100,000): It is anticipated that in 2006 the City of Pasco will need to provide incentive funding for industry locating in Pasco. The growth in Pasco is presently at an all time high and is expected to continue in 2006 and beyond. In our future planning it is necessary to anticipate that large new business will require incentives to locate in Pasco. 9. VOLUNTEER PARK UPGRADE: ($150,000): This proposed Activity involves improvements to a public park by installing a new prefabricated restroom and continuing an ADA trail around the park. Park upgrade would be of benefit to the neighboring community, which is populated by primarily low to moderate income residents. 10. SACJAWEA HERITAGE TRAIL: ($150,000): The final phase of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail in Pasco is incomplete from 2nd Avenue (Pasco boat basin) to approximately 13`x' Avenue which is about one mile. It is anticipated that in 2006 work will be started in completing this important part of the trail which is in a very low income area of households in Pasco. 11. STREET RECONSTRUCTION: ($50,000): It is planned that the City of Pasco Public Works Department will be upgrading selected areas within Pasco with new and reconstructed streets in areas of low to moderate income households in 2006. 12. EAST PASCO UNDERGROUND POWER LINES: ($150,000): In 2005, the City of Pasco identified an area in East Pasco which requires upgrading of streets, sidewalks and power requirements to support new schools and households in low to moderate income areas. The estimated costs were in excess of$600,000 and funds were allocated in 2005. This request is in furtherance of that effort and within that scope of work. 13. HANDICAP RAMPS ($80,000): The City Public Works & Engineering Department proposes reconstructing street corners in Pasco to meet accessibility standards. 14. ALPHA MEN OF TOMORROW MENTORING PROGRAM ($5,000): Funds are being requested to sponsor a mentoring program for African American male students of the Pasco School District to graduate from high school and college. In addition to stressing the importance of academic achievement, leadership development and social development, the students will be instructed on the requirements for completing high school and going to college. 15. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB FACILITY REHABILITATION ($145,000): Window Renovation. The Boys & Girls Club is invested in making the building at 801 N 18`h both functional as well as beautiful. They propose to utilize CDBG funds to complete improvements to exterior doors and windows. This renovation was begun in 2003 utilizing CDBG funds to update windows on the west side of the building. This project was continued in 2004 with the renovation to the south side of the building. In August of 2005, this project will extend to the east side of the building. The remaining cost requested for 2006 will be used to complete the Gymnasium windows and the east-side entry. The existing windows are original to the building and consist of a single pane glass approximately 7' high. Each year, thousands of dollars are lost as heat and air-conditioning from our recently added HVAC system exit the building through these windows. Additionally, as a visible community asset(due to use by Pasco families as well as proximity to Edgar Brown Stadium) exterior window improvements will enhance the appearance of the Pasco community. The estimated cost for this improvement would be $35,000. Gamesroom Renovation. The original use of the Main Branch was an elementary school. Due to this fact, the entire building is accessed by a series of long hallways. A major safety concern in the building is unsupervised youth utilizing hallways for program transitions. We will renovate the Gamesroom to encompass 1032 sq. ft. of additional program space. This renovation will eliminate a jog in the hallway allowing for direct visibility by staff to all accessible areas of the south wing of the building. We anticipate this renovation resulting in a drastic increase in safety for the 2388 members we serve on a yearly basis. Additionally, this renovation will serve to eliminate a large quantity of asbestos-based material utilized when the building was originally constructed. There is no renovation currently being contemplated by our organization that would have as drastic of an impact on safety. The estimated cost for this improvement would be $110,000. 16. BENTON-FRANKLIN CAC - CHOICES CENTER OF CARE: ($6,775): The Community Action Committee has developed the subject program and is a non-stop intake-application system for all homeless and potentially homeless population. CAC has a project office in Pasco and coordinates the need and contacts for homeless persons. This funding will supplement other funding to carry this program through 2006. 17. BENTON-FRANKLIN CAC—ENERGY HOME PROGRAM: ($20,000): Funds are being requested to leverage state energy conservation funds to be used on 14 low income homes in Pasco for insulation, furnace repairs and lead based paint testing. Use of these funds helps the City of Pasco's HOME program by providing match funding for the HOME program. I I 18. CATHOLIC FAMILY& CHILD SERVICES ($20,000): This organization is requesting funds to purchase materials to support volunteers who do home repairs and build ramps for low-income elderly residents in Pasco. Volunteers come from a wide variety of sources through out the Tri-Cities, which includes many different faith-based organizations, individuals and Hanford groups. 19. PASCO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATON— COMMERCIAL KITCHEN ($65,000.00): Funding is requested for start-up costs through 2006 to supplement revenues which are predicted to be less than operating costs. This estimate is based upon a best efforts basis since there is no historical background data to rely on. The Kitchen is located in a low to moderate income area and will be an area benefit which will support the Farmers & Market and is anticipated to create jobs for low to moderate income persons and create small businesses which will increase the volume of business in the Farmers Market. Additionally, it is anticipated that educational institutions will utilize the facility for culinary instruction and hopefully increasing revenues. 20. PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT---CULINARY INSTRUCTION ($30,000): The Pasco School Dist is planning on the development of a culinary hands-on workshop for approximately twenty one students which would use the Pasco Commercial Kitchen for over 60 hours per month. Details have been discussed with the staff of the PDDA regarding costs and space. The overall cost estimate for carrying out this program would be about $115,000. The.CDBG grant would cover program development costs. 21. MANNA PROJECT: ($20,000): This proposed Activity involves improvements to a private park which has been greatly improved by private donations over the past few years. It is located off of Sylvester in a low income neighborhood near Rowena Chess Elementary School and is safe clean recreational space for children and families and to play games and have picnics. A covered shelter is needed and a drinking fountain. 22. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: ($78,000): This activity is designed to help first time home owners with down payment assistance for homes they help build, thus creating an increased community pride. The development of data supporting this effort is necessary for documentation. The Activity would meet the goal of improving affordable housing opportunities. Exhibit B REGULAR MEETING July 21, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 2005 E. Public Hearing: Block Grant Program: 2006 Program Year Requests for CDBG Funding Chairman McCollum read the agenda item title and asked for the Staff report. Staff reported that the Commission will be reviewing the 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program Application packet. Staff reported it is estimated Pasco will receive $698,000 which is the same amount received last year in 2005. Staff explained 22 requests were submitted for a total of $1,431,775. These 22 proposals all meet the HUD requirements. Chairman McCollum asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were none. CHAIRMAN MCCOLLUM OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. John Hughes, Community Development Block Grant Coordinator, requested funds in the amount of $120,000 for Program Administration. The funding is to offset the City's costs for operating the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for 2006. HUD regulations specify that a maximum 20% of the program allocation can be spent on administration. The 2006 request is approximately 17% of the allocation. John Hughes, requested funds in the amount of $48,000 for the Code Enforcement program. The Community Development Department is requesting funds to help defray the expenses of operating a Code Enforcement Program to address blighted conditions and to create a more viable living environment for low to moderate-income families in low to moderate-income areas in Pasco. This amount covers part of the program delivery costs of code enforcement officers who are responsible for these areas in Pasco. Rick Smith, Community & Economic Development Director, requested funds in the amount of $40,000 for the Downtown Facade Improvement Program. The City Council authorized the use of $20,000 in CDBG funds last year to be used as matching .grants to encourage downtown property owners to improve their facades. This request for additional funds will allow the program to continue into 2006. Rick Smith, Community 8, Economic Development Director, requested funds in the amount of $50,000 for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. As a result of code enforcement activities, selected facilities may be found to be unsafe and a risk to the public. After inspections, notice to owners, and a hearing, such facilities will be removed and final disposition of the property will be determined. This request would help defray some of the abatement costs incurred by low- to moderate-income persons. Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director, requested funds in the amount of $37,500 for the Civic Center Recreation Program. The funding - 1 - would be for a staff person to manage recreation programs at the Civic Center Activity Building. The majority of these programs serve area youth. Programs are offered during the school year and summer. Programs are targeted to "at- risk" youth. Most participants walk to the facility from the surrounding low- moderate income neighborhoods. Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director, requested funds in the amount of $37,500 for the Martin Luther King Community Center. The request was for partial funding of a full time staff person to manage youth programs at the Martin Luther King Community Center. The Center, located in a low-income neighborhood and provides a range of recreational opportunities for area youth. The highest concentration or minority students live around the Martin Luther King Center. Programs are coordinated with the YMCA, Salvation Army, and Campfire USA. Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director, requested funds in the amount of $29,000 for the Senior Center. Funds will be used for staff and program costs. Programming has increased for seniors over the past several years and the increased activity level necessitates continuing these services. Primary beneficiaries are the City's low-income elderly. Rick Smith, Community & Economic Development Director, requested funds in the amount of $100,000 for Economic Development Incentives. It is anticipated that in 2006 the City of Pasco will need to provide incentive funding for industries locating in Pasco. The growth in Pasco is presently at an all time.high and is expected to continue in 2006 and beyond. In our future planning it is necessary to anticipate that new business will require incentives to locate in Pasco. Todd Knittel, Public Works & Engineering Associate Engineer, requested funds in the amount of $80,000 for Handicap Ramps. The City Public Works 8v Engineering Department proposes reconstructing street corners in Pasco to meet accessibility standards. Commissioner Anderson asked what specific aread the ramp improvements were taking place in. Mr. Knittel responded the improvement .were taking place in the older parts of town. Commissioner Mosebar asked why the dots on the map were different colors. Mr. Knittel responded the colors signify the years the ramps were installed Commissioner Little asked how much an average ramp costs to install. Mr. Knittel responded that the average cost is $1,500 per ramp. Rick Smith, Community & Economic Development Director, requested funds in the amount of$150,000 for completion of the Sacajawea Heritage Trail. The final phase of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail in Pasco is incomplete from 2nd Avenue (Pasco boat basin) to approximately 13th Avenue which is about one mile. It is anticipated that in 2006 work will be started to complete this important part of the trail which is in a very low income area of Pasco. - 2 - Rick Smith, Community & Economic Development Director, requested funds in the amount of $50,000 for Street Reconstruction. It is planned that the City of Pasco Public Works Department will be upgrading selected areas within Pasco with new and reconstructed streets in areas of low- to moderate-income households in 2006. Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director requested funds in the amount of $150,000 for Volunteer Park Upgrades. This proposal involves improvements to the park by installing a new prefabricated restroom and continuing an ADA trail around the park. Park upgrades would benefit to the neighboring community, which is populated by primarily low- to moderate- income residents. Rick Smith, Community & Economic Development Director, requested funds in the amount of $150,000 for East Pasco Power Lines Under grounding. In 2005, the City of Pasco identified an area in East Pasco which requires upgrading of streets, sidewalks and power requirements to support new schools and households in low- to moderate-income areas. The estimated costs were in excess of $600,000 and funds were allocated in 2005. This request is in furtherance of that effort and within the approved scope of work. Russell Blye, Chapter Secretary of Alpha Men of Tomorrow, requested funds in the amount of $5,000 for a Mentoring Program. Funds are being requested to sponsor a mentoring program for African American male students of the Pasco School District to encourage graduation from high school and college. In addition to stressing the importance of academic achievement, leadership development and social development, the students will be instructed on the requirements for completing high school and going to college. Greg Faulke, Executive Director of Boys & Girls Club, requested funds in the amount of $145,000 for the Boys & Girls Club Facility Rehabilitation. Funds would be used to complete planned window replacements started in 2003, and expand and renovate the game room. The organization serves approximately 2,000 Pasco youth from low- to moderate-income families. Debra Biondilillo, Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee requested $6,775 for Choices, a Continuum Care Center. The Community Action Committee (CAC) has developed the subject program for the homeless and potentially homeless population. CAC has a project office in Pasco and coordinates the need and contacts for homeless persons. This funding will supplement other funding to carry this program through 2006. Dave Odom, Housing Winterization Department Director, Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee requested funds in the amount of $20,000 for the Energy Home Efficiency Program. Funds are being requested to leverage state energy conservation funds to be used on 14 low income homes in Pasco for insulation, furnace repairs and lead based paint testing. Use of these funds helps the City of Pasco's HOME program by providing match funding for the HOME program. Commissioner Rose asked Mr. Odom if there were volunteers involved with this program. - 3 - Mr. Odom responded that volunteers do not help on site, but volunteers do help at the administration level. John Hughes, spoke for Shari Hallman of Catholic Family & Child Services who was ill and not able to be present. Catholic Family & Child services requested funds in the amount of $20,000 for the Volunteer Chore Services. Requested funds would be used to purchase materials to support volunteers who do home repairs and build ramps for low-income elderly residents in Pasco. Volunteers come from a wide variety of sources throughout the Tri-Cities, which includes many different individuals, Hanford groups and faith-based organizations. Dorothy Schoeppach, Pasco Downtown Development Association, requested funds in the amount of $65,000 for the Commercial Kitchen. Funding is requested for start-up costs through 2006 to supplement revenues which are predicted to be less than operating costs. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen is located in a low- to moderate-income area and will be an area benefit which will support the Farmer's Market and is anticipated to create jobs for low- to moderate- income persons. Additionally, it is anticipated that educational institutions will utilize the facility for culinary instruction. Chairman McCollum asked if any of the businesses had moved out and opened their own shop. Ms. Schoeppach responded that no businesses have moved out as of yet, but she expects a couple of businesses will by the end of the year. Commissioner Rose asked how many hours per week the kitchen is utilized. Ms. Schoeppach responded that it is seasonal and the last month was a very busy month. John Hughes spoke for Chris Martinson of the Pasco School District who was out of town. Pasco School District requested funds in the amount of $30,000 for Culinary Instruction at the Commercial Kitchen. The Pasco School District is planning on. the development of a culinary hands-on workshop for approximately twenty one students which would use the Pasco Commercial Kitchen for over 60 hours per month. Details have been discussed with the staff of the PDDA regarding costs and space. The overall cost estimate for carrying out this program would be about $115,000. The CDBG grant would cover program development costs. Lynn Jones, Manna Project, requested funds in the amount of $20,000. This proposed Activity involves improvements to a private park which has been greatly improved by private donations over the past few years. It is located off of Sylvester in a low income neighborhood near Rowena Chess Elementary School and is safe clean recreational space for children and families to play games and have picnics. Funds are requested to provide a covered shelter and a drinking fountain. Commissioner Miles asked Ms. Jones how she came upon with the cost of the project. Ms. Jones responded by prayerful consideration and an educated guess based - 4 - on the costs per square foot of a remodeling job. Teresa Richardson, Executive Director for Tri-County Partners of Habitat for Humanity, requested funds in the amount of $78,000 for Habitat for Humanity projects. This activity is designed to help first time home owners with down payment assistance for homes they help build. The Activity would meet the goal of improving affordable housing opportunities. i - 5 - REGULAR MEETING August 18, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2005 E. Old Business: BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM: 2006 Program Year Funding Recommendations, (City of Pasco Chairman McCollum read the master file and asked for the Staff report. Staff reported that the applicant (City of Pasco) is requesting approval of the 2006 Program Year Funding, Chairman McCollum asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Smurthwaite asked staff why the Heritage Trail request was increased. Staff noted that because of Davis Bacon rules, by giving the Heritage Trail more money and cutting the money from the block grant program from East Lewis Project the city would save over $50,000. Staff noted that the money cut from the East Lewis Project would be funded through the general fund. Commissioner Smurthwaite asked why the Handicap ramp funding was increased by $20,000. Staff responded that they are proposing to increase the money to help get the Handicap ramps done sooner. Commissioner Smurthwaite asked staff how long will it be necessary to fund the Commercial Kitchen. Staff responded that it will be necessary until the Commercial Kitchen breaks even. Commissioner Mosebar asked staff how close the Commercial Kitchen is to breaking even. Staff responded they could not answer that question. Commissioner Miles asked if the hyphen meant that the recommendation is for no money to be given. Staff responded that his interpretation was correct. Commissioner Hay moved the Planning Commission recommend the Block Grant Budget as presented on August 18, 2005 to the City Coucil for approval Commissioner Smurthwaite seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. - 1 - Exhibit C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION approving the Program Year 2006 Community Development Block Grant Allocations and Annual Work Plan. WHEREAS, staff has prepared the Program Year 2006 Annual Work Plan for activities totaling $858,000; and i WHEREAS, on September 19, 2005 the Annual Work Plan was modified and presented to the City Council for review; NOW, THEREFORE, I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the Annual Work Plan as follows: I. CDBG Program Administration $ 105,000.00 2. Code Enforcement 48,000.00 3. Downtown Facade Improvement 40,000.00 4. Recreation Program- Civic Center 37,500.00 5. Recreation Specialist–MLKCC 37,500.00 6. Senior Citizens Program 29,000.00 7. Volunteer Park upgrade 115,000.00 8, Sacajawea Heritage Trail 192,000.00 9. Handicap ramps (city-wide) 100,000.00 10. Boys & Girls Club—Facility rehab 35,000.00 11. CAC-Energy Home Program 20,000.00 12. Catholic Family & Child Services-Low Income minor repairs 10,000.00 13. Pasco Downtown Development Association-Comm. Kit. 65,000.00 14, Pasco School Dist. (classes using Pasco Com. Kit.) 24,000.00 TOTAL $ 858,000.00 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of 52005. Michael L. Garrison Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney 1� . AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 9, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager W/Shop Mtg.: 9/26/05 Stan Strebel, Administrative& i Services Directo Regular Mtg.: 10/3/05 FROM: Webster Jackson, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY SURPLUS TO CITY NEED I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/26: Discussion 10/3: Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. authorizing the sale of personal property surplus to city needs. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF i The City of Pasco Police Department has in its possession a collection of miscellaneous items consisting of an assortment of various kinds of tools, bicycles, portable and two- way radios, cameras, electronic equipment, saws, etc. These items are the result of arrests. and the recovery of stolen property whereas no one has come forth to claim any of it by presenting proof of ownership. The disposition of this property is in accordance with RCW Title 63.32.010,"Methods of Disposition", and PMC 2.46, "Sale of City Property". No minimum prices are suggested for each of the miscellaneous items, as they are too numerous. Staff estimates that the total sales price will be approximately $500.00, and is requesting Council to declare the items surplus to city needs and authorize staff to sell the items for a price that is in the best interest of the City. Therefore, staff is requesting Council approval of the action stated in Section II above. V. DISCUSSION: To be determined. 3(b) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of personal property surplus to City needs. WHEREAS, there are certain items of personal property surplus to City needs; NOW, THEREFORE, i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: I. The items of personal property listed below are declared surplus property and city staff is directed to advertise for sale by competitive bid, sealed bid, or public auction at, or above,the minimum sale price set forth below: Several miscellaneous items consisting of tools, bicycles, portable and two-way radios, cameras, electronic equipment, saws, etc. MINIMUM PRICE: $500. 2. In the event the minimum bid price is not received on an item(s), staff is authorized to negotiate a sale at a price that is in the best interest of the City. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of October 2005. CITY OF PASCO Michael L. Garrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Webster Jackson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney 1i I AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 19, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/05 Regular Mtg.: 10/3/05 I' FROM: Stan Strebel, A rive and Community Services Dire SUBJECT: Amendment to Lease Agreement—Levee 12-1, . Pasco Boat Basin I. REFERENCE(S): A. 8/22 Letter from Corps of Engineers B. Proposed Amendment II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCILISTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/19: Discussion 1013: MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Levee 12-1, Pasco Boat Basin Lease and, further,to authorize the Mayor to sign the amendment. III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In March 2004 the City entered into a fifty year lease with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the portion of the Columbia River Levee 12-1 between the Blue and Cable bridges. The lease cleared the way for the City to lower the levee and construct a segment of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail on the towered levee. B) In the fall of 2004, after requesting that the COE address an odor problem stemming from algae growth in pond 12-1, adjacent to the Pasco Little League fields, staff became aware that the COE considered the pond odor problem now a City responsibility due to the new lease. This was quite a surprise to staff because throughout years of discussion on the concept of transfer or lease of the levee the COE had maintained that, under any scenario, it would maintain control of the surface waters upland of the levee. Further, the lease document contains no specific reference to the pond itself or City responsibilities :with respect thereto. In previous years, the COE has responded to odor complaints with aeration equipment placed in the pond. C) In meeting with COE representatives, staff pointed out that the City had no authority to operate the COE pumps or to otherwise control the water levels in the pond. Also the City had no benefit (i.e. boating or fishing) from the pond other than aesthetics It therefore did not make sense to try to interpret the lease to assign certain mainten nce responsibilities to the City. D) The COE has finally agreed to delete the pond from the lease in recognition that the .City is not responsible for the pond and odors emanating therefrom. The City still re Gins responsibility for the maintenance of large diameter perforated pipe, which discharges into the pond,that was installed as part of the trail improvement project. D) Staff recommends approval of the attached lease amendment. i 3(c) , i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PASCO CITY HALL WALLA WALLA DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS R EC EIVELT 201 NORTH THIRD AVENUE WALLA WALLA WA 99362-1876 AUG 2 4 2005 \ REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Au ust 22, 2005 OFFICE CITY N'1A,`IAGEfTS 9 Real Estate Division Subject: Amendment No.1, Department of the Army Lease W912EF-1-04-13, City of Pasco Mr. Gary Crutchfield City Manager City of Pasco PO Box 293 Pasco, Washington 99301 Dear Mr. Crutchfield: Attached for review and acceptance by the city of Pasco (the city) is proposed amendment number 1 which removes the Levee 12-1 Pond from the subject lease. Please review the amendment and if it is agreeable, please sign and date both copies where indicated by the green arrows. Please also have both copies of the Certificate of Authority completed. When all signatures have been obtained, return both copies of the amendment tome at the address above and they will be executed by the government. One copy of the amendment will be returned to the city for its record and use. If you have any questions, please call me at 509-527-7324. You may also contact me by email at Paul.S.Shampine @usace.army.mil. Sincerely, Enclosures Paul Shampine Realty Specialist i AMENDMENT NO. 1, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LEASE NO. W912EF-1-04-13 TO THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FOR PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES Levee 12-1, The Pasco Boat Basin on McNary Lock and Dam Project Franklin County, Washington WHEREAS, on March 26, 2004, the City of Pasco, Washington, grantee, leased a continuous land area in Franklin County on the McNary Lock and Dam Project including portions of premises Tracts XX-3457 and XX-3461 and all of premises Tracts XX-3458 and XX-3459, known collectively as the Levee 12-1 Pond, for Public Park and Recreation purposes; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated November 5, 2004, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit I, the grantee requested that the lease be amended to remove the 12-1 Pond from the leased premises due to management of the pond's odor and acknowledged that if its use or improvement is desired in the future, that an additional amendment will be required; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment to the lease will not conflict or interfere with nor adversely affect the operation of the McNary Lock and Dam project for its authorized purposes; NOW THEREFORE, effective on the date of execution of this amendment by the Chief, Real Estate Division, Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army Lease W912EF-1-04-13 is hereby modified in the following particulars, but in no others: 1. Waters and lands of the Levee 12-1 Pond, at and below normal surface elevation 330.5 feet mean sea level, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, as shown in Exhibit J, are hereby removed from the lease area. 2. Removal of the pond from the lease shall in no way relieve the grantee from any responsibility for operation and maintenance of the recently installed 470 linear feet of 78-inch perforated pipe and its appurtenances that discharge into the Levee 12-1 pond. In all other respects, the covenants, provisions and conditions of said lease shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand by authority of the Secretary of the Army this day of , 2005. RICHARD CARLTON Chief, Real Estate Division Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers This amendment to Department of the Army Lease No. W912EF-1-04-13 is also executed by the grantee this day of , 2005. CITY OF PASCO By: Title: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY certify that I am the of I that , who signed the foregoing instrument on behalf of the grantee, was then of I further certify that the said officer was acting within the scope of powers delegated to this officer by the governing body of the grantee in executing said instrument. Date (signature) I CITY MANAGER (509) 545-34E04 /Scam 726-34441 Fax (509) 545-3403 P.O.Box 293 (525 North 3rd Avenue) Pasco,Washington 99301 November 5, 2004 i ,�x e �eceiv ed Vii. Richard Carlton, Chief 1 1 Chief, Real Estate Real Estate Division c uilsitlon Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers `nDralse] 201 North Third Ave. Legal ---- < t�f&D Walla Walla WA 99362-1876 --- Re: Lease No. W912EF-1-04-13 4 Planning _,.. f:d�;�n'��i .- LFq al Pro ero"'i- Oe Dear Mr. Carlton: The City of Pasco.hereby requests an amendment to the referenced lease to delete the 12-1 pond (see attached) from said lease. Prior to the execution of the lease, when the city received complaints from citizens regarding the unpleasant odor emanating from the pond(presumably due to unchecked growth of algae),the Corps responded with efforts to mitigate the nuisance. Throughout the several years of discussion regarding the potential conveyance of the Tri-Cities levee to local jurisdictions, Corps officials made it very clear to all of us involved that the Corps would retain entire control over the drainage system associated with the levee. Indeed,WRDA 96 stipulated as much. When we forwarded citizen complaints about the pond odors this summer, we were surprised to leans the Corps' position was that the lease placed responsibility for the pond in the hands of the city. While the lease is apparently silent on the specific duties of the lessee and lessor with respect to the pond, the city had maintained throughout lease negotiations the same understandings of Corps responsibility for the drainage system that had permeated all disci ssions prior to that time. As a consequence, key city staff met with Corps personnel at the pond on September 23 to view and discuss the relevant circumstances. The conclusion of that discussion was the best way to deal with the conflict would be to amend the lease to delete the pond; that amendment would clarify that it is not included within the property]eased by the city. We understand that, if the city desires to improve or use the pond in the future, we will need to amend the lease to add the pond. Richard Carlton, Chief, Real Estate Division November 5, 2004 RE: Lease No. W912EF-1-04-13 Paae 2 Please initiate the process necessary to formally amend the lease to reflect the "meeting of the minds"arrived at during the on-site discussion with Corps personnel on September 23. Since , i Ga tc field Ci,y Manager GC/tlz ` cc: City Council Starr Strebel, Administrative and Community Services Director attachment -J f! a0W +n cr,9rr`r a r, r •'r+ 11NNII QJ cif: � � e:.�•S fIr"��y� - ,41 I �y�o Erg- it - i�J [' i � -�� e - - f v `� .2 .Sx„_-=_-- f �'Wit_ri• r ffi LZI LLLLLLW If t 1 L tr 't+ J� �i►�l`a't Imo' I i� LLLLLLL r'. t� C) LLLL' Lt LLLLLL L,_�. ,t��..:r�r,•'>:-i by w-y� ,;. - • 1r-��°,¢I� .rYm y_t_S)J,fti,��C Y^••t1•�Y -��....'-;', . ��, ••-_.._:ecsl� � �a..t=•:=_:T..._. . ,.-��•-� to ! �sW COLUMBIA R 11 SEPT �jy`'• Fy► Olt •� S I Af�: LRi. �s s' t •�y�J! S �:r, Z;;., tk- ..3s.-- -"'KA' _. r,-1-_,ry•'�r! � t` ��� l�r�' �;•µ ?i�•�4�i iT4;;�y.: :::�.,; ��" $��z' S�� •y�'t 'sYs { ��; Yom. �.;-. .�-�.u' �•.�- '!t 'S '`• iii' � .[� #:` � �,�..� :e:,,, .�°"._`... �c ''." mow [l�� •�' : ay::• _ •:�J••:::[�- ��� t- •ACM �.11Tl- `:. 1 - `=::y"i _ ,'7f.':_.'•-L-'t.�., ,/ ''�'� , ,'�.\s - �F► fsPiz.;j�,"�SV} *� ,•.,t_ t ., -��_, .•.�'; ... �`.. �7 ,'.f. ����: '1''4'x.-.+a .�� �•�'{,•,��`.:r%�s�-.�.!'i��.'`-- a 'i`��a��', •;1.'/ 'l'�-,� �ai��a�'�� 4�e, `� ._• �������� �- :i :L�-��',`r .t�Ra �.y"�-ir, �' r�` ,,;;\�'�;'��.� ��i(i':' •�,sYy� 4 -S! g"�'a .:.�� iS,' / •.yam.'' `.i. }�t: ter ,.�' �� •.�`c �1k1 `���s"-r',.��s,�1,'�'� _•�a�, ` +. r� ._�. a` •4..:.' y :,.. cY. At . , - _�_ _ +a' - .:.'{ aye;. r_.,.'r,`t.,' '�% � '�.'j:;'>�-�'•:�'. a.jF :\ ,.:• - ..} s .�`r.; �' 1. -t .'� t• ��. •7� R4 :.. •V•b. •-�j.... •t. Er;.. >-[... R: '$',� � fl:' 1`sJ•• � f' s i'•.•w� '::.s ice•.- y .; .. f 4,i%=_' _ � 1t ;�'•=• s'.'` ,... ' "': i�,.: f�'• ��:.tea:! Js'i'S.'•�:'4.C;, ).a:>.� ; �"` �' ',7 3c0 „`„' J•� -4.d_•; �. Ad S. '{` ' .,� � '.' � t � Y,k� r �. '�aa•�{�r t�,�.,•:'i d,. 'L isfy`, :l t Y�' ':•�C-�. � �' •:�-� '�' � - ':r'�- iii > jj >--�� i. �•t l°' r, ':l �., ' r':c�•i-.r_' - 4 �:`.i[T-.T'�r"- - v�'•` � �I �t1 y%?"' _ - .:'C,:,�=� �A'.?I': �',-.. ,}:l7'' .�._ y,, .. s -'aL.:.:. i,1'h,'!„-i��'+� ..',2._Slr .�,.:.s }„•�.��.���.-�"•R ,y�.�.<•:.�: o1, `-���` � �i�' i- < _• ,. :yk4> .•= Via: ; ar`; . r':_Y:. \tom' `7/. "�:.�' � ,°;�`.i" .�j"`�•. ;*-:�:: �:: rte'`mot f:" n .=r. .r 's4,T•`~r, - ;"1 PO 0.0 F�.'_ Rr' :� 4,.ti`t# .y" E.,..•` y III,Am tom: •y?: -,:�•_...#,.�':nk'�•�`::.elr ..._ . . . 4�: '.:... j 1 fj 'etl: .', �(•... - _ :.�r� ,4..- �/1. A:i - ��. any :.k•. Sec-tion3l , Township 3 Range x AGENDA REPORT NO. 79 FOR: City Council DATE: 9/21/OS TO: Gary Crutchfi 1 Manager WORKSHOP: 9/26/05 Richard J. Smi Yi rector REGULAR: 10/3/05 Community an nom ic Development FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Proposed code amendment for PMC- 26. (Hammerhead Turnarounds) (MF # 05-125-CA) I. REFERENCE(S): A. Proposed Ordinance B. Memo to Planning Commission: Dated 9/7/05 B. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 9/15/05 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9/26/05 Discussion: 10/3/05 Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Pasco Municipal Code Title 26 by creating provisions for hammerhead dead-end streets and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On September 15, 2005 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review a proposed code amendment for the inclusion of provisions for hammerhead turnarounds in the City's subdivision regulations. B. At the conclusion of the September 15th public hearing the Planning Commission recommended the attached code amendment for hammerheads. V. DISCUSSION: A. Since 1996 the City has annexed considerable portions of the unincorporated lands within the Urban Growth Area located west of Highway 395. Within the annexation areas there were a number of short dead-end streets. These dead-end streets are currently nonconforming with respect to the City's subdivision regulations. B. Dead-end streets are only permitted in the City where a street is planned to extend beyond a subdivision into succeeding phases, or where a cul-de-sac has been authorized. C. Development adjacent the dead-end streets annexed to the City requires the construction of a cul de sac. In most situations it will be impossible to add a cul-de-sac because one side of a street may be fully developed. Thus, the other half of the necessary circle is not available. ' An alternate method of addressing public safety in these situations is the construction of hammerhead turnarounds. The proposed code. amendment provides for that option. 3(d) ♦ T D. Upon review of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Attorney indicated there should be a clear standard to rely upon when permitting hammerheads. The intent of the recommendation was to permit hammerheads only in those situations where the county previously approved plats with dead end streets that now provide no practical means for development of a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission's recommendation has, therefore, been slightly modified (see Section 26.12.075) to address the City Attorney's concern. The modification makes it clear that hammerheads are only permitted where existing platted development precludes the possibility of the construction of a standard cul-de-sac. E . If Council concurs with the attached recommendations, the proposed ordinance will be placed on the October 3rd agenda for Council action. is I k f i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to subdividing amending PMC Title 26 dealing with hammerhead turnarounds. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and insure the public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, from time to time, the City Council causes the subdivision regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 26; NOW THEREFORE, 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 26.08.145 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) 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 and R,S-12 districts as provided in section 26.12.075. Section 2. That Section 26.08.145 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.08.145 Hammerhead/T: "Hammerhead / T" means a roadway that provides a "T" shaped, three-point turnaround space for emergency equipment. Section 3. That Section 26.12.075 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.12.075 Hammerhead / T's are only permitted in R-S-20 and R-S-12 zoning districts where property was platted in the county prior to annexation and existing development precludes the expectation that a standard cul-de-sac can be developed. 1 Dead end .streets with hammerheads should normally be less than three hundred (300) feet but will be permitted up to four hundred and _fifty (450) feet in length. (2) Streets with hammerheads shall not serve more than 8 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 8 lots shall not be less than forty (40 ) feet with no on street parking i (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 (32) feet from the face of curb to the face of curb; (b) Thirty (30) feet of pavement width where there is no curb and gutter; (c) Twenty-eight (28) feet of pavement for hammerheads; (5) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set.forth in Figure 26.12.075.01 or 26.12.075.02. Figure 26.12.075.01 Figure: 26.12.075.02 - 40• 30' 63' 63' � C�rvderr Lh)e II } i ! f k Connecting Road Connecting Roed Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. I PASSED by the City Council of.the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of 2005. i Michael B. Garrision Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney i i 1 i 2 i CITY OF PASCO SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE NO. amends PMC Title 26 pertaining to hammer head turnarounds. The full text of Ordinance No. , is available free of charge to any person who requests it from the City Clerk of the City of Pasco (509) 545-3402, P.O. Box 293, Pasco, Washington 99301. Webster U.. Jackson, City Clerk I i 3 i i I i I I 4 Ii 4 I i I, Memo To: Planning Commission From: Dave McDonald Subject: Hammerhead Turnarounds Date: September 7, 2005 Since 1996 the City has annexed all of the West Pasco neighborhoods located along the Columbia River from Highway 395 to the I-182 bridge (see the attached map). Within this area there are a number of short dead end streets that terminate at the US Army Corp of Engineers property along the north side of the river. Some of these dead end streets provide access to parcels that are large enough to divide into two or three lots. However, to do so requires the construction of a cul de sac or the connection to another nearby street because the existing subdivision regulations prohibit dead end streets. Often it is impossible, to construct cul de sacs or street extensions on these dead end streets because one side of the street may be fully developed. Last year an applicant approached the Planning staff about the use of hammerhead turnarounds instead of a cul-de-sac. Staff explained that currently the code does not permit hammerhead turnarounds. The applicant then approached the Fire Chief about hammerhead turnarounds, and the Fire Chief agreed that he could get emergency vehicles turned around in a hammerhead. Staff researched the issue. further referring to the adopted International Fire Code (IFC). IFC 503.2.5 stated that hammerhead turnarounds can be permitted for property access with the approval of the Fire Chief. The proposed code amendment (attached) would permit hammerheads on dead ends street no longer than 450 feet in length. The use of hammer heads would be applicable only in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts. The applicability of the proposed code amendment to the large lot suburban areas would ensure the regulations would only be applicable to the dead end streets that were established in the County, prior to annexation. The fire Department and Engineering Department have reviewed the proposed code amendment and are in general agreement with the proposal. Staff has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed code amendment. for September 15th. Following the public hearing the Planning; Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council i I II j f i I r i' •/ / rj i ::`!•".:4 �.&� X63, i' ;,�,�,°��:3�-��.'!�F' / .' i '� -..mss•".-•'-.• / J -r / �f' / . tax• A'dse3.: �� ��.. N { : I r I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to subdividing amending PMC Title 26 dealing with hammerhead turnarounds. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and insure the public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, from time to time, the City Council causes the subdivision regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 26; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, That Section 26.08.145 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) 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 also be permitted in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 as provided in section 26.12.075. Section 2. That Section 26.08.145 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.08.145 Hammerhead/T: "Hammerhead-j T" means a roadway that provides a "T" shaped, three-point turnaround space for emergengLequipmerit. Section 3. That Section 26.12.075 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 26'.12.075 Hammerhead 1 T. Hammerheads will be permitted in R-S-20 and R-2-12 zoning districts where topography or other conditions justify their use on dead end streets. (1) Dead end streets with hammerheads should normally be less than three hundred (300) feet, but will be permitted up to four hundred and fifty (4501 feet in length. I (2) Right-of-Way widths for streets. Minimum right-of-way widths for all dead end streets with hammerheads shall not be less than sixty (60 ) feet. 3 Right-of-Way Right-of-Wgy widths for Hammerheads. Minimum right-of-way widths for hammerheads shall not be less than 30 feet. (4) Roadway widths. Minimum roadway widths for all dead end streets with hammerheads shall not be less than the following dimensions: (a) Thirty-eight (38) feet from the face of curb to the face of curb; (b) Thirty-six (36) feet of pavement width where there is no curb and gutter; (c) Twenty-eight (28) feet of pavement for hammerheads; (5) Hammerheads shall comply with the minimum requirements set forth in Figure 26.12.075.01 or 26.12.075.02. Figure 26.12.075.01 Figure: 26.12.075.02 i 30, sa' r i i 30• - i_ . I I t. Center Line I i } l j t Connecting Road �nnectlgg Road - Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of 2005. Michael B. Garrision Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: i Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney 2 j �I i. REGULAR MEETING September 15, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 B. Public Hearing: CODE AMENDMENT: Hammerhead Turnarounds, (City of Pasco) (MF# 2005-125-CAS Chairman McCollum read the master file number and asked for the Staff report. Staff explained the hearing was for the pie ,. reviewing a code amendment to the subdivision regulations ' x with Hammerhead Turnarounds. Staff the issue was rommde amendment so individual property owners were not ncd Th� bode amendment would allow properties to be developer htntly' o� � veloped because of the requirements for cul de-sa proposed E € 't ndment would permit hammerhead turnarounds t 0-fie` 'lon streets nolonger than 450 feet. Hammerheads could serve nab'#xsia 8 lots and would be applicable R-S-12 and R-S-20 zones. Staffnoted ' he proposed right-of way widths for the hammerheads wo tldb 40 feet'fortl?+ main street and 30 feet for the hammerhead. Staff alst �t ,the progosd�code amendment conforms to the International Fire + .'`` ►f , Chairman McCollum asked if them were of Staff. .A Commissioner Rose asked why c`rrcular tt rnaro di are not being considered since they seem to make rrt ense Staff responded that ip sarne situatld'-i ' is not enough room for a ;.., circular turnaround t `installed. Commissioner Rose g asl€i ` mere is enough room for a car or fire truck to turnaround ig a hammo a 5' d.`t < f � posed hr i head code would create enough room Staff res.. _ for vhilea to tut { Chai- ian McCollumeh if there would be parking restrictions that go with this code am-n- ment. .TIM nded that on A parking was not allowed unless the right-o#-way was ino to 60 feet ' ` { Chairman bed he thinks this looks like a reasonable request, and provides'�"Wip fi0� ility. Commissioner Mt . °sked how many streets would hammerheads be the only feasible option. Staff responded they knew of three. Hammerheads would be a feasible option off Roads 52, 76, and 84 by the river. Commissioner Rose asked if there has been any consideration in coordinating with the Corp of Engineers about using there land for turnarounds. i F 1 . i F; i REGULAR MEETING September 15, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 Staff responded no. Staff noted the City has dealt with the Corp of Engineers in the past and it sometimes takes longer than ten years get something done. CHAIRMAN MCCOLLUM OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. � Brad Peck 200 Road 34 asked staff if it was p01 + inly advertise in the newspaper for code amendments and not ti } � ''``� Q fy '' �'; " owners who might be �, affected. Mr. Peck also asked who initia e chi dment, was if from the city staff or did land owners appro f alb" _ e. �x� -I n';` c,^� cs�. Ni. i. Staff responded to the first question e � tlt when amendment to the zoning code or subdivision cods dosed is only provided in the newspaper. Staff noted thfa se a code d" : endment is general in nature and not property specificropM'Y. rers are not notified. si np`fi , h¢'si Staff responded to the second questior �stating that cd endment resulted from staff working with a property q� � dyer a year.=: effort to locate a cul-de-sac on an existing dead erj 0A_1P68f'-,-�` not feasible to develop a cut- de-sac on the street. Mr. Peck asked if this provides a f ldit, adeti =for people to develop and squeeze in additional lots on their'1landf�'=° Staff responded the pro opal yvould on' = ' ' 1 . " R-S-12 and R-S-20 zones. p P P � � Mr. Peck asked if , #glance woul " been appropriate for these hammerheads insteacpfhaging the code. _ 1 `. Staff respancil,a the propi would be a better way to deal with the issue. :_ ,=° ^ :• a i '.};.se 6•wy�-"„`y�;+aY1 .:�•i;�, e�'+g;i axj}4 :4 t ., Follqree ” ' ";`=m Chain McCollum for comment from the floor, ei 'i- or against;' lic meeting was declared closed. �._. a.;.�,i�l'siti 3':.t 'g�;`:"ii!8.•'ai?��;:ws. I : "q issioner Hay moZdment he Planning Commission recommend the City 0� lopt the Code pertaining to Hammerhead Turnarounds. gi .. ,;..; u r..i..<< Comr fir;. Anders ­: """bonded, motion carried with one opposing vote pP g from Co ger Mai`Mbar. 1 r T AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council September 23, 2005 FROM: Gary Crutch, Manager Workshop Mtg.: 9/26/05 SUBJECT: Community Su Vey I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Memorandum dated 9/23/05, reference Clarification 2. Workshop Agenda Report dated 9/12/05, reference Community Survey 3. Memorandum from Management Assistant dated 919105 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 9126: Discussion toward consensus HI. FISCAL IMPACT: Between $9,000 and 12,000, one-time expense IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Council discussed during its prior workshop meeting the notion of sponsoring a I formal community survey which could provide additional information for the Council's biennial retreat. Please refer to the attached agenda report for the workshop meeting dated September 12. B) Council raised several questions during the prior discussion which have been addressed through follow-up staff contact with the National Research Center (please refer to attachment#1, the memorandum dated 9/23 clarifying those matters). V. DISCUSSION: A) Given the high-cost but low-value of open-ended questions, staff recommends that they not be used. In addition, the Spanish language aspect, while costing $1,400, would not produce a statistically-valid conclusion, rendering it relatively meaningless. If the survey is conducted in English only and does not include any open-ended questions, the combined cost is approximately$9,500. B) Given the relative value of the information derived from this formal survey for use in the Council retreat process and the relatively low cost (less than $10,000 every other year), staff recommends Council give favorable consideration to utilizing the National Citizens Survey. In order to have the results complete and available prior to the Council retreat next spring, the city must commit by October 3, 2005. The initial commitment requires a deposit of about $4,000; while this expense is not included in the 2005 budget, it can be easily absorbed by the general fund operating reserve. The balance of the survey cost (less than $6,000), can be included in the 2006 budget, as the payment is not required until January. C) In any case, Council should attempt to reflect a consensus one way or another so that staff may follow up accordingly. 3(e) MEMORANDUM September 23, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager FROM: Elden Buerkle, Management Assistant fj RE: Clarification of Some Issues Regarding the Community Survey We contacted staff at the National Research Center(NSC) regarding questions raised about the National Citizen Survey at the Council workshop meeting of September 12. The added cost to mail two survey instruments (one in English and one in Spanish) to all 1,200 households to be sampled is $5,600. That would include the cost of translation, so the net additional cost would be $4,200 if we use that process instead of the usual one of having those who want to complete the survey in Spanish contact the City. The NSC staff commented that the response rate for Spanish language surveys is typically low: Ten or fewer Spanish language returns out of about 400 total surveys returned. The few times jurisdictions have used the process of mailing survey instruments in both languages, the return rate for Spanish surveys increased, but was still low. They said their best response for Spanish language surveys was 9 percent of returns. Assuming a total of around 400 returned surveys, that rate would produce about 36 returned Spanish language surveys. i Even with a Spanish language response rate of 9 or 10 percent of total surveys, the number would not be enough to develop statistically valid conclusions about the opinions of Spanish- speaking residents as distinct from the rest of the population sampled. Their responses/opinions would need to be bundled with those of the total population sample. In developing the sample for the National Citizen Survey, NSC staff typically select a random sample of households from US Postal Service lists. This is,done because often City utility lists may not include separate households in multi-family dwellings. Apparently, we were mistaken in our understanding that we would be able to substitute questions more relevant to Pasco for those few that do not apply to services the City provides, for example, questions on bus and rail services. Those questions may be deleted, but to maintain comparability with other jurisdictions, different questions may not be put in their place. Benton-Franklin Transit was contacted to see if they were interested in taking part in the Pasco community survey. We discovered that they have a regular process to survey the Tri-City community about transit issues. The survey template contains room for three policy questions. An additional policy question may be added for a charge of$500. We might want to consider the cost/benefit of adding a policy question rather than an open-ended question, which would cost an additional $1,250. i i MEMORANDUM September 9, 2005 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager FROM: Elden Buerkle,Management Assistant RE: The National Citizen Survey i i As we discussed, the National Citizen Survey (NCS), offered by the National Research Center and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), looks like the best option for a Pasco community survey. The basic survey will be mailed to 1,2.00 randomly selected Pasco households from Boulder, Colorado and then _returned for processing in enclosed, postage paid, business reply envelopes. The number of surveys to be mailed out (1,200), should produce the approximate 400 responses needed to ensure a confidence level of 95 percent and accuracy of plus/minus 5 percent. Here is some information about the survey, costs,.scheduling, etc.: SURVEY: The NCS standardized survey instrument consists of five pages of questions designed to gauge citizen satisfaction with community and government services (sample attached). There is space for three policy questions on Pasco specific issues. Open ended questions may be added for an additional charge (below). Some of the questions deal with services the City of Pasco does not offer. They are: • 3 questions on bus service; • 2 questions about library services; • 1 question about rail/subway services. Those questions may be deleted from the survey instrument, or it may be possible to substitute in their place questions more directly related to City of Pasco services. Because the city helps support the Pasco branch of the Mid-Columbia Library, we might want to consider retaining the library questions.' COSTS: Basic Survey: $8,200. This includes developing and printing the survey instrument (based on the NCS standard survey), mailing the survey to 1,200 randomly selected Pasco households, postage costs for the completed responses to be mailed back to NCS, compiling the data,producing reports and comparing Pasco's responses to all those in the NCS database (about 400). Community Survey,p. 2 Additional Costs: Spanish Language Survey: $1,400. The cover letter mailed with the survey will include a paragraph in Spanish asking recipients who desire to complete the survey in Spanish to call a phone number at the City of Pasco. The city will be responsible for taking those calls and mailing the Spanish language survey instrument to those who request it. Included will be a postage paid business reply envelope supplied by NCS for returning survey responses. There will be some additional postage cost for the city to mail Spanish surveys to those who request them. Open Ended Question: $1,250 for each open ended question. NCS will categorize and compile responses and develop a report classifying written opinions, along with a complete report of all verbatim responses. Custom Norms: $1,000. In addition to comparing Pasco's results to those in the entire NCS database, comparisons can be developed based on size of city or on region of the country. SCHEDULE: Once the survey process is completed, we will receive three reports in electronic format: • an executive summary, • a statistical analysis of survey results, and • comparison of Pasco's results with national norms. Of course, we will receive the additional custom norm report if we decide to go with that option. Because we need survey results available to use at the Community Forum (scheduled for February next year), there are three objectives we are aiming at in terms of scheduling. One, because surveys results are a snapshot of opinions at a specific point in time, it is desirable to have the survey completed as close to the Community Forum as possible. Second, we need to have enough time before the Community Forum to analyze and review the results and determine how they are to be used. A third objective should be to ensure the survey does not take place concurrently with the municipal election cycle to avoid any confusion between the community survey and the election. I suggest we go with the survey schedule beginning in October. This will require us to have the enrollment form and first payment ($4,100) to NCS by October 3. Prenotification cards will be mailed to randomly selected Pasco households the week of November 14, with surveys mailed to Pasco households over the next two weeks. The final report will be completed and available the week of January 23, 2006. That should leave time to analyze and evaluate the results before the Community Forum. Community Survey,p. 3 CONCLUSION: If we want to have results of the National Citizen Survey available for the Community Forum in February 2006, we will need to make a commitment by October 3 to receive the final report the week of January 23, 2006. The cost of performing the community survey will be approximately $12,000. This assumes one open ended question, a custom norm report, a Spanish language option, plus some additional postage cost for mailing out Spanish language surveys. There will be an increased cost of$1,250 for each additional open ended question. THE XYZ OF ABC 2005 CITIZEN SURVEY Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult(age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday.The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please circle the response that most closely represents your opinion for each question.Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know How do you rate ABC as a place to live?.............................................:1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?.......................1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate ABC as a place to raise children?..............................1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate ABC as a place to work?............................................1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate ABC as a place to retire?...........................................1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate the overall quality of life in ABC? ...............................1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ABC as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community..............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds.......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of ABC...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities...............................................1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities..........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Airquality ..............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities.....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Jobopportunities...................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Access to affordable quality housing.....................................................1 2 3 4 5 Access to affordable quality child care..................................................1 2 3 4 5 Access to affordable quality health care................................................1 2 3 4 5 Access to affordable quality food...........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in ABC .......................:..............................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bus travel in ABC......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of rail/subway travel in ABC .........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in ABC ................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in ABC..........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Educational opportunities......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall image/reputation of ABC...........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in ABC..........................................1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in ABC over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth (stores, restaurants etc.)............................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobsgrowth ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 The XYZ of ABC 4. To what degree, if at all,are the following problems in ABC: Not a Minor Moderate Major Don't row biem row blem rop blem problem know Crime.....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Drugs.....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Toomuch growth............................................... ..............................1 2 3 4 5 Lackof growth .......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Graffiti ....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Noise......................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles...................................1 2 3 4 5 Taxes.....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Traffic congestion ..................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Unsupervised youth...............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Homelessness.......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Weeds....................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Absence of communications from the XYZ of ABC translated into languages other than English..........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Unwanted local businesses...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Toxic waste or other environmental hazard(s)......................................1 2 3 4 5 5. Please rate how safe you feel from the following occurring to you in ABC: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e.g., burglary,theft).............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fire .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Please rate how safe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day............................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark......................................1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC's downtown area during the day......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC's downtown area after dark................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC's parks during the day......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC's parks after dark................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. During the past twelve months,were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 0 No 4 Go to question#9 0 Yes -* Go to question#8 0 Don't know U 8. If yes, was this crime(these crimes)reported to the police? 0 No 0 Yes 0 Don't know a) U 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in ABC? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than N Cr ever twice times times 26 times Used ABC public libraries or their services...........................................1 2 3 4 5 0 Used ABC recreation centers................................................................1 2 3 4 5 .6 z Participated in a recreation program or activity.....................................1 2 3 4 5 0 Visited a neighborhood or XYZ park......................................................1 2 3 4 5 N Ridden a local bus within ABC ..............................................................1 2 3 4 S b Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public N meeting............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television.............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home.........................1 2 3 4 5 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in ABC...........................1 2 3 4 5 Read ABC Newsletter............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Used the Internet for anything...............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Used the Internet to conduct business with ABC..................................1 2 3 4 5 C Purchased an item over the Internet.....................................................1 2 3 4 5 z a� L F ,XThe National Citizen SurveyTM page 2 of 5 The XYZ of ABC 10. How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in ABC? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services.......................... ................1 2 3 4 5 ............................................. Fireservices..........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance/emergency medical services..............................................1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention...................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education...............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Trafficenforcement................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Garbagecollection.................................................. ..............................1 2 3 4 5 Recycling...............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Yardwaste pick-up.............................................................................:..1 2 3 4 5 Streetrepair...........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 . Streetcleaning.......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Streetlighting.......................................................:.................................1 2 3 4 5 Snowremoval ......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance...........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Amount of public parking.......................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Bus/transit services................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Stormdrainage......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Drinkingwater........................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Sewerservices......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 XYZparks..............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Range/variety of recreation programs and classes...............................1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers/facilities...................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Accessibility of parks.............................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Accessibility of recreation centers/facilities............... Appearance/maintenance of parks........................................................1 2 3 4 5 Appearance of recreation centers/facilities ...........................................1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning .............................................................1 2 3 4 b Code enforcement(weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) ........................1 2 3 4 5 Animalcontrol .......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Economic development.........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Healthservices......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Services to seniors................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Services to youth...................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Services to low-income people..............................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public library services....................................................:.......................1 2 3 4 5 Variety of library materials.....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 i Public information services...................... m Municipalcourts ....................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Public schools.....­­..... ....... 1 2 3 4 5 ............................................................ Cable television ...1 2 3 4 5 i The XYZ of ABC 14. Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most clearly represents your opinion: Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly Don't agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree know receive good value for the XYZ of ABC taxes I pay...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 am pleased with the overall direction that the XYZ of ABC is taking............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 The XYZ of ABC government welcomes citizen involvement............:.................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 The XYZ of ABC government listens to citizens.............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: 0 Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative 16. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 O Scale point 1 0 Scale point 3 O Scale point 5 O Scale point 2 0 Scale point 4 O Scale point 6 b. Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 O Scale point 1 0 Scale point 3 O Scale point 5 0 Scale point 2 0 Scale point 4 0 Scale point 6 c. Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 0 Scale point 1 0 Scale point 3 0 Scale point 5 0 Scale point 2 O Scale point 4 O Scale point 6 d. OPTIONAL[See Worksheets for details and price of this option]Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open- c Ended Question U F U OT U1 G1 N C O Z Lo 0 a N O O N s N 2 C N N m C O M Z m t M 'XThe National Citizen SurveyTM Page 4 of 5 i I I The XYZ of ABC Our last questions are about you and your household.Again,all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 17. Do you live within the XYZ limits of the XYZ of 24. Are you or any other members of your ABC? household aged 65 or older? 0 No O Yes 0 No 0 Yes 18. Are you currently employed? 25. Does any member of your household have a O No 4 Go to question #19 physical handicap or is anyone disabled? 0 Yes 4 Go to question #18a O No 0 Yes 18a.What one method of transportation do you 26. What is the highest degree or level of school you usually use(for the longest distance of your have completed? (mark one box) commute)to travel to work? 0 12th Grade or less, no diploma • Motorized vehicle (e.g. car, truck, van, 0 High school diploma motorcycle etc...) 0 Some college, no degree • Bus, Rail, Subway, or other public O Associate's degree (e.g. AA, AS) transportation 0 Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) • Walk 0 Graduate degree or professional degree • Work at home • Other 27. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current 18b.1f you checked the motorized vehicle(e.g. year?(Please include in your total income car,truck,van, motorcycle,etc.) box in 18a, money from all sources for all persons living in do other people(adults or children)usually your household.) ride with you to or from work? 0 Less than$24,999 0 No 0 Yes 0 $25,000 to$49,999 0 $50,000 to $99,999 19. How many years have you lived in ABC? 0 $100,000 or more 0 Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years 0 2-5 years 0 More than 20 years 28. Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? 0 6-10 years 0 No 0 Yes 20. Which best describes the building you live in? 29. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to • One family house detached from any other indicate what race you consider yourself to be) houses 0 American Indian or Alaskan native • House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a 0 -Asian or Pacific Islander duplex or townhome) 0 Black, African American • Building with two or more apartments or 0 White/Caucasian condominiums 0 Other • Mobile home • Other 30. In which category is your age? 0 16-24 years 0 55-64 years N 21. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home... 0 25-34 years 0 65-74 years • Rented for cash or occupied without cash 0 35-44 years 0 75 years or older payment? O 45-54 years ° • Owned by you or someone in this house with a z mortgage or free and clear? 31. What is your sex? o 0 Female 0 Male N . 22. Do any children 12 or under live in your o household? 32. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? N 0 No O Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 23. Do any teenagers aged between 13 and 17 live in 33. Did you vote in the last election? io your household? 0 No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 0 No 0 Yes 34. Are you likely to vote in the next election? 0 No 0 Yes O Don't know Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage paid envelope to: ° National Research.Center, Inc.,3005 30th St., Boulder,CO 80301 z r J�The National Citizen SurveyTM Page 6 of 5