HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. September 17, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 20, 2009
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in a C-1 Zone
(3901 W. Court St.) (Planned Parenthood) (MF# SP 09-
0
B. Special Permit Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (2000
Block of Road 76) (Philipp Schmitt/Haywire Farms) (MF#
SP 09-007)
C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 to R-1 (1300 Block of Road 36) (St.
Martin) (MF# Z 09-005)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 to C-1 (4200 Block of West Court Street)
(MF# Z 09-006)
B. CDBG 2010-2014 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan (Citywide) (MF#
CDBG 09-022)
VI. WORKSHOP:
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING August 20, 2009
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 David Little
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Ray Rose
No. 7 Tony Schouviller
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Carlos Perez
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for
hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission
member had anything to declare. Commissioner Little recused himself from the
Special Permit Application for the expansion of a College/Technical School in a
C-1 Zone (MF# SP09-006) and the Special Permit for the location of a Corn
Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (MF#SP09-007). Commissioner Anderson recused
himself from all old business items (MF#'s SP 09-005, SP 09-006 8v SP 09-007)
on the agenda due to his absence at the July 16, 2009 meeting.
Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based
on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items
to be discussed this evening. There were no objections.
Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there were objections to any
Commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or
affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak.
-1 -
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes
dated July 16, 2009 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Community Service Facility in a
C-1 Zone (3901 W. Court Street) (Planned
Parenthood) (MF# SP09-005)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and stated that a public hearing
was held on June 18th, 2009; followed by deliberations on July16, 2009. The
deliberations were delayed for further preparation of the findings of fact.
Chairman Samuel then poled the Commission to determine eligibility to vote on
the matter. Commissioners' Hay, Schouviller, Little, and Samuel were eligible to
vote on this item. Commissioner Rose and Perez were ineligible to vote due to
the fact they were not present at the June 18 meeting. Commissioner Anderson
earlier stated he would not be voting on the matter because he was also not
present for the June hearing. Chairman Samuel explained five commissioners
are required for a quorum and that the item had to be tabled until the next
meeting on September 17, 2009. Following those remarks staff was asked for
comments.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director stated Pasco uses
the Open Record Hearing Land Use Process. The public hearing occurred on
June 18, 2009 and deliberations were held on July 16. The time frame for public
comment is held during the public hearing and once the open public hearing is
closed, no further testimony can be considered, and new evidence cannot be
submitted. Without a majority of the Commission that were present at the
hearing on June 18th a decision recommendation cannot be made to City
Council.
Chairman Samuel asked for any objections from the Commissioners to tabling
the matter until September 17th. No objections were made. The matter was
then tabled until the September 17, 2009 meeting
B. SPECIAL PERMIT Expansion of a College/Technical School in a
C-1 Zone (5278 Outlet Drive) (Charter College)
(MF# SP09-006)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated there were no additional comments on this item.
-2 -
Commissioner Hay, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, moved to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 20, 2009
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hay moved seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, based on the
adopted findings of fact and conclusions the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council grant a special permit to Charter College for the expansion of
the existing college/technical school with conditions as contained in the August
20, 2009 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20
Zone (2000 Block of Road 76) (Philipp
Schmitt/Haywire Farms) (MF# SPO9-007)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated the item was discussed in a public hearing on July 16, 2009. Staff
has prepared a list of possible findings of fact and a recommendation to forward
to City Council. Between the time the report was mailed to the Commissioners'
and this hearing, the applicant met with staff and expressed concern about the
findings of fact. The applicant did not believe the findings were factual. After
further review staff made some slight modifications to findings lists as #7, #18,
#23, #25, #28.
Commissioner Schouviller stated he was in favor of a conditional special permit
for one year. He further stated there was ample parking and family activities
should be considered versus noise and traffic issues.
Commissioner Perez was concerned about the need for extra law enforcement
services and the cost to the City.
Staff stated there was a reference made during the hearing by the applicant that
he would work with the police and request extra patrols. Staff pointed out
businesses do not get extra patrols due to busy shopping times. Concentrating
patrols for the corn maze would remove officers from other parts of the
community and could cause the city to pay overtime for calling in additional
officers to cover other parts of the community.
Chairman Samuel stated the City does need family activities like this; however
the location is not good. There are too many homes surrounding the site, the
roads are narrow, lights at night, music at night are several reasons why he
believes this is not the appropriate location.
Commissioner Hay agreed with Commissioner Schouviller and was in favor of
the special permit on a one year conditional permit. He further stated he was
unaware of other events that happen at this church.
-3 -
Staff reminded the Commissioners that if they were leaning towards
recommending approval the findings would need to be modified to have a
supportable recommendation for the City Council.
Commissioner Rose is in favor of the one year conditional permit.
Commissioner Perez was not in favor of the one year conditional permit.
The item was tabled until the September 17, 2009 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. REZONE Rezone from C-1 to R-1 (1300 Block of Road
36) (St. Martin) (MF# Z09-005)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff explained the applicant had applied to rezone the property in question from
C-1 to R-1. Staff discussed the site location and reviewed surrounding zoning
and land uses along with other information contained in the written staff report.
Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after three calls and no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hay asked staff if they have received any correspondence or
comments from surrounding neighbors.
Staff stated no.
Commissioner Rose moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the
hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption
of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the
September 17, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously
B. CODE AMENDMENT PMC 25.58 I-182 Corridor Overlay District
(City of Pasco) (MF# CA09-001)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated this item was discussed at the July 17th workshop. The background
and some of the requirements of the I-182 Overlay district were briefly
discussed. Staff explained that while there were enhanced development
standards for permanent businesses in the I-182 area temporary businesses
operate in the same area with minimal standards. The proposed code
-4 -
amendments would address the concerns of temporary business setting up for
business in a haphazard fashion with outdoor storage and in areas that create
hazards for pedestrians and distractions for motorists. The proposal also creates
a definition for a temporary business.
Staff further explained that the legal description for the I-182 area needed to be
reviewed and that the proposal would need to come back to the Commission
before action could be taken on it.
Commissioner Little asked staff about on temporary car sales events.
Staff stated they would be allowed at facilities that are permitted for special
events as such TRAC.
Commissioner Little was concerned about whether or not the recommended 25
feet setback distance from public streets and traffic was sufficient for safety.
Staff agreed this item would be reviewed further.
Chairman Samuel asked staff if there were any comments or complaints
received about this issue.
Staff stated the complaints received have mainly concerned the outdoor storage
of items and the unsightliness caused by such items.
Chairman Samuel stated the proposed language does not prohibit mobile
vendors from locating in the I-182 area, however gives a standard for this area.
Chairman Samuel stated that it was his understanding that businesses have the
choice to locate in this area of town with restrictions or locate to another part of
town with different restrictions.
Staff stated yes that was correct.
Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after three calls and no response,
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Rose asked if the proposal would address the parking lots for the
baseball field and the soccer complex.
Staff stated the proposal addresses business parking lot use.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller to table
and to postpone action on the proposed code amendment until staff completed
revisions.
Staff stated this item nay be ready for Planning Commission action in the
October meeting.
-5 -
WORKSHOP:
A. CODE AMENDMENT PMC 25.78.030 (4) and PMC 25.78.140 RV
Parking in residential zones (City of Pasco)
(MF# CA09-002)
Mr. O'Neill stated staff was working on a code amendment designed to provide
flexibility in suburban zones for RV parking particularly in areas of the city that
were originally developed in the county. This matter was on the agenda to inform
the Planning Commission of the work that was being done and for the purpose
of getting comments from the Commission.
Chairman Samuel asked what current regulations were in place.
Staff stated the current code allows for parking in the public right-of-way for 48-
72 hours for loading/unloading. In Suburban districts RV's are to be stored in
side yard or rear yards. The R-1 district permits storage in front yard areas on
an approved parking surface. The code also allows parking in the driveways for
7-10 days for RV use by quests.
Commissioner Anderson asked if a concrete pad could be poured in the front of
a picture window in a R-1 zone. He further stated he would like more specific
language for front yards.
Mr. White stated dimensions for parking pads and front yard usage were being
reviewed by staff.
Commissioner Rose stated the size of RV's should be addressed.
Mr. White clarified parking in the public right-of-way was not currently being
addressed. The code prohibits long term storage in streets; however, there is a
minor provision for temporary use of the street.
Commissioner Rose further stated storing huge RV's on the side of houses is
unsightly.
Commissioner Little asked how the issue of a property owner with more than
one RV would be addressed.
Staff stated they would look into that.
Commissioner Little asked if there were different regulations for commercial
trucks parking in the street.
Mr. McDonald stated vehicles cannot park in a street for longer than 72 hours.
Trucks in excess of 14,000 pounds gross weight are not permitted to park
anywhere on or off a street in a residential zoning district.
Chairman Samuel asked about RV parking surfaces.
-6 -
Mr. McDonald stated RV's need to be stored on all weather surfaces.
Chairman Samuel questioned the location of parking.
Mr. McDonald stated the matter was under review; current suburban zoning
states RV storage must be behind the front yard setback which is 25 feet.
Commissioner Anderson mentioned planned development areas with higher
densities should be addressed, separately.
Chairman Samuel asked if complaints have been received on this issue.
Mr. McDonald has heard complaints from residents that are upset by the
neighbor down the street that has a camper or boat parked in the front yard,
and he has also heard from residents that don't appreciate the regulations
because they make it difficult for them to store RV equipment in their yards.
Staff was to return with additional information for the Planning Commission at a
later date.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. White advised the Commission of the current building permits issued this
year, stating the value of commercial construction was about the same as last
year. The new City water treatment plant on Court Street was under
construction. Memorial Pool would be undergoing a several million dollar
renovation. The Syngenta Seed Plant is now operating which consists of a
building valued at $10 million dollars with approximately $40 million dollars of
equipment. The Chiawana High School has received their certificate of
occupancy and the dedication will occur in October.
Commissioner Anderson asked whether or not there was much interest in the
community from commercial businesses.
Mr. White stated not many at this time. At the moment it is difficult to arrange
financing for commercial enterprises.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any plans for buildings or production at
the Heritage Industrial Park.
Mr. White stated the property is zoned for industrial uses and is very high on
the BNSF railroads list for projects. At present, the Port of Pasco, in conjunction
with the City, Franklin County, and TRIDEC are installing a main rail line
switch in the area. The extension of the track will cost about $1.5 million. This
will hopefully be funded under a federal economic development grant program.
BNSF is working to attract businesses to the area that need rail access.
Chairman Samuel asked about the status of the Port of Pasco riverfront plan.
-7 -
Mr. White stated they have unveiled a design for the first building but no
construction is occurring at this time. The Parsons Industry building was
permitted this past month.
Commissioner Schouviller asked if there were any prospects for the vacant Food
Pavilion building.
Mr. White stated there was an interested client with an existing manufacturing
business that is currently located at the Port of Kennewick. They are looking at
their lease to expire soon and would like to relocate around the first part of
2010.
With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:12 pm.
David McDonald, Secretary
-8 -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-005 APPLICANT: Planned Parenthood of
Central Washington
HEARING DATE: 6/18/2009 1117 Tieton Drive
ACTION DATE: 9/17/2009 Yakima, WA 98902
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Community Service Facility Level
One
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal. Mark Twain Addition Lot 3
General Location: 3901 West Court Street
Property Size: 39,107 square feet (0.9 acres)
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site from Court
Street.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and contains a 4,692 square foot unoccupied structure. The
property to the north is developed with Mark Twain Elementary School
and is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Properties to the east and
west are zoned C-1 and developed with a bank and multi-tenant office
buildings. Properties to the south are also zoned C-1. The Pasco Unified
School District resource center occupies two parcels to the south and a
car-wash is located to the southeast.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Commercial uses. The plan does not specifically address health
clinics, but various elements of the plan encourage locating businesses
in appropriate locations for their anticipated uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in accordance with review
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to locate a Community Service Facility at 3901 West
Court Street. The proposed facility will provide women's health care through
medical exams, cancer screening, reproductive health screenings, other
medical related services and a variety of educational programs. The 4,692
square foot building will contain three exam rooms, four administrative offices,
a kitchen, a waiting area, a small laboratory and five restrooms. Initial hours
of operation will be from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday.
The site is located on West Court Street 3,000 feet west of SR-395, which is a
State Highway. Court Street is an arterial street. Both Court Street and SR-
395 are able to accommodate high traffic volumes and would easily serve the
additional 70 vehicle trips per day estimated to be generated by the facility.
Court Street is fully developed in this area and would require no additional
infrastructure improvements.
The site provides 38 off-street parking spaces in two parking lots to the north
and south of the facility. The Pasco Municipal Code requires a minimum of 16
spaces to accommodate the clinic. Therefore, the applicant will exceed the
minimum parking requirement by twenty two (22) spaces.
Non-profit community clinics are defined as Community Service Facilities
(Level One) and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating
anywhere within the city. The La Clinica facility at Court Street and 5th Avenue
and the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic (Mir Mar) on Road 44 are examples
of other non-profit clinics that were reviewed in the past through the Special
Permit process. These types of clinics, as well as other medical offices are
located in "O" (Office) or "C-1" (Retail Business) zoning districts.
One of the areas of concern often expressed when special permit uses are
reviewed is their potential impact on property values. According to Benton
County Assessor records, property values have increased over the past six (6)
years for those properties surrounding the Planned Parenthood facility at 7426
W. Bonnie Avenue in Kennewick.
At the last regular meeting on July 16, 2009, the Planning Commission tabled
action on the proposed Planned Parenthood Clinic application to afford staff
time to completely review the record to assist the Commission in developing
finding and conclusions. Staff also needed additional time to obtain legal
counsel for the Planning Commission necessary to property prepare findings
and conclusions from which to render a recommendation to the City Council.
The City Attorney's memo on the proper process of gleaning facts from the
record is attached.
The City Attorney pointed out in his instruction that the "Washington Supreme
Court concluded that neighborhood opposition based upon unsupported fears
of neighborhood residents or unsubstantiated allegations of loss of property
value do not constitute competent or substantial evidence to support a finding
of fact."
2
As instructed staff has provided the Planning Commission two sets of findings
and conclusions for consideration. These findings and conclusions are attached
as Alternate 1 (for denial) and Alternate 2 (for approval).
Chair Samuel has prepared a third set of Findings and Conclusions and asked
that they be considered by the Planning Commission. This version is labeled
"Alternate #3" and supports a Planning Commission recommendation of denial.
Based on the record and the City Attorney's instructions; staff is
recommending the Planning Commission accept Alternate 2 and recommend
approval of the special permit.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact
identified as Alternate 2 and as contained in the September 17, 2009 staff
report.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve a special use permit for
Planned Parenthood to locate a community service level 1 facility at 3901 W.
Court Street
3
- . Item:. Co nlnlLlnity Service Facil a
ty Applicant: Planned Parenthood N
Map .File #: SP 09-&005
do
4
W AGATES ST '� 4� ►- ,{. '
4,
�— —'' �T _. . — is e'• -•
- - ' V I T E AGATEST ►
_Zy_ ,
0.
r W-RU BY-ST,
RU B,u Sid
1
It
a
COURT ST w M
�— —
40 —
01P
iri _ - 4w ,:; _ - 7 BROWN ST
-
':
� n py VISION PDFCompressor
4
Land Item: S ervice
Y
Use Applicant: PI
annEd Parenthood N
Ma File #: SP 09-005
r
1 W'AGATE ST School
® V SITE ` W AGATE ST
ry let'
SFEJU's-
M
,
1 W RUBY ST
co W RUBY ST '
Am
-� COURT ST
- ! -- � F
CD
M
Commercial. .
C)
o
;hurch Q � -
O of-
WT�— - __
_ BROWN ST _ � � Vac,
SFDU'sl, SEDU s
POcompression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompres it
All
w
C F
Item: Co�nmunit Service Facility Zoning Y
A pi lcant. Planned Ma
Parenthood N
File #: SP 09-005
, .W AGATE ST
N � R-1
RS-12
SITE W AGATE ST
W RUBY ST J �
R-1 \ '
W RUBY ST
� --7 COURT ST
AV
e 00
C� a Q Q
C-1 O _
. a - _ m
RS- 2 BROWN ST
R S-1.2 .R-1 -
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a termarked evaluation copy of CVISION P mpressor
,r�f. �i,v,=>�,.,��'~ �' o�:�f''�SG�-;err,-' •.,L.,���;�°� ..,�
� I
ix
1 490 -1
t�
wJ
concept-Exteri_ dificdtions`
1
Planned Parenthood -Pasco Clinic Project
Application Package City of Paco
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
;------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I '
---------------- ----------- I
1
� I
I
I
I
I ,
1
I '
I '
I
I I
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I I
I I
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
I ,
I I
I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
1 I
1 I
I 1
I I
I I
1 I
1 1
I 1
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
1 1
I
I I
I I
1 I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I i
1 I
I I
I
I 1
I 1
I I
I
I I
I �
I I
-----------I
Existing As built Layout
Planned Parenthood -Pasco Clinic Project
Application Package City of Paco
------------------------------------------------------------------------------I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
Elec Unassigned Tech ;RR
I I
I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
Community Room
I I
Kitchen '
I i 1
I
RR
' ----------------
Unassigned _ '''� _
■
I I
I I I
Exam
Office ------- Exam,'' \\�,
I I
I I
I
0 E
❑ i ---Nw+se--- '%Lab ;
- I
I
Open Office Area
Office RR I
I
keceptidn
I I
--------'� ❑
D ❑ D
I
I ❑ I
DO D I
Office Jan. ❑ ❑ ❑ '
Cl
Office -." - '�, Entry Waiting
RR ;`RR/; Kid ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
I I
I I
Concept Layout
Planned Parenthood -Pasco Clinic Project
Application Package City of Paco
KERR LAW GROUP
7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724
(509) 735-1542
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
City of Pasco
FROM: Leland B. Kerr
Attorney-at-Law
DATE: August 14, 2009
RE: Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation
Planned Parenthood of Central Washington Special Use Permit Application
(SP-09-005)
This memorandum is written to assist the Planning Commission in the adoption of its Findings of
Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation to the City Council concerning the above-entitled
application.
The Planning Commission serves as the fact-finding body for the City Council in special use
permit hearings. It draws those findings of fact from the evidence presented during, and as a part
of the hearing. The evidence comes in written form received as a part of the hearing such as the
staff report, drawings, petitions and other demonstrative evidence. It also comes in the form of
verbal testimony received, under oath, during the testimony portion of the public hearing.
Unfortunately, verbal evidence does not come tagged identifying it as a factual opinion, or
conclusions. Part of the Commission's job is to sort out the "facts" from all of the information or
evidence it receives. These facts are the physical circumstances that the Commission finds to be
true. Very much like the pieces of puzzle, each fact must be supported by creditable evidence
and relate to the permit as defined by the special use criteria in PMC 25.86.060. Collectively,
these facts constitute the "findings of fact."
Findings of fact have been defined by Washington law as "an assertion that a phenomenon has
happened or is or will be happening independent of or anterior to any assertion as to its legal
affect." (Leschi Improvement Council vs. State Highway Commission, 84 Wn.2d 271.)
"If a determination concerns whether the evidence showed that something
occurred or existed, it is properly labeled a finding of fact, but if a determination
is made by a process of legal reasoning from, or of interpretation of legal
significance of, the evidentiary facts, it is a conclusion of law." (Poyner vs. Lear
Siegler, Inc., 542 F.2d 955)
i
Planning Commission
August 14, 2009
Page 2
What this means is that the Commission must gather the facts - - things that exist - - of this case
within the framework of the permitting criteria which identify the conclusions that are to be
drawn from the facts.
Therefore, the facts found by the Commission create the foundation of its recommendation.
An equally important question is what cannot be considered as "facts" upon which the
recommendation can be based.
It is well established in Washington law that the unpopularity of a project, or opposition by
neighboring land owners, is not a legally sufficient "fact" upon which a land use
recommendation or decision can be based. In Sunderland Services vs. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d
782, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that neighborhood opposition based upon
unsupported fears of neighborhood residents or unsubstantiated allegations of loss of property
value do not constitute competent or substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. Likewise
in Maranatha Mining Inc. vs. Pierce County, 59 Wn.App. 795, the Washington Supreme Court
reversed the denial of a permit concluding:
"It is apparent that the Council gave little consideration to the merits of
Maranatha's application and that it disregarded the facts set forth in the
examiner's findings. The Council seemed to have heard clearly the citizen
complaints and the comments of one of its own members while disregarding the
record. We cannot escape the conclusion, in view of evidence in support of
Maranatha's application that the Council based its decision on community
displeasure and not on reasons backed by policies and standards as the law
requires."
Similarly, opinion testimony likewise may not constitute "facts" necessary to support a
recommendation. Opinion testimony (i.e, an estimation as to the occurrence of future events)
can only constitute a "fact" if it is rendered by a qualified expert. Foundation for that
qualification must have been presented at the hearing demonstrating that the "expert" has
sufficient training, experience and knowledge to make the opinion reliable.
Anecdotal evidence such as newspaper articles and other media accounts of events must also be
cautiously approached. If they are offered as proof of the event, there likewise needs a
foundation of reliability to be laid before they can be considered. In addition, all parties must
have an opportunity to rebut or challenge the accuracy of truthfulness of that account.
Any information that is submitted to the Commission after the close of the public hearing may
not be considered or identified as a finding upon which the Commission relies in coming to its
recommendation. All factual evidence must be submitted within the open record hearing
affording all parties an opportunity to rebut and respond to the evidence.
Planning Commission
August 14, 2009
Page 3
Once the Commission draws from the evidence it has received, the facts which it has found to be
true, it applies these facts to the special use permit criteria which results in the conclusions.
Literally, the conclusions are the affirmative or negative answer to each of the questions posed
by the six criteria.
Based on those answers, the Commission must make its recommendation to the City Council.
The intent of this process is to make sure that the best and appropriate decision is made. That
decision must be based upon appropriate and reliable facts gathered by the Commission. The
Commission serves as a filter to identify those reliable facts which directly bear on the land use
question presented. It is not a determination of philosophical correctness - - it is a land use
decision.
This is obviously a complicated, but very important process. It is my hope that these suggestions
may assist in that pursuit.
LBK/sla
ALTERNATE # 1
Findings and Conclusions to support denial of the Planned Parenthood
Application
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and from
the evidence and testimony presented at the open record hearing. The Planning
Commission may add additional findings to this as the result of testimony and
evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identified the site for Commercial use.
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
4. The site is adjacent to Mark Twain Elementary School.
5. There is an existing Planned Parenthood clinic operating in Kennewick
approximately 8 miles away.
6. Non-profit health centers are defined by the zoning regulations (PMC
25.12.155) as Community Service Facilities (Level One) which require
review by the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any
zone.
7. Other non-profit community health clinics in the community are located
in "C-1" (La Clinica) or "O" (Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic)
zones.
8. For-profit medical offices & clinics are permitted uses in C-1 zones.
9. The site proposed for the medical clinic is currently unoccupied.
10. The proposed medical clinic could generate approximately 30-60 vehicle
trips per day (including employees).
11. The clinic will have up to 10 staff members.
12. The applicant anticipates the facility will provide services for
approximately 19-25 clients per day.
13. The site contains enough area for thirty eight (38) on-site parking stalls.
14. PMC 28.86.060 Requires the Planning Commission to make and enter
findings and conclusions from the record as to whether or not:
1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive
Plan;
2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure;
3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity;
4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site
design will discourage the development of permitted uses on
property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof;
5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the i
operation of any permitted uses within the district; and
6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located
and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a
nuisance to uses permitted in the district.
15. There was considerable testimony for and against approval of the Special
Permit at the June 18th 2009 open record hearing. In addition, the
Planning Commission received a large amount of written testimony.
Testimony was not focused on the six (6) criteria contained in PMC
25.86.060.
16. There was testimony at the June 18th, 2009 open record hearing that
expressed the potential for disruption of existing business activities by
public protests if the clinic were granted a special use permit.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use. The
proposed medical clinic is an office use. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
the development of a wide range of commercial uses located to support local
and regional needs. The proposed use is located near other related medical
facilities at Road 40 and Court Street and Road 44 and Court Street.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the proposed site from
surrounding streets. The daily client base and number of employees at the
facility will not generate a greater demand on infrastructure than past uses on
the site or than uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The office building considered in this application has existed on the site for
over 40 years. It will be continued to be maintained as an office building with
operating hours similar to those of surrounding offices.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity
or impair the value thereof?
The clinic is proposing minor facade improvements which will not alter the size
or height of the building. The existing facility was originally constructed in
1962.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
Health clinics may generate vibrations, noise or fumes in quantities similar to
other uses in the C-1 zone.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted
in the district?
Health clinics and medical offices are typically located within commercial
zoning districts. Disruption of existing business patterns by public protests at
the site is a potential and could become a nuisance to uses that are permitted
and existing in the C-1 zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions there from as contained in the August 20th, 2009 staff
report identified as "Alternative #1".
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact
and conclusions identified in "Alternative #1" there from the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to
Planned Parenthood for the location of a Level-One Community
Service Facility.
ALTERNATE # 2
Findings & Conclusions to support approval of the Planned Parenthood
Application
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the application, staff
report, public hearing testimony and written testimony submitted prior to the
close of the hearing.
I
1. The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for commercial uses.
I
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
4. Permitted uses in the C-1 zone include hotels and motels, retail stores,
stores for repair services, membership clubs (VFW, Eagles, Moose &' etc),
restaurants, taverns, banks and offices (medical, dental, Law, Insurance
offices & etc)
S. The site is located on Court Street which is an arterial street.
6. The site is on a Ben Franklin Transit route.
7. The proposed use is a non-profit health clinic/office that will provide
medical exams, cancer screening, reproductive health screenings, other
medical related services and a variety of educational programs.
8. Non-profit health centers are defined by the zoning regulations (PMC
25.12.155) as Community Service Facilities (Level One) which require
review by the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any
zone.
9. Other non-profit community health clinics in the community are located
in "C-1" (La Clinica) or "O" (Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic)
zones.
10. La Clinica and the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic also
provide medical exams, cancer screening, reproductive health screenings
and other related services.
11. For-profit medical offices &v clinics are permitted uses in C-1 zones.
12. The proposed site contains a 4,692 square foot office building.
13. The applicant is not proposing to increase the height or size of the
building.
1
14. The applicant is proposing to improve the front of the building with a
new entry porch or portico.
15. The School District fence to the north of the site has an open gate that
permits pedestrian access from the school playground to the
commercially zoned properties to the south.
16. The office building on the site proposed for the medical clinic is currently
unoccupied.
17. The proposed medical clinic could generate approximately 30-60 vehicle
trips per day (including employees).
18. The clinic will have up to 10 staff members.
19. The applicant anticipates the facility will provide services for
approximately 19-25 clients per day.
20. The site contains thirty eight (38) on-site parking stalls.
21. Business hours for restaurants, taverns, membership clubs and retail
stores which are permitted in the C-1 zoning district often extend to 9:00
PM or later.
22. PMC 28.86.060 Requires the Planning Commission to make and enter
findings and conclusions from the record as to whether or not:
1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive
Plan;
2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure;
3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity;
4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site
design will discourage the development of permitted uses on
property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof;
5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district; and
6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located
and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a
nuisance to uses permitted in the district.
23. There was considerable testimony for and against approval of the Special
Permit at the June 18th 2009 open record hearing. In addition, the
Planning Commission received a large amount of written testimony. The
testimony was not focused on the six (6) criteria contained in PMC
25.86.060.
2
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
i
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses. The
proposed medical clinic is an office use typically found in commercial areas.
The Comprehensive Plan (ED-2-13) encourages the development of a wide range
of commercial uses located to support local and regional needs. Statistical
information provided in testimony at the open record hearing of June 18th 2009
indicated the proposed health clinic would support or address local health
needs. The proposed use is located near other related medical facilities at Road
40 and Court Street and Road 44 and Court Street. The facility will be
strategically located on a major arterial about half a mile from a regional
highway. The proposed medical clinic is located on Court Street, a major
arterial that is also a Transit route. In this respect the proposal supports the
Comprehensive Plan goal of the Regional Transportation Plan (Vol. 1
Transportation Element Goals of the RTP) to provide a transportation system
for all citizens regardless of age race or handicap. The proposed use located on
a Transit route also supports Plan Policies (RTP Policy # 14) which promote use
of the Transit system. The clinic site also uses a shared driveway with the
adjacent bank thereby minimizing driveways on arterial streets consistent with
Plan Policy TR-1-D.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the proposed site from
surrounding streets. The daily client base and number of employees at the
facility will not generate a greater demand on infrastructure than past uses on
the site or than uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district. The proposed use will
generate less than 100 vehicle trips per day. Water and sewer demand will be
negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The office building being considered in this application has existed on the site
for over 40 years. It will continued to be maintained as an office building with
operating hours similar to those of surrounding offices. The proposed use will
3
be less intense than other permitted uses within the C-1 District such as
restaurants, night clubs and certain types of stores. A medical clinic/office
will be operated and maintained in harmony with the intended commercial
character of the general vicinity which includes the location of medical offices.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity
or impair the value thereop
The clinic is proposing minor facade improvements which will not alter the size
or height of the building. The existing facility was originally constructed in
1962 by the Pasco School District. The existing commercial zoning and
development has not impaired the value of adjoining properties. A search of
property tax records for properties adjacent to the Planned Parenthood facility
in Kennewick revealed that values have increased over the past several years.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
Health clinics are generally less intense land uses than general retail or
restaurant uses. The proposed health clinic will not generate vibrations, noise
or fumes that often accompany permitted uses such as car washes, auto repair
shops, restaurants and taverns. There will be no grinding, pounding,
fabricating or other activities as a part of the proposed medical services that
medical clinic will provide that will create vibrations dust, noise fumes or
flashing lights. A medical clinic/office may be less disruptive to the adjacent
residences than other permitted uses due to the fact the clinic will be closed on
weekends and during evening hours when people in nearby residential
neighborhoods will to be home. The proposed facility is estimated to have 10
employees that will provide medical services to less than 30 people per day.
The proposed medical clinic will generate far less traffic than permitted uses
such as a bank, a convenience store or a restaurant.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted
in the district?
Health clinics and medical offices are typically located within commercial
zoning districts and have not been found to create health or safety concerns for
neighboring businesses. The Planned Parenthood facility that was located on
201h Avenue in the 1990's was not a nuisance to other nearby uses on 20th
Avenue. Nor did the 20th Avenue Planned Parenthood office become a nuisance
to the nearby Richardson Park of Robert Frost Elementary School. Permitted
uses in the C-1 zone such as car-washes, which can be very noisy, taverns,
4
nightclubs and restaurants, which generate significant traffic and are open
until 2:00 am, are all more likely to be disruptive to the surrounding
neighborhoods than a health clinic with about 70 vehicle trips per day only 5
days a week. The open school district gate to the north allows children and
others to access commercial parking lots. A barrier along the north side of the
site may provide a deterrent to access and address concerns about children
accessing this site and nearby commercial parking lots.
RECOMMENDATION j
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions there from as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff
report identified as "Alternative # 2".
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact
and conclusions identified in "Alternative # 2" there from the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special
permit to Planned Parenthood for the location of a Level-One
Community Service Facility with the following conditions:
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2) The clinic shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site
plan submitted with the application;
3) A 6-foot masonry block wall of a design and color approved by the
Community and Economic Development Director shall be constructed
along the rear property line and extending 10 feet down each side
property line a distance of 10 feet from the rear property line;
4) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by February 3, 2010.
5
i
ALTERNATE # 3
Findings and Conclusions to support denial of the
Planned Parenthood Application
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff
report and from evidence received by the Planning Commission and
testimony presented at the open record hearing.
1. The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identified the site for Commercial use.
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
4. The site is directly adjacent to Mark Twain Elementary School.
S. The site is located on Court Street which is identified as a primary
arterial street.
6. There is an existing Planned Parenthood clinic operating in the city
of Kennewick approximately 8 miles away from the proposed Pasco
location.
7. Non-Profit health centers are defined by the zoning regulations
(PMC 25.12.155) as Community Service Facilities (Level One)
which require review and approval by the special permit process
prior to locating or expanding in any zone.
8. La Clinica and the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic
along with 10 other clinics provide medical exams, cancer
screening, reproductive health screenings and other related
services within 10 miles of the proposed location. There are at
least 8 clinics (providing the services listed previously) within 5
miles of the proposed location
9. The site for the proposed clinic is currently unoccupied.
10. The proposed facility could generate up to 60 vehicle trips per day
(including employees)
11. The Mark Twain Elementary School chain link fence to the north of
the proposed site (sits on the property line between the school
playground and the site) and has an open gate that permits
pedestrian access from the elementary school playground to the
proposed site.
12. Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 5.27.030) recognizes the impacts of
"secondary effects" of certain business operations and prohibits
and/or restricts the licensing and operation of certain businesses
due to what "many cities, counties, and organizations have
documented as secondary land use impacts" and public nuisance
generated by secondary effects of certain types of businesses.
�I
13. Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 5.10A.110A, 5.20.050) regulates how
close certain "selected" businesses can operate from any "public or
private school grounds" (typically no closer than 300-400 feet)
14. PMC 28.86.060 requires the Planning Commission to make and
enter findings and conclusions from the record as to whether or
not:
a. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive
Plan;
b. The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure;
c. The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity;
d. The location and height of proposed structures and the site
design will discourage the development of permitted uses on
property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof;
e. The operations in connection with the proposal will be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district; and
f. The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located
and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a
nuisance to uses permitted in the district.
15. There was considerable amount of testimony provided by the
public and discussion amongst the planning commissioners during
the public hearing on June 18th and planning commissioners
deliberations on July 161h, 2009 that expressed significant concern
regarding:
a. disruption of normal elementary school and associated
playground operations located within 80 feet of the proposed
site due to adverse secondary effects generated by protests,
vigils, and rallies;
b. disruption of normal business activities to those businesses
located directly adjacent to the proposed site due to adverse
secondary effects generated by protests, vigils, and rallies;
c. disruption of the general harmony and safety of the directly
adjacent residential neighborhood area due to the secondary
effects generated by conflicts between protestors and activists
that are for and against the applicant's purpose.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw
conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The
criteria and associated findings are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use.
Page 14 of The Comprehensive Plan states following: "The plan concept is
based on a vision of how the city should grow and develop while
protecting its quality of life, and it further states, "in order to maintain and
protect public health, safety, and welfare, while enhancing the
community's character, amenities, and environmental quality". Based on
the testimony received and proceeding discussions amongst the
commissioners, the commissioners concluded that there will more than
likely be serious secondary effects caused by the operation of a Planned
Parenthood facility at this location that do not maintain and protect
public health, safety and welfare. Commissioners concluded that the
level of controversy that surrounds Planned Parenthood facilities
throughout the country, which is well documented, will most assuredly
be repeated here in Pasco, particularly at this site due to its' proximity to
the elementary school. This will result in secondary effects that could
include 24/7 protests, rallies, and vigils that have been repeatedly
observed at various locations throughout the United States. Planning
Commission concluded that this will not enhance our community's
character, reputation, amenities, or quality as described in the
comprehensive plan.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Newspaper reports and related testimony was received by the Planning
Commission describing that other communities throughout the United
States have had their streets blocked or closed for periods of time due to
the secondary effects of protestors, rallies, vigils, and bomb threats, so
there is significant potential for adverse effects. Schools are also part of
our public infrastructure and because of the siting of this facility directly
adjacent to an elementary school, the school's operations could be
adversely effected by the kind of actions other communities have
observed in response to the operation of a Planned Parenthood facility.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be
in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
Based on the testimony received, the documented nature of the
controversy that surrounds Planned Parenthood, the proximity to a
residential neighborhood, an elementary school, and other businesses,
the Planning Commission concludes that it would be very difficult for
Planned Parenthood to operate in harmony with the intended character
of the vicinity due to the secondary effects generated by the nature of the
facility and the facility operator's national reputation with the public.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in
the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
Based on the testimony received and the documented nature of the
protests, vigils, and rallies that are going on throughout the country, this
proposal does have the potential to generate secondary effects that will
discourage development and impair value. This type of facility and
associated operation can generate adverse and objectionable nuisance
secondary effects that are very difficult to mitigate.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district?
Based on the testimony received and the documentation discussed at the
Planning Commission meetings regarding this matter, the secondary
effects of Planned Parenthood's operation significantly raises the
potential for noise, and traffic that is objectionable to a much higher
degree than any permitted use in the district. The close proximity of the
elementary school and residential neighborhood make the location
incompatible from this provision stand-point.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located
and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to
uses permitted in the district?
The Planning Commission concluded based on the information received
reporting what has been witnessed at other locations that the applicant
is operating throughout the country, that the proposed business
operation in this location has a very high probability that it will generate
secondary effects that will become a significant nuisance to uses
permitted in the district. The Planning Commission received an
abundance of public testimony from concerned citizens and business
owners who live in the direct, immediate vicinity of the proposed site. A
significant amount of citizen testimony that was received was focused on
the concern about disruption of residential and business environments
that has been witnessed at facilities of the this type throughout the
nation and how the potential for significant nuisance, reduction of
perceived safety, reduced property value, reduced business volume to
adjacent businesses, disruption of the learning environment at the
adjacent elementary school, together with a concern regarding the
disruption of harmony of the general vicinity will be recognized at this
site in the City of Pasco.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions there from, as contained in the August
20th, 2009 Planning Commission report identified as
Alternate U.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the
findings of fact and conclusions identified in "Alternate #3"
there from, that the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council deny a special permit to Planned
Parenthood for the location of their proposed facility on 3901
West Court Street.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-007 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt
HEARING DATE: 7/16/09 5604 McKinley Court
ACTION DATE: 9/17/09 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in an R-S-
20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal_ The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North,
Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right-
of-way.
General Location: 2000 Block of Road 72
Property Size: Approximately 28 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road.
3. UTILITIES: The proposed use will not need public utilities.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned
RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels and the Faith
Assembly of God Church. Surrounding zoning and land uses are
as follows:
NORTH- R-S-20- County-residential
SOUTH- R-S-20- Nazarene Church
EAST- R-S-20- County-residential
WEST- R-S-20- County-residential
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for Low-Density Residential use.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been
issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in accordance
with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has requested a Special Permit to locate a corn maze and
associate activities on 18 acres of land directly north of the Faith
Assembly of God Church on Road 72 (the church occupies 10 acres). A
corn maze is a combination of agricultural and recreational uses. Both
use categories' are identified as unclassified uses and as such require a
Special Permit before locating within the community. The festival
component of the corn maze will include hay-rides, a barnyard animal
exposition, piglet races and a concession stand. The applicant has
developed corn mazes within the Tri-Cities area for the past 11 years.
The first corn maze was located on the corner of Road 100 and Argent
Road on property now occupied by the Desert Springs Covenant Church.
The proposed corn maze will occupy 11 acres of land directly north of the
Faith Assembly Church parking lot. The pumpkin patch portion of the
project will be located on 6 acres just south of Wernett Road. A barn yard
area for small petting zoo is proposed for a half acre site at the northwest
corner of the church parking lot. The church parking lot, which is
completely paved and fully lighted, will be used for parking.
The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a
suburban very low density area with large pastures, livestock raising and
grape vineyards. Truck farming and raspberry production has also
occurred in the neighborhood in the past.
The actual use of the corn maze and fall festival activities will occur for
about a month during the fall. The heaviest use of the corn maze will be
on the weekends and near Halloween. Three to six tours of preschool
and elementary aged children may occur on weekdays.
The site can be accessed from the north or south by Road 72 and from
the east by Wernett Road.
The area surrounding the proposed corn maze is sparely developed.
Homes on adjoining properties the west are located approximately 500
feet west of the proposed site.
One of the major concerns over the location of past corn maze (the one at
Road 100) was the issue of parking. In this case the Faith Assembly
parking lot is available for use. The parking lot is completely paved and
fully lit in the evening. The parking lot contains over two hundred
parking spaces adjacent to the corn maze site.
2
As instructed the staff has provided the Planning Commission two sets of
findings and conclusions for consideration. These findings and
conclusions are attached as Alternate # 1 for approval of the corn maze
and "Alternate # 2" for approval of a farm only. Staff is recommending
"Alternate # 2" be accepted by the Planning Commission.
3
• Item: Special Permit - Corn Maze/Farm
Vicinity
Applicant. Schmitt - Haywire Farms N Map .
File #: SP 09-007
Im !It 81k F
AL,
B,JT7E CREE
N
ERNETT°RQ _ �� � -�
- T 9
'!%, a L .. - E
fRCRE,ST
M
. I SITE
�S ik�E
Emil - A�
AGAT O ST 3 _ -
i
0 -
Joi
PD F ompression, R, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCorr ressor
Land Item: Special P - Co rn Maze/Farm
�
Use Applicant: Schmitt - Haywire Farms
Ma File #: SP 09-007
3
-- `� BU� '"ER K CT
• 1 . . W WERNETT RD ++
� 1
0
SFDU 's _
of N L-
v I , UTTER RCLE
r \ �\ SILVERCREST ET
' 1
H—A\VfEI
. - SITE - -
o \\\\\\` SFDU'S REEK CT
� �SSi�+•L�ir�ii �r � �
w,
J
TE — CT
i
�ey
S FDU � ,
Church '
Q o a
a
V �
t�styL�irr�+
T{� LYOURT ST z ��,��,— -
PDF compression, OCR, web op tion using a watermar d ion copy 1ON DFCompres�or
Item: S ecial Permit - Corn Maze/Farm
zoning p •APPjj can t: Schmitt - Ha Tire Farms ri Map
File #. SP 09-007
BU ERC IK C-
RS 20 _ W WERNETT RD
ca
L 0:
O _
(Co u nty) NUITTERNUT IR LE
____ , SITE 'cT
RS-20
CO (County) CT
0
T ST � _ •
lk T R- A CT
I
RS=12 �
s
o
�II1 RS-20
c , O
- --
PDF compression, OCR,web o ation using a w rk ation copy o ION I�FCompressor
ALTERNATE # 1
Findings & Conclusions to support approval of the Corn Maze Application
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The site contains 28 acres.
3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density
Residential development.
4. The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center.
5. The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in
Pasco.
6. The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities.
7. Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining
properties.
8. Large vacant parcels within the general neighborhood have been used in
the past for producing watermelons, pumpkins and other row or truck
farming crops.
9. The site is zoned R-S-20.
10. Surrounding properties are zoned R-S-20 in the County
11. Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R-S-20 zone.
12. The site contains an improved church parking lot with over 200 parking
spaces adjacent to the proposed corn maze/farm. Another 310 paved
parking spaces are available around the church.
13. The church parking lot contains night lighting.
14. The church parking lot has access from both Road 72 and Court Street.
15. The applicant is proposing to provide agri-entertainment for community
residents.
16. The applicant has operated and managed corn mazes in the Tri-City area
for at least 10 years.
1
17. The corn maze will be 6-7 acres in size.
18. Site development will include a pumpkin patch and petting zoo area.
19. All pathways and emergency lanes will be tilled and compacted to control
dust.
20. Perimeter fencing will be installed to trap blowing corn leaves.
21. The applicant indicated he has never received a warning from the Benton
County Clean Air Authority for dust problems for past corn mazes in
Benton County.
22. The applicant will provide security functions during the operation of the
corn maze.
23. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and
from the east by way of Wernett Road.
24. Existing church traffic uses Road 72, Wernett Road and Court Street.
25. Advertising for the corn maze will include maps showing access to the
site is by way of Court Street to Road 72.
26. Parking lot attendants will be used to direct traffic into the church
parking lot.
CONCLUSIONS
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives,
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density
residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed
use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the
keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural production in R-S-20
zones. The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production
by special permit in the R-S-20 zone.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed farm/corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities therefore
there will be no adverse impact to city utilities. Peak traffic for the corn maze j
will not be greater than that associated with the Faith Assembly Church.
2
Advertising for the corn maze will show access to the site is by way of Court
Street to Road 72 and not Argent Road or Wernett Road. Road 72 and Wernett
Road currently accommodates church traffic.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing character of the neighborhood is that of a suburban residential
neighborhood. The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not
alter the existing neighborhood character. The location of other farms within
the I-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of
dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. The proposed use
however will contain public activities for about a month that could disrupt the
harmony of the existing neighborhood if conditions are not placed on the
proposal. Conditions for parking, litter control, noise control and other issues
will be needed for the protection of the neighborhood.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal. Development
over the last 10 years within the I-182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming
operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the
value of nearby development. The proposed use is a temporary use that will
not materially impact property values.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
Without conditions the proposed activity could create traffic, noise, litter and
dust that may be objectionable to nearby properties. Conditions related to
parking, litter control and noise will need to be placed on the use of the site to
safeguard the neighborhood.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The existence of numerous farming operations within the I-182 Corridor
demonstrates that the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance
to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. The use of the
corn maze and festival activities could become a nuisance without use
conditions.
3
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
there from as contained in the July 16, 2009 staff report
identified as "Alternate #1".
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and
conclusions identified in "Alternate #l", the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit
to Phillip Schmitt and Haywire Farms for the location of a farm
and corn maze with the following conditions:
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
(1) The special permit is personal to the applicant;
(2) The applicant must provide the City with a designated parking and
traffic control plan to be approved by the City Engineer to ensure
vehicles use the church parking lot;
(3) No on street parking is permitted;
(4) A daily litter control plan must be provided to the City to be approved
by the Inspection Services Manager;
(5) A site security plan must be submitted to the City for police and fire
review prior to the issuance of a business license;
(6) Portable toilets and sanitation (hand washing) stations must be
provided on site. The Inspection Service Manager will determine the j
number of toilets and sanitation station needed;
(7) Sanitation stations must meet all applicable laws and regulations;
(8) Portable toilets must be located out of direct sight from adjoining
homes and be no less than 75 feet from any adjoining property lines
or street right-of-way;
(9) Any night lighting on the site must not spill onto adjacent properties.
All lighting must be shielded per PMC 12.32.020.
(10) Illuminated signs are prohibited;
(11) Signage must be limited to the entrance near the church parking lot.
One directional sign is permitted on church property at the corner of
Road 72 and Court Street;
(12) No signage is permitted on Argent Road, Wernett Road or any other
off-site location;
(13) Event operations must cease by 9:00 pm on weekdays and 10:00 pm
on weekends;
(14) No amplified music or public announcement systems are permitted;
4
(15) The applicant must at all times comply with City noise regulations
(PMC 9.61);
(16) The concession stand must be located adjacent to the church parking
lot;
(17) The corn maze must be setback 30 feet from the west property line of
the site and 25 feet from Road 76 and 30 feet from the two homes on
the west side of Road 76;
(18) A two to three foot high fence is required around all areas planted
with corn to stop corn leaves from blowing into neighboring
properties;
(19) The corn maze and festival activities will not be permitted until the
applicant obtains a business license and approval of the parking and
traffic plan and litter control plan;
(20) The site cannot be used for produce stands selling produce other than
pumpkins;
(21) All temporary fencing, structures, portable toilets, concession stands
and other items associated with the corn maze and festival activities
must be removed from the site within 15 days of the close of the corn
maze;
(22) All fields used for crops (corn and pumpkins) must be tilled and
restored to a state similar to that which existed prior to the planting of
the crops within 15 days of the close of the corn maze;
(23) All fields must be treated (with a cover crop or by other means) for
dust control within 15 days of the close of the corn maze;
(24) Any farming activity under this special permit shall be operated by
using best management practices for agricultural production;
(25) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm
service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior
to the operation of the farm;
(26) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto
the adjoining right-of-way;
(27) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic
rates;
(28) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as
pumpkins, tomatoes, watermelons, peppers, and etc. The definition of
row crops does not include wheat, barley, buckwheat and similar
grains;
(29) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site;
(30) The special permit for the farming portion of the application shall be
valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an
additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of special
permit approval;
(31) The Special Permit for the corn maze portion of the application is valid
for a period of one year during either the 2009 or 2010 season. Any
subsequent use of the site for a corn maze and associated activities
will require Special Permit review.
5
(32) The special permit shall be null and void for the farming portion of the
application if farming activity has not begun by June, 2010.
i
i
6
ALTERNATE # 2
Findings & Conclusions to support denial of the Corn Maze and approval
of a farm only
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The site contains approximately 28 acres.
3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density
Residential development.
4. The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center.
5. The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in
Pasco.
6. The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities.
7. Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining
properties.
8. Surrounding properties are zoned R-S-20 in the County.
9. The site is zoned R-S-20.
10. Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R-S-20 zone.
11. Large vacant parcels within the general neighborhood have been used in
the past for producing watermelons, pumpkins and other row or truck
farming crops.
12. The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two
vacant parcels.
13. The proposed use includes the development of a corn maze, pumpkin field
and fall festival attraction area.
14. The proposed use is a commercial business enterprise designed to attract
customers.
15. The applicant stated in the hearing customers would come from Franklin
County, Benton County and Walla Walla.
1
16. The applicant anticipates attracting 7,000 to 9,000 people to the proposed
corn maze over the period of time the corn maze is open to the public.
17. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and
from the east by way of Wernett Road.
18. Testimony provided by a resident on Road 72 indicated current church
traffic on Road 72 comes in about equal portions from both the north and
south.
19. Road 72 is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalk
or street lighting from Argent Road on the north to the north line of the
Church parking lot.
20. Wernett Road is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter,
sidewalks or street lighting.
21. Road 72 is partially developed to urban standards adjacent to the Faith
Assembly Church.
22. Improvements (paved areas) on Road 72 are only 20 feet wide adjacent to
the corn maze site.
23. The corn maze will be open for business on Wednesday evenings during
the time church activities are occurring.
24. During Wednesday night church activities the church parking lot is in
use.
25. The church occasionally is rented for weddings and quinceaneras. These
activities will generate the need for use of the parking lots.
26. The applicant stated he could not control traffic on surrounding streets.
27. The applicant's security manager stated they could not control loitering
around the site.
28. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from
properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10:00
pm and 7:00 am.
29. The applicant stated on the weekends he plans to operate until 11:00 pm.
30. The applicant proposes to play country music on the site.
CONCLUSIONS
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
2
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives,
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density
residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed
use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the
keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural production in R-S-20
zones. The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production
by special permit in the R-S-20 zone.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed farm/corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities but the
maze and fall festival will be dependent upon City and County streets for
access. Road 72, the main access road to the site, was constructed to rural
standards not urban standards. Likewise, Wernett Road does not meet City
standards for a local access street. These roads have no night lighting, no
sidewalks and in many places is half the width of standard City streets.
Wernett Road west of Road 72 along the proposed pumpkin patch area is a
gravel road only. The operation of a corn maze to coincide with Wednesday
evening church activities will place a strain on the use of public streets. Little
onsite parking will be available on Wednesday nights thereby increasing the
likelihood corn maze customers will park on Road 72. Use of the property for
farming only will create minimal impact on surrounding streets.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. Small
farms, pastures and vineyards are common in the neighborhood. The act of
growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing
neighborhood character. The location of other farms within the I-182 Corridor
has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be
operated harmoniously with intended uses. The proposed corn maze portion of
the application with fall festival activities however, is more of a commercial
enterprise that will draw between 7,000 and 9,000 people to the neighborhood
over a few weeks. Much of the increase in traffic generated by the influx of
people will occur on the weekends and evenings when surrounding neighbors
are home enjoying the peace and comfort of their properties. The additional
traffic, noise, litter and commotion associated with a commercial enterprise in
a residential area will disrupt the peace and harmony customarily enjoyed in a
residential neighborhood.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity
or impair the value thereof?
3
There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal. Development
over the last 10 years within the I-182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming
operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the
value of nearby development. The operation of a commercial corn maze, while
not a structure, will have a deleterious impact on the use and enjoyment of
surrounding residential properties. The impact on long term property values is
unknown at this time.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing
lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district?
The addition of 7,000 to 9,000 people into the neighborhood over a short period
of time will create increased levels of noise, traffic, vibrations and dust
currently not experienced by the residents. The late night operation of a
commercial enterprise within a residential neighborhood with the problems of
noise, litter, additional traffic and young people loitering in the neighborhood
will become objectionable to occupants of neighboring residential properties.
The location of a small farm within the neighborhood will have a minimal
impact on the neighborhood.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The establishment of a commercial corn maze providing recreational services
to 9,000 people will become a nuisance in the residential neighborhood due to
the increase in traffic, noise, loitering and other side effects associated with
the corn maze and fall festival. Due to the narrow width and poor conditions
of adjoining streets traffic safety is also a concern. The surrounding
neighborhood is characterized by low density residential development
interspersed with pastures and hobby farms. A commercial vineyard is located
on Road 72 directly east of the Faith Assembly Church. The existence of
numerous farming operations within the West Pasco area demonstrates that
the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses
nor will it endanger public health and safety.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the September 17, 2009 staff report.
4
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and
conclusions, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to Phillip Schmitt and Haywire
Farms for the location of a farm on Road 72 with the following
conditions:
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit is personal to the applicant;
2) The special permit shall be for farming only and does not permit the use
of the property for a corn maze, a fall festival, or anything like unto it;
3) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for
agricultural production;
4) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm
service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior to
the operation of the farm;
5) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the
adjoining right-of-way;
6) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates;
7) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins,
tomatoes, watermelons, peppers, and etc. The definition of row crops
does not include wheat, barley, buckwheat and similar grains;
8) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site;
9) The special permit shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will
automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to
the conditions of special permit approval;
10) The special permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not
begun by April, 2010.
5
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 09-005 APPLICANT: Anthony St. Martin
HEARING DATE: 8/20/09 5361 Elm Avenue
ACTION DATE: 9/17/09 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 3 of Short Plat 2004-25.
General Location: 1302 Road 36, approximately 515 feet south of Court
Street
Property Size: Approximately 0.34 acres (14,810 square feet)
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 36.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities are currently located in Road 36.
i
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject parcel is zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and is currently vacant. Land use and zoning for surrounding
properties are as follows:
North - C-1 - Bi-State Siding & Window Inc.
East - C-3 - U.S. Post Office
South - R-S-12 - Single Family Residence
West - R-1 - Two (2) Single Family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is in a transitional area of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map located on the border of a
Commercial designation and a Low-Density Residential designation.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a
determination of non-significance in accordance with review under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The site in question is located about 500 feet south of Court Street surrounded
on the south and west by single family development and the Post Office to the
east. In 2005 the lots directly to the west of the site were rezoned from C-1 to
R-1 and developed with homes the following year. This site was zoned C-1
about 30 years ago when it was annexed to the city. The property at the north
end of Road 37 was also rezoned from C-1 to R-1 in 2002 and developed with
single family homes shortly thereafter.
I
The property to the east of the site was developed with the Post Office in the
late 1980's. The Post Office constructed a large landscaped buffer along the
east edge of Road 36 to provide a visual buffer between the Post Office parking
area and existing and future homes to the west.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Properties to the west were rezoned in 2002 and 2005 and developed with
single-family dwellings. All properties to the south and west are now developed
with single-family dwellings. The Post Office property to the east was developed
with a large landscaped buffer to provide a visual and aesthetic barrier between
the Post Office and the properties on the west side of Road 36.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The character of the neighborhood on Road 36 between Court Street and
Sylvester Street is generally residential in nature. Rezoning the property in
question to R-1 will support previous residential rezones in the neighborhood
and will protect the residential nature of the west side of Road 36 thereby
advancing the general welfare of the area.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan.
Rezoning the property will help maintain the residential integrity and value of
the residential properties in the neighborhood while support Comprehensive
Plan policies that encourage preservation of existing neighborhoods and
providing housing opportunities for Pasco residents.
4. The effect on the property owners or owners if the request is not granted.
The owners would have no opportunity to develop the property for residential
uses. The property has proven to have little utility for commercial uses and
would likely continue to remain vacant.
5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property.
2
The property is located in a transition area between two Comprehensive Plan
designations—low density residential and commercial.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1) The site is currently zoned C-1.
2) The site has been zoned C-1 for approximately 30 years
3) The site is vacant. It was annexed 30 years ago.
4) C-1 properties to the west were rezoned to R-1 in 2002 and 2005.
5) Properties to the west are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family
dwellings.
6) Properties to the south are zoned R-S-12 and developed with single-family
dwellings.
7) The neighborhood on Road 36 between Court Street and Sylvester Street is
generally residential in nature.
8) The Pasco Post Office was developed in 1987 to the east with a large
landscaped buffer and provides a stable and adjacent land use
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060. From the criteria the Planning Commission
must determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal rezone site is in a transition area between two Comprehensive Plan
land use designations. The rezone would support the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan dealing with providing housing for residents.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be
materially detrimental.
i
3
The proposal would have a positive effect on the surrounding area by eliminating
the potential for commercial uses adjacent to recently constructed single family
homes. The rezone may also hasten the development of a parcel that has been
skipped over by past development.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a
whole.
Encouraging the in 11 of a vacant parcel has merit and value to the community as
a whole. Allowing residential development to occur on the parcel will help
maintain and preserve the value of nearby residential properties which has a
positive impact on the community.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal would not need special conditions to negate adverse impacts
because the proposal would be compatible with surrounding residential zoning.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City
and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an
agreement.
No agreement would be required.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move the Planning
Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the August
20, 2009 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings
of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council rezone the site from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-1
(Retail Business).
4
1teti7xezon-e" R- 17fo'TU-:-,1
V,c,n,ty .
Applicant: Franklin PUD-
Map File :
# Z 09-001
V-1
4
r .� - �• `t
BONN VIE S �` ,
1- �: �� • _ % A
¢ A wa > s
jP
PIA
fob
,— • , P } Q r �' ' '*nip '�"-. �� -
T V
w CLARK ST , t
r
LO
----- ° EWIS ST_ _
o ion CR web optimization using a watermarked evaluation c of I FCom ressor
P 9 pY p
_�diih►
Land Item: Rezone R- 1 to C- 1 _
Use Applicant: Franklin PUD °
Maq_ File #: Z 09-001
HOPKINS ST * ��
% i Church
ty city
Park Library - _
I
SFDU 'S ' •
IL
BONNEVILLE STw
Uj
+� �A
Q _v'
SFDU s _ \\SITE f
CLARK ST
'7
�.
w Multi -Fam I y
< I- I k -1 1
�.
Commercial
LEWIS ST
PDF compression, OCR, v%b optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCom ressor
Item': Rezone Munic al un ce uildin g Zonin g A icant: Franklin 'VT'JD N�.a 1
XX
�
Map File", #: Z 09-001
HOPKINS ST —�
R i
= _ 7z-
BONNEVILLE "T ST
W
.. . _
SITE
CLARK ST C=1
> C .
Q -
_
r C=3 .
- LEWIS ST
PDF compression, OCR, we optim, ation using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z09-006 APPLICANT: Verl Goodwin
HEARING DATE: 9/17/2009 1851 Bellevue Rd.
ACTION DATE: 10/15/2009 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from R-1 to C-1 (4215 W. Court Street)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 2, Block 1 Cline Addition together with the westerly 50 feet
of Lot 1 of said plat
General Location: 4215 W. Court Street
Property Size: 0.68 Acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available at the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
North: R-S-12 Single Family Residences
South: R-S-12 Single Family Residences
East: R-1 Single Family Residence
West C-1 Retail Business
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for commercial uses. This designation encourages the development of
retail businesses, service businesses and offices. The rezone proposal is
consistent with the Plan.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in accordance with review
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a rezone for the property in question from the current
R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning to C-1 (Retail Business) zoning. No
associated development is proposed at this time.
1
This property was annexed in 1987, and zoned R-1 to avoid creating a non-
conformity due to the fact the adjacent single-family residence was parceled
together with the property in question. The site has remained vacant ever since
annexation to the City.
The adjacent properties to the west are zoned C-1 and contain a flower shop
and a Seven-Eleven convenience store. A convenience store has been located
on the corner of Road 44 and Court Street since 1964. The Flower Basket
property was originally developed with a retail building in 1980 and then
rebuilt several times beginning in the late 1990's. Due to the size and shape of
the lot coupled with the fact it is located on a heavily traveled arterial, the
property is somewhat difficult to develop for residential purposes. However, the
traffic volumes at this location may be considered an asset for commercial
development.
The site is located within a contiguous corridor extending along Court Street
which is identified for commercial uses on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan.
The zoning regulations anticipate situations where commercial properties may
adjoin properties with less intense zoning such as the lots to the north of the
site which are zoned R-S-12. If the parcel in question were to be rezoned to C-
1, future development on the site would be required to include a landscaped
buffer along the north property line. While the Comprehensive Plan indicates
the site should be used for commercial purposes and zoning regulations
require protective buffers, there still may be some uses that would not be
appropriate for the site. Uses such as car washes have been proven to be
incompatible activities next to residential areas. The Planning Commission has
the option of limiting uses such as car washes through the use of a
concomitant agreement.
Currently, all municipal utilities are available to the site in Court Street and
are of adequate capacity to serve commercial development. The site has good
access from Court Street. The site has adequate lot frontage to support a
commercial ingress/egress driveway.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• Since annexation the adjoining property to the west has been
redeveloped with a larger retail business
2
• Since annexation retail and office development has expanded at
both Road 40 and Court Street and Road 44 and Court Street.
• Sewer utilities have been installed in Court Street and surrounding
streets since the property was annexed.
• The Riverview Methodist Church at the corner of Road 40 and
Court Street (500 feet to the east) is expanding and redeveloping.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The rezone will enhance development opportunities which may lead to the
property being utilized for productive purposes. Development of the property
will eliminate the unkempt condition of the property. Developed properties
contribute more fully (through taxes, fees and licenses) to the funding of
municipal services thereby promoting the general welfare.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
The proposed rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be
considered a proper implementation of the Plan. Other commercially zoned
properties on the block have co-existed with the residential properties to the
north since the early 1950's. A search of the Franklin County Assessor's
records indicate the value of residential properties to the north of the existing
C-1 properties have increased in value in recent years
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
The property is currently undeveloped and has been for many years. Without
rezoning the property the owners will have land zoned contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan designation. It will be difficult to develop the property in a
manner consistent with the R-1 designation in this location..
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial development. The
proposed rezone is for C-1 (Retail Business) which is consistent with the Plan.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
3
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential).
2) The site is vacant.
3) Adjoining properties in the same block have been zoned C-1 and developed
retail businesses since before the properties were annexed in 1987.
4) The first retail business was located on the block in 1964 at the corner of
Road 44 and Court Street.
5) Since the late 1980's retail and office development has occurred near the
intersection of Road 44 and Court Street and Road 40 and Court Street.
6) Sewer service is now available in Court Street.
7) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses.
8) The zoning regulations require commercial developments to construct a
landscaped buffer along common property lines with residential uses.
9) The site is located adjacent to shopping areas, employment areas, and
transit routes.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the land use map and various Goals and Policies
of the Plan. Policy LU-3-B encourages infill in support of more
intensive/walkable neighborhoods. Policy LU-3-D encourages mixed-use
development to promote walkable communities. The proposal promotes the
potential to develop the site with a business that will serve the surrounding
neighborhood making it a more convenient place to live.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
According to Franklin County Assessor records, property values for single-family
units in the neighborhood have increased over the last 5 years. Such is true for
those residences north of and adjacent to the Seven-Eleven convenient
store/filling station directly to the west. The Seven-Eleven store has been
located on the block since 1964. Zoning regulations require commercial
development to install protective buffers between commercial and residential
uses to minimize compatibility issues that may be detrimental to residential
4
uses. To further address possible adverse impacts, the Planning Commission
has the option of requiring the applicant to enter into a concomitant agreement.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The proposal has merit because it will allow infill development to occur consistent
with the Land Use designation provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Enabling the
property to develop commercially will implement the Comprehensive Plan and
promote the community's welfare.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
In the past car washes located in commercial zones adjacent to residential
neighborhoods have created compatibility problems. Automotive repair facilities
and similar services may also create compatibility issues. These problems can
be eliminated by requiring a concomitant agreement.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
The petitioner should enter into an agreement with the city to minimize impacts
that may be associated with certain uses that have had a history of
incompatibility with nearby residential development.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact,
conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the
October 15, 2009 meeting.
5
Vicinity Item: Rezone - R- I to C- I
Applicant. Verl Goodwin N
Map File #: Z 09-006
W, AGATE-STI
r .W,RI BY ST,
� - FMP- - SITE � .Q •►
RT.S
_
ROWN PL 4
W M ST �
PDF compression! 0 web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy CVISI FCompressor
Land -.
Item. Rezone R- 1 to C- 1
Use Applicant: N Verl Goodwin
Ma File #: Z 09-006
q
W AGATE ST
Cq
SFDU s 0 SFDU s A
W RUBY ST 1l
SFDU'sE W RUBY ST
a SITE
0
f 0
COURT ST
{
L—Commercial—]
—commercial-
tit '
i�
BROWN PL t
W BROWN ST
SFDU's
7VS! F D U s
Vacant
W MARIE ST ► � � '�—�
PD ompression, OCR, web ktimi z1ation using a watermarked ev u i DFCompressor
I
000 V1tenm:- -KezoffC--iv- Fto- C- 1 -P
Zoning Applicant: Verl Goodwin w
Map File # : Z 09-006
W AGATE ST
RS=1RS-2 0 RS-12
2
R-1
- - W RUBY ST
(C-ounty) J - W RUBY ST
hL
® R-1
SITE
U a a
0 0 CA
COURT ST
C=1
i
BROWN PL
RS_12 �, � RS=1 2
W BROWN ST,:
Q a
RS-12 0
W MARIE ST
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked e u f I FCompressor
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 10, 2009
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator
Community& Economic Development
SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft of 2010-2014 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan
(MF# CDBG09-022)
Histo and Facts
The present five-year Tri-Cities Home Consortium Consolidated Plan for the Cities of
Kennewick, Pasco and Richland will expire on December 31, 2009. The submission of a
complete Consolidated Plan is required once every three to five years and must be approved
by HUD. It is estimated that the City of Pasco will receive approximately $4 million dollars
in federal funds for CDBG and HOME activities over the next five years.
The first step began with conducting Public Hearings on June 23, 2009 wherein the public
and community stakeholders were invited to provide input in three forums:
•, economic development/community infrastructure needs,
• public services/human services/special needs, and
• housing needs.
Thirty (30) community stakeholders participated in the sessions. Comments and public
testimony from these forums are summarized in the attached Consultant Report Tri-Cities
Consolidated Planning Stakeholders Forums June 23, 2009.
During the period May to July, research by the consultant on Pasco's needs and resources was
conducted to provide a basis for decision making. The consultants interviewed key
individuals and organizations in the three communities. In Pasco, the City Manager was
interviewed, along with the representatives from the Pasco Downtown Development
Association, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Housing Authority.
Over the past four months, staff from Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick have provided input
based upon the community needs and citizen input to the consultant, who researched and
updated the 2010-2014 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan to reflect current conditions in Pasco
and together with staff from the three cities made revisions to the Strategic Action Plan.
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
Discussion
All CDBG and HOME funded activities for the years 2010 through 2014, and all third party
activities, such as development of assisted housing, must be consistent with the approved
Strategic Action Plan set forth in the attached 2010-2014 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan and
comply with the overall intent of that Plan. The focus is designed for flexibility in the
process and the establishment of priorities for funding programs for the year 2010 and
beyond.
The goals of the Strategic Plan formulated from community needs identified are particularly
important in that all HUD-assisted projects submitted over the upcoming five years must be
consistent with these goals. The attached Summary of Strategic Plan Goals and Needs
Assessment aligns needs identified in the attached Consultant Report Tri-Cities Consolidated
Planning Stakeholders Forums June 23, 2009, with the updated Strategic Action Plan.
Recommendation
Planning Commission should review the Plan and provide direction to staff for additional
needs, data, and corresponding goals that may need to be included in the plan. The purpose of
CDBG and HOME block grant programs is to provide 1) Decent Housing, 2) Economic
Opportunities, and 3) Suitable Living Environment to primarily benefit low-moderate income
persons. Outcomes of our goals would be the number of units measurable that have increased
affordability, accessibility, availability and sustainability.
Pasco's needs and goals may include neighborhoods or target areas identified to be improved
with decent housing, economic opportunities, or basic community infrastructure. Public
facilities and parks to be constructed or improved, and priority public services needed may
also be included.
The Draft Plan will be published for public comment on September 16, 2009. We expect a
final draft of the document the week of October 9, 2009. It is necessary that Pasco's
Consolidated Plan and its Annual Plan for 2010 be submitted to HUD by November 16,
2009. Pasco's 2010 Annual Action Plan contains funding allocations approved by City
Council on September 8, 2009.
/arp
Attachments:
1. Consultant Report Tri-Cities Consolidated Planning Stakeholders Forums June 23, 2009
2. Preliminary Draft 2010-2014 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan
3. Summary of Strategic Plan Goals and Needs Assessment
Consultant Report
Tri Cities Consolidated Planning Stakeholders Forums
June 23, 2009
Kennewick City Hall Council Chambers
Three forums and public hearings were held on Tuesday,June 23, 2009, as part of the Tri Cities
consolidated planning process leading to the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Each forum
addressed a different topic of focus, and each forum was concluded with a public hearing
inviting testimony from those present. In addition, a one hour public hearing was offered at the
end of the day from 3:00—4:00 PM for people to offer testimony on any aspect of the
consolidated planning process, and to recommend consideration of any housing and
community development activities.
More than 150 individual notices were sent to community stakeholders, and a notice for all Tri
Cities residents was published in the 20 days in advance of the forums.
The list of invitees is attached.
The forums were facilitated by Trish Roberts, a consultant from Common Ground under
contract with John Epler, Associates. Each of the three forums followed the same format. The
consultant offered an overview of the consolidated planning process and timeline, shared
information about activities funded under the current Consolidated Plan, and distributed tables
with updated data related to: population, income and employment, and housing stock. The
consultant then led a discussion among the participants about implications of the data, housing
and community development needs in each of the three cities, and potential projects that
would address needs and be good uses of anticipated federal housing and community
development dollars.
Five staff people from the three cities took part in the forums:
Carol Hughs Evans City of Kennewick
Deborah Bluher City of Richland
Michelle Burden City of Richland
Joe Schiessl City of Richland
Angie Pitman City of Pasco
Lists of forum participants and notes from each forum are shown below.
Forum#1, 8:30—10:00 AM
Topic: Economic Development and Community Infrastructure
1
Participants:
Dave Watrous SEC Affordable Housing
Candice Bluechel Work Source
Gloria Garcia PDDA
Jeff Adams City of Pasco
Victoria Silvernail Pasco Specialty Kitchen
Bill Fattic HUD, Spokane
Comments shared by participants:
• Economic stimulus dollars allocated to the Tri Cities will mean continued contracts at
the Hanford site. Such contracts lead to short-term, increased housing demand,
especially for rental units, and entry level units for purchase.
• Hanford related jobs are diversifying, and jobs across the board are diversifying.
• There is a shortage of seasonal agricultural workers. This is caused by several factors
including tightened immigration rules following 911, and changes in crop volumes and
timing. The shortage in workers affects farmers' plans for subsequent years, and the
change in farmers' plans affects availability of seasonal agricultural workers.
• The decrease in seasonal agricultural workers dramatically affects the economic health
of downtown Pasco, and also to a lesser degree affects the economic health of the
whole TO Cities area.
• Potential economic development and infrastructure projects include:
• Projects to retain residents in the 20 year—30 year old age group; especially
projects which offer attractive recreation to this age group. Examples include
recreation sites, parks, and entertainment venues.
• Projects that increase and support tourism such as assistance and promotion for
wineries, and further enhancement of the river shores.
• Efforts which help provide middle income jobs. Hanford contracts bring many
high income jobs, agricultural related work offers many unskilled jobs, but it is
the middle income jobs that need to be increased.
• Child care is needed, especially for swing shift and graveyard shift workers.
• Formation of an LID in conjunction with a BID would be very beneficial to Pasco.
It would require a partnership among business owners, building owners, and the
City and could be a mechanism to upgrade Pasco downtown.
• A carrot and stick approach involving code enforcement and lower interest
financing could accomplish the needed building infrastructure improvements in
downtown Pasco.
• A "soft-step" is needed for businesses coming out of the Pasco incubator kitchen
as they transition into established businesses.
2
o After school education and recreation programs for 6th grade—St"grade
students would help eliminate graffiti and mischief in the business districts.
Public Testimony Given at the End of Session#1
Victoria Silvernail, Pasco Specialty Kitchen, spoke in support of continued funding for the
Specialty Kitchen. Ms Silvernail commented on the variety of ways the kitchen stimulates and
stabilizes downtown Pasco, in addition to assisting the individual small business people who use
the incubator facility. Ms Silvernail provided several specific success stories of fledgling
businesses that have left the incubator kitchen and gone out on their own to establish
successful stand-alone establishments, and she talked of the active group currently using the
Specialty Kitchen.
Forum#2,, 10:30 AM—12:30 PM
Topic: Public and Human Services,and Special Needs
Participants:
Robin Callow BFDHS
Judith A Gidley BFCAC
Ray Morrison Consumer
Rachelle Brunsdon Lutheran Community Services
Kim Pennala PPD
Toni Neidhold ESD 123
Gordon Bopp NAMI-WA
Carol Stape Elijah Family Homes
Cricket Cordova BFCAC
Bill Fattic HUD Spokane
Steve Gaulke Vets Edge
Bobbie Littrell HACPFC
Comments shared by participants:
• Consolidation of mental health services across the Tri Cities would benefit the
consumers and increase the efficiency of delivery.
• Housing options are needed for people with co-occurring disorders, esp. if mental illness
is co-occurring with substance abuse.
• Outreach is complex and a very important aspect of providing services to people with
mental illness. Successful models include:
3
• Peer support
• Participant run programs
• Support services, including case management, are a critical component of housing for
people with mental illness.
• Services and housing are needed for people with HIV/AIDS, including women.
• Programs are needed for farm workers.
• Under law passed by the Washington Legislature, 13 cities in Washington have adopted
an increase in local sales tax to fund mental health programs. An effort should be
launched in the TO Cities to do the same. The increased tax could result in a net savings.
Supportive programs, especially a consolidated crisis control center, could provide
assistance early and prevent the need for the later phase, expensive intervention by law
officers and hospital emergency rooms.
• The success of supportive housing efforts can be enhanced by the funding of a housing
liaison to act between the consumer and the landlord.
Public Testimony Given at the End of Session#2
Kim Pennala, Pasco Police Department, spoke in support of developing a domestic violence
shelter in Pasco. The shelter's whereabouts would be known by the public, accessible 24 hours
a day to people seeking help, and be run in close coordination with the Pasco Police
Department and social services agencies.
Forum#3, 1:30—3:00 PM
Topic: Housing
Participants:
Bobbie Littrell HACPFC
Rich Barchet SEK Affordable Housing
Theresa Richardson Habitat for Humanity
Peggy Brudmiller CBC
Bill Casey CBC
Bibbie William Tri Cities Chaplaincy
Liza Beam CCCS
Judith A Gidley BFCAC
Cricket Cordova BFCAC
Gordon Bopp NAMI-WA
Anna (Nan) Bopp NAMI TriCities
4
Barbara Puigh Elijah Family Homes
Toni Neidhold ESD 123
Mark Lee VYC and PPCW
Debbie Curtis ERA Sun River
Robin Callow BFDHS
Ingrid Stegemuellen TC Herald
Renee Pahlgren Home Builders' Association
Bobbie Littrell HACPFC
Comments shared by participants:
• There are virtually no standard housing units available for households with incomes 30%
of median, or less.
• It is important to seek and analyze statistics related to disabled people, including adult
disabled people living with their parents. There is a baby boom bulge in the
demographics for this population, and for the parents of this population, as in other
populations. This presents implications for housing needs.
• The federal 811 capital grant program is an important source of funds for developing
housing units for people with disabilities. There exists a policy conflict between the
federal 811 housing program and the Washington State DSHS programs. While 811
funded projects only become financially feasible with approximately 12 units or more,
State DSHS policy calls for a much lower concentration of consumers.
• There is a need for housing units for people with both physical and mental disabilities.
• Currently, housing authority units are the only accessible units for people with physical
disabilities, and there is awaiting list of more than a year for these units. In addition,
dollars to housing authorities are continuing to be reduced.
• Potential housing projects to be considered for the new Consolidated Plan include:
• Housing and shelter for homeless youth with supportive counseling and
education
• Group homes for disabled mentally ill
• Shelter beds for all populations, and especially for families with children
• Housing for agricultural workers
• Housing with services for people with HIV/AIDS
• A safe house for victims of domestic violence; open to the community
• Assisted living units for elderly
• Affordable elder housing
• Rental assistance for people with very low incomes
5
o Special needs housing for people who are not eligible for housing authority units,
such as people with substance abuse problems, and people coming out of jails
and prisons
Public Testimony Given at the End of Session#3
Mark Lee, VYC and PPCW, spoke in support of programs and projects for homeless youth. He
told of dealing with many youth who find shelter by couch surfing through the homes of
friends, having no permanent base. He explained that many of these youth have become
homeless after leaving homes of abuse. He voiced support shelters and permanent housing
coupled with the support of counseling and education.
Public Testimony, and Open Microphone, 3:00—4:00 PM
No testimony was offered during this hour.
Written Testimony Submitted in Response to the Consolidated Planning Forums
Barb Carter
C211esources, LLC
Kennewick, WA
I have been working for over a year now on concepts for an affordable living/work space for
artists that would incorporate standalone studio/teaching component on same complex.
During the Americans for the Arts Conference in Seattle last week I toured several working
artist housing sites and gained real input from the artists so feel I am on the right track. The
funding for these projects, as is most affordable housing, quite complex but typically included
low income tax credits, HOME and CDBG funds, State Housing Trust Funds and private. The
most respected nationwide non-profit developer I talked with guarantees in perpetuity the
affordability of the units, they would actually own and oversee management so the lack of local
qualified CHDO for this type of project would not be an issue and the "stigma" of low income
housing might be more tenable when tied to the educational/job creation component. The
Seattle rep has done several there, is originally from Yakima and has long thought there needs
to be a project like this on the east side that would serve regionally. CBC staff is interested in
incorporating it into their arts program as well.
There is a definite need here so hope to include this type of project as a concept. Thanks.
6
TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
THE 2010-2014 CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PLAN FOR KENNEWICK, PASCO, AND RICHLAND
DRAFT 8/24/09
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLEOF CONTENTS.............................................................................................2
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...........................................................................................4
PURPOSE OF THIS CONSOLIDATED PLAN..................................................................................4
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND POLICIES..........................................................10
MANAGINGTHE PROCESS...........................................................................................................10
THELEAD AGENCY......................................................................................................................10
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CONSUL'TATION........................................................................10
ThePlanning Process..................................................................................................................... 10
Consultation.................................................................................................................................. 12
InstitutionalStructure.................................................................................................................... 13
Resources....................................................................................................................................... 14
PastPerformance........................................................................................................................... 14
ProjectMonitoring......................................................................................................................... 15
Priority needs analysis and strategies.............................................
16
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS................................18
POPULATION AND ECONOMY....................................................................................................18
Background...................................................................................................................................18
The Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland of 2009.............................................................................21
AQuickLook Today...................................................................................................................21
POPULATION..................................................................................................................................23
PopulationGrowth........................................................................................................................23
InMigration..................................................................................................................................25
Annexations..................................................................................................................................25
Age...............................................................................................................................................26
Raceand Ethnicrty........................................................................................................................28
Forrign Born Population........................................................
.......................................................32
LinguisticIsolation........................................................................................................................33
Households....................................................................................................................................34
GroupQuarters.............................................................................................................................37
ECONOMY AND EMPI,OYMF,NT..................................................................................................38
Hanford........................................................................................................................................38
Unemployment...............................................................................................................................41
Education and Workforce Development......................................................................... 43
................
Householdand Family income....................................................................................... 45
................
HouseholdsLiving in Pover y.........................................................................................................50
Low and Moderate Income Neighborhoods.....................................................................................52
Schools, Children and Youth.........................................................................................................55
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CRIME....................................................................................57
Kennewick.....................................................................................................................................57
Pasco.............................................................................................................................................59
Richland........................................................................................................................................61
HOUSING NEEDS AND HOUSING MARKET TRENDS AND ANALYSIS......64
2
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
HOUSINGSUPPLY..........................................................................................................................64
HOUSINGCONDI'TION.................................................................................................................67
Ageof Housing.............................................................................................................................67
Housing Conditions In Selected Neighborhoods..............................................................................70
Lead-Based Paint And Lead HA.Zards........................................................................................75
HOUSINGAFFORDABILITY..........................................................................................................78
BarriersTo Affordable Housing....................................................................................................83
Vacancyrates................................................................................................................................85
Public Housing Authorities and Plans...........................................................................................86
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS.........................................................................88
THF.NEEDS OF HOMELESS PERSONS.......................................................................................88
Extent Of Homelessness.............................................................................°...................................88
CausesOf Homelessness................................................................................................................89
Critical Needs Of The Homeless...................................................................................................91
Homeless Housing Resources..........................................................................................................92
Permanent Affordable Housing For Homeless Persons...................................................................94
SupportiveServices.........................................................................................................................94
Major Gaps In The Current System Of Housing&Services.........................................................94
OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS....................................................................................96
Elderly..........................................................................................................................................96
FrailEl derly.................................................................................................................................98
Personswith Disabilities................................................................................................................99
Persons with Developmental Disabilities......................................................................................100
MentalIllness..............................................................................................................................101
Personswith HIV/AIDS..........................................................................................................102
Persons with Drug and Alcohol Dependent'................................................................................103
SpecialNeeds Services..................................................................................................................106
2010 TO 2014 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN............................................................115
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................115
RESOURCES...................................................................................................................................115
S"TRATFGIC PLAN.........................................................................................................................115
Goal I.• Improve Local Economies...............................................................................................11 S
Goal IL Improve Community infrastructure, Revitah.Ze Ne i g
hborboo s, and Meet Unanticipated
Needs..........................................................................................................................................117
Goal III.• Improve Public Facilities.............................................................................................118
Goal IV. Improve Affordable Housing Opportunities for Lower-Income Individuals and Households
....................................................................................................................................................119
Goal V. Support Priority Public Services...................................................................................120
Goal L7. Substantially Reduce Homelessness by 2015 Through implementation of the Benton and
franklin counties homeless housing plan........................................................................................122
Goal VIII. Increase community awareness of fair housing laws consistent with the Community's
assessment of the impediments to air housin .................................................................123
MEASURING PERFORMANCE IN ACHIEVING GOALS...........................................................124
ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES....................................................................................................124
APPENDIX...............................................................................................................126
3
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THIS CONSOLIDATED PLAN
LOCAL PLANNING
The 2010-14 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan represents a collaboration of the three
principal cities of the region to develop a common set of goals and directions for
meeting the community development and affordable housing needs of Kennewick,
Pasco, and Richland. The Plan provides the community with: an assessment of
housing and community development needs focusing on the needs of low- and
moderate-income persons (defined as households with incomes falling below 80% of
the median income of the area); reviews of housing market conditions; established
goals, strategies and objectives to respond to the identified needs; a means of
measuring progress toward meeting the goals; and a basis for developing annual
plans to implement the five year Plan. A joint planning effort of the three cities was
utilized to involve the community's stakeholders and services agencies in the
planning process.
FEDERAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The Plan establishes local priorities to implement the national objectives and
priorities of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
utilizing the federal grant resources of the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. Over the
course of the five years covered by the Plan, more than $11 million is expected to be
provided through these programs to implement activities meeting the national
objectives.
The national objectives established by HUD for the two programs are:
CDBG Program Objectives
• Provide Decent Housing
• Create a Suitable Living Environment
• Expand Economic Opportunities
HOME Program Objectives
• Expand the Supply of Decent, Safe, Sanitary and Affordable Housing
4
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
In 2010-12, the Plan also uses funds provided through HUD by the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 which established the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program (NSP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 which established the CDBG-R Program, and related recovery programs to
implement and assist in efforts to revitalize the economy.
CONSULTATION AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ARE
CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
The cities followed their adopted Cititien Participation Plan for Hou ing and Community
Development Programs to provide opportunities for citizen involvement in the process
and to assure that key private and public organizations and agencies were consulted
during the planning process. This plan is used for the development of Consolidated
Plan and the Annual Action Plans, and provides for broad involvement, public
hearings, and opportunities to provide input and comment on identified needs and
proposed plans.
SUMMARY OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
To determine the housing and community development needs of the area,
consultants were contracted to conduct research of a broad range of documents,
studies, and reports as well as to obtain input from key representatives of the
community through interviews, focus groups, and public meetings and hearings. This
5-month process culminated with public hearings in fall 2009. The following
represents highlights of the needs identified through this process.
Population & Growth
Population growth, and the accompanying economic expansion, has been the most
significant impact on the area in recent years. In 2008, the Tri-Cities was the fastest
growing metropolitan area in the State and the 29`h fastest growing in the nation.
Rapid growth however, is not a phenomenon new to the area. From 2000-2009 the
population of the three cities grew by 34%, led by Pasco with 70%. Since 1990,
however the growth has been 78%, with Pasco leading the way at a 168% growth
rate. Annexation and in-fill development played a significant role in the growth. In
2009, the current population of the three cities stands at over 169,000. Kennewick is
the largest city at 67,180, followed by Pasco at.��54,531 and Richland at 47,410.
Age
RacelEthnicity
5
F compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
MINEWEEN
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
Household Income/Poverty
Economy and Employment
Community Safety and Crime
Housing Supply/Housing Condition
Housing Needs
Housing Affordability
Assisted Affordable Housing
Needs of Homeless Persons
Persons with Special Needs
Needs of the Elderly
Needs for Community Development Improvements
Needs of Target Neighborhoods
Non-Housing Needs
FIVE-YEAR GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Plan Goals and Strategies
The Strategic Plan is drawn from an analysis of the needs and resources identified
through the planning process. The Goals and Strategies are designed to provide a
framework for action in undertaking housing and community development activities
over the next five years. The full strategic plan, including the implementing
Objectives, can be found later in the section titled 2010 to 2014 Strategic Action Plan.
GOAL I: IMPROVE LOCAL ECONOMIES
Strategy 1. Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-
income residents.
Strategy 2. Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-
income neighborhoods.
6
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
Strategy 3. Support businesses that provide stability to at-risk areas or to
areas with existing conditions of degradation andlor blight.
Strategy 4. Support activities that improve the skills of the local workforce
and prepare lower-income and special needs workers for access to living
wage jobs.
Strategy S. Support facilities, infrastructure, or other eligible
improvements that create living wage jobs and that need economic
development assistance by virtue of their qualifying physical,
environmental, economic, or demographic conditions.
GOAL II: IMPROVE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE,
REVITALIZE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MEET
UNANTICIPATED NEEDS
Strategy 1. Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-
income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80%
of area median income.
Strategy 2. Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly
by improving streets and sidewalk systems.
Strategy 3. Access new funding opportunities to revitalize neighborhoods
and address other community needs.
GOAL III: IMPROVE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Strategy 1. Support the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and
supporting public facilities that serve lower-income neighborhoods and
people.
Strategy 2. Improve parks and recreation facilities in targeted
neighborhoods.
Strategy 3. Support the beautification of communities by integrating art
into public facilities as needed to address local policies.
Strategy 4. Support the development of a crisis response center to
provide immediate stabilization and assessment services to persons in
crisis, including homeless persons.
7
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
GOAL IV: IMPROVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOWER-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND
HOUSEHOLDS
Strategy 1. Expand the supply of affordable units by developing owner-
and rental-occupied housing in in-fill areas or targeted neighborhoods,
consistent with local comprehensive plans.
Strategy 2. Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing
stock.
Strategy 3. Provide homeownership opportunities for lower-income and
special needs households.
Strategy 4. Minimize geographic concentration of new tax-exempt
housing development in Pasco.
GOAL V: SUPPORT PRIORITY PUBLIC SERVICES
Strategy 1. Strategically support public services activities that respond to
the immediate needs of persons in crisis.
Strategy 2. Support regional efforts to meet the basic living needs of
lower-income households and individuals.
GOAL VI: SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE HOMELESSNESS BY
2015 THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BENTON AND
FRANKLIN COUNTIES HOMELESS HOUSING PLAN
Strategy 1. Support existing homeless facilities and increase housing
resources that assist homeless persons toward housing stability and self-
sufficiency.
Strategy 2. Support the Continuum of Care's efforts to expand flexible
voucher rental assistance programs for at-risk populations and homeless
persons to achieve the listed objectives.
Strategy 3. Increase case management capabilities and improve
coordination among providers.
8
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
GOAL VII. INCREASE COMMUNITY AWARENESS OF FAIR
HOUSING LAWS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
Strategy 1. Increase the knowledge of the general public, including
lower-income and special needs persons, about their rights under fair
housing laws.
Strategy 2. Partner with local real estate professionals — including
property management firms, realtors, lenders, housing organizations, and
others — to co-sponsor workshops or other educational events to identify
and promote fair housing practices.
Strategy 3. Continue to progress in eliminating barriers to fair housing in
the Tri-Cities region.
9
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
AND POLICIES
This section describes the community consultation and planning process followed in
the development of the Consolidated Plan for the Tri-Cities. It also explains the role
and relationship of other public policies that are operating in the region.
MANAGING THE PROCESS
THE LEAD AGENCY
Each of the three cities receives an annual "entitlement" of CDBG funds for
housing and community development activities within their jurisdiction. The staff of
Kennewick and Pasco Departments of Community and Economic Development,
and staff of the Richland Planning and Redevelopment Department each administer
CDBG funds for their individual cities.
Since 1995 , when the three cities joined to form a consortium to obtain
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program funds, the City of Richland has
been the designated lead for the consortium and the Consolidated Plan. The City of
Richland Planning and Redevelopment staffadminister the HOME Program for the
consortium and are the legal entity for the Consolidated Plan, Kennewick and Pasco
staff support the City of Richland in the HOME Program and the Consolidated
Plan.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Tri-Cities Cititien Participation Plan for Hou ing and Community Development Programs
guides the consolidated planning and citizen participation process, providing
opportunities for citizens, agencies, governmental organizations, faith based, and
other interested parties with opportunities to view, discuss, and comment on needs,
performance, and proposed activities.
10
2010-2014 Txi-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
The planning process began with extensive research on needs in the spring of 2009.
Plans, reports, and research conducted by agencies and organizations in the Tri-
Cities were reviewed to learn of new information on needs and programs. State of
Washington data on human services, housing, and demographics, along with data
from the U.S. Census and American Community Surveys, provided a base of
information upon which local data is added.
Meetings, interviews, hearings, and surveys were used to obtain other information
and input from low- and moderate-income persons and program beneficiaries, along
with representatives of organizations serving or advocating for special needs groups,
lower income persons, minorities, persons with disabilities, and other interested
parties. Many others participated through associated planning processes, such as
Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, Community Action Committee surveys, and
Public Housing Authority Strategic Plans. The surveys were particularly helpful in
isolating priorities of low- and moderate-income persons, as a total of 650 individuals
completed them. The Homeless and Housing Authority Plans have been integrated
into the Strategy section of the Consolidated Plan.
On June 23, 2009 a series of citizen forums and public hearings were held in the
Kennewick City Hall to advise the public on the amount of funds available, the
potential eligible uses of the funds, and to obtain the views of citizens and
organizations regarding housing and community development needs and potential
activities. Notices of the meetings were published in the Tri-City Herald and La Vo,
Hispanic newspapers on June 4, 2009, 20 days prior to the forums and public
hearings. More than 150 flyers inviting participation at the meetings were distributed
throughout the communities, and specifically to the three housing authorities, to
encourage participation by public housing tenants and to the Continuum of Care
member organizations. The flyers were also posted in the three City Halls and in
public libraries of each of the cities.
Individual 1 '/z-hour forums were held on three separate needs areas, specifically
Economic Development and Community Infrastructure; Public, Human and Special
Needs services; and Housing. At the end of each forum an opportunity was
provided for public testimony on the subject. Participants in the forums were also
encouraged to complete a survey identifying their priority needs. At the end of the
day, a one-hour open microphone public hearing was held to provide an opportunity
for formal testimony on any part of the planning process or needs of the community.
Staff of the three cities attended to hear comments during the process.
The forums were attended by 31 individuals (some of who participated in more than
one forum). A total of 24 surveys were completed. Additional written comments
were received in the form of letters.
Each of the cities met with their community advisory committees to discuss the
needs and strategies. Appropriate city department staff was consulted during the
process to assure project needs were identified and projects proposed were feasible.
11
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
On September 16, 2009 an advertisement was published in the Tri-City Herald and
on September 17, 2009 in LaVoz giving notice that the draft 2010-2014:Consolidated
Plan was available for review and written comment until October 16, 2009. The
display advertisement also notified citizens of a Public Hearing before Richland City
Council to be held on October 20, 2009, starting at 7:30 p.m. Citizens were given 30
days to provide written comments.
TO BE COMPLETED AFTER EXPIRATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
A total of comments were received. Information on the comments and the
response of the consortium can be found in the Appendix.
The City of Pasco Council approved the plan on October 19, 2009 Kennewick
Council approved_October 6, 2009?, and on Richland Council as lead
representative member of the Consortium, approved the 2010-2014 Consolidated
Plan for submission to HUD by November 13,2009.
CONSULTATION
la.
An integral part of the planning process',is the consultation to discuss needs and
potential resources with key organizations and entities (such as: 1. local government,
and 2. groups and agencies which provide services or housing to sp cial needs
populations and to other low- and moderate-income persons). The following
organizations were consulted through interviews or one-on-one meetings during the
process:
City of Kennewick Housing Authority B-F Community Action Committee Pasco
City of Richland Housing Authority Downtown Development Assoc.
City of Pasco-Franklin County HA City of Kennewick
Benton-Franklin County Health Dist. City of Pasco
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce City of Richland
Small Business Development Center Advisory Groups of the 3 cities
B-F Continuum of Care 7
L
In addition, the following participated in the forums (not duplicated if included
above):
Work Source Pasco Police Department
SEC Affordable Housing ESD 123
Pasco Specialty Kitchen NAMI-WA
U.S. Dept HUD-Spokane Office NAMI-Tri-Cities
B-F Department of Human Services Elijah Family Homes
Consumers Vets Edge
Lutheran Community Services Habitat for Humanity
12
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
Columbia Basin College
Tri-Cities Chaplaincy
VYC and PPCW
ERA Sun River Realty
Tri City Herald
Tri-Cities Home Builders Association
Copies of the Draft Consolidated Plan were distributed to the following entities for
their review and comment:
• Washington State Department of Commerce
• Benton County
• Franklin County
• Benton-Franklin Regional Council of Governments
• Port Authorities of Benton,Kennewick and Pasco
• Chamber of Commerce
• Continuum of Care
• Chamber of Commerce of Kennewick,Pasco and Richland
• Tri-Cities Hispanic Chamber
• La Clinica
• TRIDEC
• Richland, Kennewick,and Pasco/Franklin County Housing Authorities
• Benton Franklin CAC
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
Tri-Cities CDBG and HOME staffwork with a variety of non-profit and
governmental agencies during the planning, project proposal, and implementation
stages of the programs. While the City of Richland is the lead entity, it relies heavily
on the staff of the other two cities for support in the HOME program. Each city is
responsible for all functions of its CDBG Program. One of the strengths of the Tri-
Cities consortium is the close working relationship between the cities in general and
the departments charged with administering the HUD programs. In turn several
agencies such as B/F CAC,TRIDEC, Continuum of Care, Council of Governments,
and several non-profit agencies work in all three cities, improving the effectiveness
of coordination and efficiencies. The fact that the three cities are in close proximity,
with common issues and opportunities, provides base for cooperation. Staff of the
cities and representatives of non-profit service and housing agencies participate on
committees crossing jurisdictional lines. Staff of the three cities have developed and
13
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
coordinated standardized reporting forms to reduce administrative burdens placed
on recipients.
The Commissioners of each of the Housing Authorities are appointed by the City
Councils of each of the cities. There is a close working relationship with the
Housing Authorities, some of whom have used HOME and CDBG funds for
assisted housing development activities and whose residents have benefitted from
public services. A limitation on cooperative efforts is the lack of new Federal
resources available to the Housing Authorities that could supplement HOME and
CDBG funds.
Relationships with private developers and the business community and the
consortium are not as close as desired. Improved cooperation may occur as targeted
neighborhood projects are currently underway or are beginning to require
cooperative partnerships (to plan, finance, and implement revitalization activities)
that will involve property owners,businesses, developers, and the cities.
RESOURCES
Estimated Federal resources over the next five years include the following (annual
amount in$1,000s):
Source 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total:
CDBG
Kennewick $571 $571 $571 $571 $571 $2,855
Pasco $613 $613 $613 $613 $613 $3,065
Richland $270 $270 $270 $270 $270 $1,350
CDBG Program Income
Total CDBG
HOME $686 $686 $686 $686 $686 $3,430
HOME Program Income
ADDI
108 Loan*
Total All
*A request for a 108 Loan is currently being considered
PAST PERFORMANCE
In 2008, CDBG funds were used to make significant progress in increasing the self-
sufficiency of low- and moderate-income households and improving/maintaining
affordable housing in the Tri-Cities in several ways:
• 29 homes received improvements to make them more handicapped
accessible
14
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
• 22 homes received weatherization improvements to make them more energy
efficient
• 6 households received LID payment assistance
• 27 new businesses were assisted creating jobs for lower-income persons
• 3 businesses received faqade improvements
• Converted housing for use as�5 (Richland did 2) units of transitional housing
for the}} k and former drug/alcohol abusers
• Over 3,100 seniors were provided meals or reduced cost healthcare services
• Over 525 homes were improved through code enforcement
• 1,000 youth received scholarships to participate in recreational activities
• 30 first time homebuyers received down payment assistance and housing
counseling to become better informed consumers.
• 71 people assisted with rent and life skills training to avoid becoming
homeless due to situations beyond their control.
• 15 Richland and 26 Kennewick disabled able to participate in summer day
camp.
• 2 Neighborhood Parks in Richland improved and 1 public restroom facility
was added to Historic Downtown Kennewick.
Highlights of progress in the use of HOME Program funds in 2008 for affordable
housing projects included:
• 16 lower-income homeowners had their homes rehabilitated
• 4 new homes constructed
• 7 homes constructed through self-help projects
• Removal of 4 deteriorated homes and initiation of construction of 4
replacement homes
• Redesign,replat, and survey completed to initiate construction of 3 homes
PROJECT MONITORING
15
F compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
Staff in each of the three cities is responsible for monitoring the progress of all
CDBG contracts in their own city to assure timely use of funds in compliance with
the HUD regulations and requirements. Staff maintains frequent contact with
sub-recipients and use a variety of methods to monitor contracts, starting with
contract provisions that mirror the Federal requirements. Staff also uses site visits,
program policies, reports, drawdown requests, and audits to monitor activities. Self-
monitoring to assure timely use of funds has proven effective in the past.
The City of Richland serves as the lead representative member for providing various
reports to HUD, manages the HOME funds for the consortium, and monitors the
loans made under the program through contractual documents. HOME provisions
are generally implemented in recorded deeds of trust, promissory notes,',and other
written loan documents. Housing projects must comply with local permitting and
code processes. Housing units are inspected and corrections required as needed.
PRIORITY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES
In regard to the CDBG Programs, the cities use the Consolidated Planning process
as a basis for understanding the needs and obtaining input from the community in
terms of priority needs. In addition, each city has their long-range priorities. For
example, Kennewick is committed to revitalizing the downtown, redeveWping the
Bridge to Bridge neighborhood, and continuing to develop the Riverfront. Richland
is targeting the neighborhoods near downtown for revitalization and implementing a
"Strategic Leadership Plan," which guides the city in decision-making and
implementing priorities. Pasco continues to develop approaches to improve the
downtown and to make use of underutilized commercial and industrial areas.
Basis for Allocating Funds
Several considerations come into play in determining how the funds will be allocated.
First, the primary basis is the benefit to low- and moderate-income persons. CDBG
funds are allocated to activities benefitting low- and moderate-income persons that
include bricks and mortar types of benefits and improvements to the community.
Second, requests for on-going funding are evaluated based upon their effectiveness
in achieving desired results and the ability to be completed in a timely manner.Third,
new requests are received in response to an application process.
In terms of allocating HOME funds, the City of Richland distributes the funds to the
three cities using the same percentage basis as the HUD funding formula for the
CDBG Program to assure that housing resources are expanded or maintained in all
areas of the jurisdiction. A minimum of 15 percent is made available to a
Community Housing Development Organization.
Obstacles That May Challenge Meeting Unserved Needs
16
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION I • INTRODUCTION
The number one challenge facing the three communities is being able to continue
progress at the same level given the significant drop off in the Federal allocations for
CDBG. A lack of adequate resources hamstrings the ability to meet the most
pressing needs, and makes it difficult to develop high impact targeted projects. Each
city is attempting to implement targeted revitalization efforts which require
significant outlays of funds. Other funding sources will need to be pursued to
supplement HUD resources.
17
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS .- il — k T� I
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Vim
POPULATION AND ECONOMY
BACKGROUND
History of the Cities of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland'
The Tri-Cities area consists of 103 square miles of land in Southeast Washington, at
the confluence of the Columbia River and two of its major tributaries, the Snake and
the Yakima Rivers.2 The Tri-Cities region is the fourth largest Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) in Washington.' The city of Pasco was until recently the
smallest of the three cities but by 2009 it has grown to an estimated population of
Across the Columbia River in Benton County are the cities of
Kennewick, with an estimated population of 67,180,and Richland, with an estimated
population of 47,410 in 2009.4
Native Americans inhabited the Tri-Cities area as early as 9,000 years ago', living on
salmon, berries and game,with a substantial trade and communications network that
extended into what is now British Columbia and Oregon. "At Chemna! Sahaptin-
speaking Wanapum, Walla Walla and Yakama Indians fished for seasonal runs of
salmon and hunted small game, deer and antelope. They gathered berries,greens and
root vegetables along the water and on the nearby hills."' I
Lewis and Clark passed through the area in 1805, soon followed by a series of fur
companies that laid claim to much of the land surrounding the junctions of the three
rivers. During and after the great epidemics of 1830-31, smallpox, measles,
dysentery, and other diseases decimated 80% of the native population of the
Northwest.
In the 1840s, the British Hudson's Bay Company was the largest organized entity in
the Northwest. Shortly after its arrival settlers began entering the region t establish
1 Except where noted, background information taken from Tri-Cities: The Mid-Columbia Hub by
Ted Van Arsdol, in the Washington State Employment Security Tri-Cities Profile,April 2001.
2 Tri-City Industrial Development Council, Southeast Washington: The Greater Tri-Cities Area,
2000.
3 Tri-City Industrial Development Council, September 2008.
4 Washington State Office of Financial Management,April 2009.
5 City of Richland Homepage"A bit of Richland's history'
18
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI i PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
farms. In 1846, the 49`' parallel became the dividing line between British and
American territory. As fur trading and trapping declined in the region, cattle and
horse ranching increased, supported by new steamship transportation on the rivers.
The steamships also ferried miners headed north through the region. With this
means of easy transport now available, by the late 1870s, railroad construction was
underway.
The Washington Territorial Government, naming the town of Ainsworth its capital,
established Franklin County in 1883. However, when railroad construction was
completed in Ainsworth in 1885, the town, including its inhabitants and their
possessions and materials, were moved to nearby Pasco, another railroad town.
Pasco soon became the capitol of Franklin County. The railroads brought an
increase in settlers to the region: Kennewick incorporated in 1904 and Benton
County was established in 1905, named after the Missouri senator Thomas H.
Benton. The farming town of Richland incorporated soon after, in 1910. Railroad
construction continued in the region until WWI, when the automobile began to
supplant the railroad as a primary source of transportation. The area continues to
rely on the railroad for transport of farm products today.
Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, canals were built in an
attempt to irrigate and farmland in the dry Tri-Cities region. However, the price of
water usually offset profits from crops, and lack of water remained a major obstacle
to agricultural development in the area until the Grand Coulee Dam was built in the
1930s. In the 1950s, the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project and the building of the
McNary Dam further increased the water supply to the Tri-Cities. Advances in
agricultural chemistry increased the feasibility of dry-land farming, and in the 1950s,
the agri-chemical industry was born near Kennewick. The chemical production
industry evolved to become a major economic resource for the region.
During WWII, a Manhattan project plutonium production site was proposed for
Hanford, an old agricultural town with a population of less than 300. The new town
was built to house an incoming workforce,which, at its peak,numbered 51,000. The
nearby city of Richland was also taken over by the U.S. government to house the
operators of the nuclear reactors—the town grew from 300 to 15,000 in one year.
Richland was reincorporated in 1958. Nearby Kennewick also grew from 1,900 to
15,000 in the 1940s.' Pasco did not see as great of an expansion (though no doubt it
benefited somewhat economically), for it was the furthest away from the nuclear site
until the Interstate 182 Bridge connected Pasco and Richland in 1985.'
After WWII, the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war kept the Hanford Project
thriving. Through the 1960s and 1970s, Hanford also became a research center for
the application of nuclear energy for non-military purposes, which continues to the
present. In the 1970s, the Washington Public Power Supply System selected the
6Tri-City Industrial Development Council, Southeast Washington: The Greater Tri-Cities Area,
2000.
7 City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan, 1995-2015.
19
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Tri-Cities for construction of three power plants to generate electricity.
Employment levels rose considerably in the 1970s and 1980s, until construction was
halted on all but one of the plants in 1982. The Washington Public Power Supply
System Nuclear Plant No. 2 reactor opened in 1984. Plutonium production
continued in Hanford until 1988,when it was halted.
In 1989, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Washington State Department of Ecology signed the Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order, and today Hanford is still the site of the world's
largest environmental cleanup project. The project had a workforce of 11,000, an
annual budget of$2 billion dollars as of fiscal year 2003, and is expected to continue
for another 20 to 30 years.8
For the second year in a row, the Tri-Cities were named "Top Metros for Scientists
and Engineers" in 2008 by Expansion Management Ma
gatizne.9 In recent years, the
region's economy has become increasingly anchored in bio- and high-technology, in
addition to light and heavy manufacturing, service industry, federal government, and
agriculture.
Farms cover more than a million acres in Benton and Franklin Counties; potatoes,
wheat, apples, grapes, alfalfa, strawberries, asparagus, corn, and hops are its biggest
income producers. Much of this production is shipped from port facilifies in the
Tri-Cities to the Pacific Rim. Fresh produce also is shipped weekly to the East Coast
via railroad. In recent years, the Tri-Cities area has become increasingly known for
its wine production and growth of a variety of world-class grapes.
i
8 U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office.
9 Tri-City Industrial Development Council, 2008.
20
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
THE KENNEWICK, PASCO, AND RICHLAND OF 2009 -
A QUICK LOOK TODAY
The Tri-Cities Region
The Tri-Cities today can be characterized as a rapidly changing community. The area
is experiencing a relatively rapid population growth. The economy remains relatively
strong compared to most of the country and, importantly, while its economy has
become more diversified over the years, its workforce needs are still heavily tied to
the 586 square mile Hanford cleanup site and associated high-tech industries.
Although the ultimate impact is not yet known, the rapid increase in Federal
resources being allocated to the area in 2008 and 2009 will cause further volatility in
the area's employment, population and housing. At the same time, with the advent
of the wine growing industry, the nature of the agricultural sector continues to
evolve with less reliance on the food processing industry.
The Tri-Cities is increasingly becoming a retirement area of the state - a testament to
its climate,pace of life and to its relatively inexpensive housing stock (compared with
most of the state). Its retirement age population continues to rise rapidly and will
continue to do so in the next few years. While the three communities are tied
together by these and other factors, each city is distinguished by significant
differences.
Kennewick, Washington
The largest of the Tri-Cities, Kennewick has an economy supported by light
manufacturing, food processing, retail trade and services. Kennewick is looked upon
as the retail hub of southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon. Downtown
beautification projects, including landscaping and building facade treatments have
greatly enhanced the visual appeal of the district. The core downtown business
district has gone from 28% vacancy rates in 1998 to 3% or less in 2009. The city is
also revitalizing the downtown area by bringing in new businesses that will generate
the customers necessary to return it to a thriving center.
Kennewick offers extensive and affordable housing, services and retail amenities as
well as a highly educated and trained workforce. Beautiful river-view sites are
available for redevelopment. The development of residential tracts along the
"ridgeline" taking advantage of expansive vistas of the river valley, are offering
additional residential options. Kennewick is right behind Pasco in rapid and
expansive development of new housing and new neighborhoods. Its newly
constructed homes are generally higher in price than those in Pasco, and have
created lovely upper-middle class neighborhoods.
Pasco, Washington
21
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Pasco is the newly created entry-level residential growth center of the three
communities. It has cooperated with private developers to annex large tracts of land
for development of single-family homes for the areas' first-time homebuyer families.
Growth has been so rapid that Pasco is Washington State's first ranked city for
percentage of growth—it's the nation's 45`''percentile nationally. Pasco has the area's
only bus and train depot,regional airport and barge system.
Pasco is the region's gateway to Columbia Basin agri-business, and is the center of
food processing for the region. Its agricultural roots are in evidence each weekend at
a thriving farmers' market in downtown Pasco, which draws buyers from the three
cities as well as surrounding smaller cities and rural areas. The area produces some of
Washington's best asparagus, onions, potatoes, apples, cherries, wine grapes, and
other produce. Downtown Pasco is flavored by its relatively large percentage of
Hispanic residents and businesses. The community has a majority of Hispanic
residents and schools have a significant number of migrant and "transitional"
English-speaking students. Retail and service businesses cater to the agricultural
workers who have settled in the area.
Pasco is actively recruiting businesses to fill its downtown area as well as other
industrial and commercial areas, including culturally-based businesses, manufacturers
and light industrial plants, and product distributors. Pasco fosters a pro-business
environment with a large workforce that has access to local training and educational
programs catering to many industry needs.
Richland, Washington
Today each of the communities has a special degree of distinction and its own
identity. The smallest of the three cities, Richland is known for its resident scientists
and technicians working in one of the country's most important nuclear research
laboratories. The Hanford Site, located north of Richland, was the site of the
Manhattan Project during WWII and the Cold War and played a major role in the
scientific community worldwide, before cleanup began in 1989. Richland is home to
the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) —
which is the second largest high-tech company in the state behind Microsoft—and is
the second largest employer (4,220 people) in Eastern Washington, behind Fairchild
AFB in Spokane.
Richland has the highest median income of the Tri-Cities, and the third highest per
capita income in Washington. Richland enjoys a highly educated population base
and is home to the region's four-year university, Washington State University
Tri-Cities. The city's K-12 school system is also considered one of the best in the
state.10
10 Tri-City Industrial Development Council, September 2008.
22
2010-2014 TIU-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Richland offers the conveniences important to its highly educated, government
service-based residents. A small district of its "alphabet" housing, built for the
military for early Hanford workers, is recognized on the federal registry of historic
places as representative of the military/scientific culture. Richland contains many
well-landscaped parks, waterfront property, and affluent well-maintained residential
neighborhoods. Relative to the other two cities, Richland housing includes fewer
newer homes with most of its residential structures located in well-established 20- to
60-year-old neighborhoods. Richland is working to diversify its economy by
recruiting new industries, including new manufacturers, cultural and recreational
tourism businesses, and scientific and medical services.
POPULATION
POPULATION GROWTH
During the ten years between the 1990 and 2000 Census, Washington State grew
substantially more than the United States as a whole, and the Tri-Cities region
followed suit. The rate of growth in the area was unusually high compared to most
communities in Washington and the United States as a whole, particularly for areas
the size of the Tri-Cities. Franklin County grew by 32%, along with Washington
State. Benton County grew by 27%, far more than the national average of 13%."
40% of the Tri-City population increase between 1990 and 1999, was due to in-
migration.12 Between 2005 and 2025 the Tri-Cities MSA is projected to grow an
additional 24%.13
In 2008, the Tri-Cities was growing faster than any other Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) in Washington and was the 29th fastest growing in the nation (the only
MSA in Washington to reach the top 50)."
Table 1
Population Change 1990, 2000, and 2009
Year Change Year Change
Location 1990 2000 1990-2000 2009 2000-
2009
Kennewick 42,155 54,693 30% 67,180 23%
Pasco 20,337 32,066 58% ,_V.,__if 70%
Richland 32,315 38,708 20% 47,410 22%
Benton County* 112,560 142,475 27% 169,300 19%
Franklin County** 1 37,473 49,347 32% 72,700 1 47%
11 US Census 1990,2000.
12 HUD, US Housing Market Conditions Regional Activity4,2000.
13 Tri-City Industrial Development Council.
14 US Census Bureau,via Tri-City Industrial Development Council, September 2008.
23
compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Washington State 4,866,692 5,894,121 32% 6,668,200 13%
United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 13% 307,002,688 9%
*including Kennewick and Richland.
**including Pasco.
Source: US Census 1990, 2000, US Census July 25, 2009 US population projection;
Washington Office of Financial Management April 1,2009.
While Pasco was the smallestwof the three cities in 2000, it surpassed Richland in
2008. With a population of 54,531 in 2009, it is the fastest growing of the&Tri-Cities.
Pasco grew 58% between 1990 and 2000 (when it was ranked Washington's 26`h
largest city), and another 70% between 2000 and 2009 (when it was ranked
Washington's 16`h largest city).15 Several factors are contributing to this growth,
including an increase in mobility between the three cities with the building of the I-
182 bridge over the Columbia in 1985, and the development of several new
residential subdivisions offering housing at relatively modest prices.
The three cities are growing more rapidly than the rest of the counties in which they
are located. With Pasco's population rising rapidly, it is making up an increasingly
larger percentage of the Franklin County population. While in 1990, Pasco
comprised 54% of the total county population; it grew to 65% in 2000, and 75% in
2009. In 1990, Kennewick was 37% of Benton County's population, and Richland
was 29%. Together, Kennewick and Richland comprised 66% of Benton County in
1990 and 2000, and 68%in 2009.'
As of April 2009 Franklin County was the fastest growing county in the state,
P tY g ty X
growing 47% between 2000 and 2009. The growth was due to a combination of net
migration (58 9/6) and life span ratio (42 9/6). Benton County was ranked fifth fastest
growing,with 60% of growth due to net migration.17 1
A major impact over the next three years will be a large influx in the population as a
result of new jobs to be created from federal funding dedicated to expedite the
Hanford cleanup under the national economic recovery program. Approximately $2
Billion in Federal funds has been allocated under the 2009 economic, stimulus
package to expedite the cleanup of nuclear waste at the plant. It is estimated that
from 3,000-4,000 jobs will be involved in the expedited cleanup effort which will ,
take place between 2010 and 2013. 18 In addition, a new Vitrification Plaint (which
will begin converting some of the 450 million gallons of nuclear waste into glass)
began construction in 2001 and, when completed in 2019, is expected to employ
between 800-1,000 persons in its operation.
15 Washington State Office of Financial Management 2009; US Census 2000.
16 Washington State Office of Financial Management 2008; US Census 1990,2000.
17 Washington State Office of Financial Management 2009. `
16"Workforce of the Future" Issues Paper, Hanford Communities, October 2008.
24
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISI N PDFCompressor
�—�-
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Pasco's population is much younger than the other cities, with a median age of only
27 in 2000: 40% of Pasco's population is 18 to 44, the childbearing age group, with
its second highest population from birth to age 17, at 36%. Considering this young
population, it is likely that Pasco's population will continue to grow substantially due
to naturalincrease.
Pasco's foreign born population increased by 57% between 1990 and 2000, versus
the states' 47%, suggesting a further increase in population due to immigration as
well as overall in-migration.19 In 2007, people born outside of the US or Puerto
Rico made up 27% of Franklin County's total population (in 2000, it was 25%). By
contrast, Benton County's foreign-born population made up just 10% of the total
population.20
IN-MIGRATION
The U.S. Census does not generally or accurately report where in-migrating
populations originate. However, given the demand for workers in local businesses
and industries, many families and individuals may be relocating from out of state or
from other cities to the Tri-Cities at their employer's request. Other sources of in-
migration may be short-range shifts in population from one Washington City or even
one Tri-City to another as new housing developments become available. Given the
very strong increases in local populations (and the ensuing bump in the numbers of
school-aged children),we can project that as this new population ages, future growth
will continue if the area can retain its young maturing workers and families.
ANNEXATIONS
Between 1990 and 2000, Kennewick's annexations included a population of 2,143 —
17% of its total population change during the time period. Annexation accounted
for 721 of Richland's population, or only 11% of its total change. Pasco, however,
grew by 3,453 due to annexations alone, which was 29% of its total growth, and
99.7% of Franklin County's total growth due to annexations.Z'
Between 2000 and 2009, Kennewick gained 4,947 people due to annexation, Pasco
gained 2,021 people,and Richland gained 35 people.22
Kennewick's annexations occurred largely in annexations that took place in May and
November of 2006, and a larger one in August of 2007. The bulk of Pasco's
annexations occurred much earlier, in May 2001 and August 2002— there have been
no annexations since 2006 in Pasco. The majority of Richland's few annexations
occurred in 2003,with no activity in 2007 and just 100 acres in 2008.
19 US Census 2000.
20 American Community Survey 2007; US Census 2000.
21 Washington State Office of Financial Management; US Census 1990,2000.
22 Washington State Office of Financial Management,2009.
25
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Table 2
Annexations, October 2000-April 2009
Location Area in Total Total
Acres Units Population
Kennewick 2,598 1,886 4,947
Pasco 2,802 759 2,021
Richland 966 13 35
Source:OFM Forecasting State of Washington,A ri 2009.
AGE
In Pasco the median age was 27 in 2000, whereas in Franklin County as a whole it
was 39, suggesting that areas of the county outside of Pasco have considerably higher
age brackets. Between 1990 and 2000,Pasco's 17 years and younger population rose
by 2%, while the population of persons aged 65 years and older dropped by 2%.
However, the portion of the population from ages 45 to 64 increased during that
time from 13% to 16%, suggesting that Pasco does have a "Baby Boom Bulge."
While smaller than that of the rest of the Tri-Cities area's baby boom, Pasco's
population is also rising in age.'
Table 3
Age of Population, 2000
Location
Age Benton Franklin
Kennewick Pasco Richland State U.S.
County County
Birth to 17 years 30% 36% 27% 30% 35% 26% 26%
18 to 44 years 40% 40% 35% 37% 39% 40% 43%
45 to 64 years 21% 16% 25% 23% 18% 23% 19%
65 and older 10% 9% 13% 10% 9% 11% 13%
Median Age 32 27 38 34 39 35 35
Source: US Census 2000
Richland has the oldest population of the three cities, with a median age of 38 in
2000, compared to Kennewick at 32, and the whole of Benton County at 34. The
number of persons in the population aged 45 to 64 increased from 1990 to 2000 by
3%,while 18 to 44 year olds dropped by 4%,and its oldest and youngest populations
remained proportionally the same. Richland's 45 to 64 year olds are likely heavily
professional with positions in the Hanford industries. It's not unusual, for highly
educated or scientific professionals to be older than workers in other industries, not
23 US Census 1990,2000.
26
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
unusual for them to retire later in life. An added factor is the impact of the 2008-09
economic downturn is that many of the employees in the retirement range, have
decided to defer retirement to try to bolster their retirement nest eggs.
Table 4
Age of Population, 2008
,r Location
Age Benton Franklin State
County County
Birth to 19 years 31% 36% 27%
20 to 44 years 1 32% 34% 35%
45 to 64 years 27% 21% 27%
65 and older 11% 9% 12%
Source: Washington State Office of Financial
Management,September 2008.
Like the rest of the US population, the Tri-Cities is beginning to see a growing
number in its older population, as people in the "Baby Boom Bulge" near retirement
age. Richland and unincorporated Franklin County will see this sooner than
Kennewick and Pasco. As this generation nears retirement, there will be a growing
need for more services for seniors, assisted or supportive living units as well as
smaller housing units. By law, this population is eligible to live in legally "age-
restricted" communities.2' Furthermore, there will be proportionally fewer residents
in their prime working years.
At the same time, the Tri-Cities provides fewer traditional civic supports to the
elderly, considering that crime (policing), public schools, and new facilities
connections are costs more likely incurred to support younger persons and families.
As physical and "social' needs for seniors increasingly impact community planning
and functions, it is necessary to insure that additional recreational, medical/health,
and alternative housing resources are available to older residents.
Table 5
Projected Age of Population,
Benton County, 2000-2030
Year
Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
0-19 33% 31% 30% 29% 29% 29% 29%
20-44 34% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 32%
45-64 23% 25% 26% 25% 24% 22% 22%
65+ 10% 1 10% 1 11% 13% 15% 16% 18%
85+ 1% 1 1% 1 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
24 NAHB Housing Facts, Figures,Trends, 2003.
27
compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Total Population 1142,475 1158,100 1 168,839 1176,854 1184,704 1192,131 1198,528
Source: OFM,Medium Projections,2007
In contrast, Pasco, with its population so significantly younger than the other areas
of the Tri-Cities region, may have a greater current need for services that serve
young families and teens. In 2015, Franklin County's population 0-44 is expected to
be 74% of the total population, where that age group will be just 62% of Benton
County's population.zs
Table 6
Projected Age of Population,
Franklin County, 2000-2030
Age Year
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
0-19 38% 37% 37% 38% 37% 36% 35%
20-44 36% 36% 36% 36% 35% 35% 35%
45-64 18% 19% 19% 19% 20% 20% 20%
65+ 9% 8% 1 7% 1 7% 1 8% 1 9% 1 9%
85+ 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total Population 49,347 60,500 70,038 80,348 90,654 100,666 109,861
Source: OFM,Medium Projections,2007
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Benton County is significantly less racially diverse overall than Franklin County and
the United States, and slightly less diverse than the state. Benton County's Hispanic
population is equal to that of the United States', at 13%, and greater than
Washington State, at 8%. In Benton County, Kennewick is the most diverse, with
16% of its population identifying as Hispanic.26
Franklin County is significantly more diverse ethnically and racially than the state and
U.S. populations. While there are far fewer African-Americans than in the nation,
Franklin County is on par with the State at 3%. Furthermore, Franklin County is
47% Hispanic. Pasco's Hispanic population is even higher at 56%?' The following
map outlines the U. S. Census Block Groups with concentrations of minority
populations. For purposes of this Consolidated Plan, areas of minority
concentration are defined as census tracts in 20% or more of the population is racial
or ethnic minority.
25 Washington State Office Of Financial Management,2007 Medium Projections.
26 US Census 2000.
27 US Census 2000.
28
N
Q
W
W
Z
O s
U
W
Y
•
r
1
A W
w
A
a
0
Z
U
w
F
U
a
0
N
O
ei
O
N
DF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II• NEEDS
The diversity of the Tri-Cities in regard to its racial/ethnic makeup is generally
attributable to Hispanic residents, particularly in Pasco and surrounding Franklin
County rural areas. This diversity began historically by virtue of the seasonal
agricultural industries, and has been built upon by the numbers of formerly (and
current) migrant workers that have settled permanently in the area. Public schools,
real estate professionals, community media, businesses and other community
resources have adapted their communication and services to become more inviting
to migrant and non-English speakers, and even to facilitate those households to
settle in the area.
Table 7
Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2000
Location
Race Benton Franklin
Kennewick Pasco Richland County County State U.S.
White alone 83% 53% 90% 86% 62% 82% 75%
Black or African
American alone 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3% 12%
American Indian or
Alaska Native alone 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Asian or Pacific
Islander alone 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 6% 4%
Other race alone 9% 37% 2% 7% 29% 4% 6%
Two or more races 3% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2%
Total* 99% 100% 100% 100% 101% 101% 100%
Ethnicity
Hispanic(of any
race)** 16% 56% 5% 13% 47% 8% 13%
*May not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
**Hispanics are counted separately under ethnicity and therefore should not be counted in race calculations
Source: US Census 2000
It is important to note that for the first time, the 2000 US Census allowed an
individual to designate him or herself to be of two or more races, and changed the
way Hispanic origins are classified. These changes have made it difficult to assess
trends in race and ethnicity. Comparisons of the population composition in 2000
with that in 1990 cannot be completely accurate. However,in comparison to the US
as a whole, Pasco's Hispanic population rose from 41% to 56% of the total
population from 1990 to 2000, whereas the U.S. proportional Hispanic population
only rose only 4 percentage points, from 9% to 13%.
While the actual overall growth in Pasco from 1990 to 2000 was 58%, the Hispanic
population growth appears to have been 117%. From 1990 to 2000, the Tri-Cities'
Hispanic population grew proportionally far more than the national Hispanic
30
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
population, with a high of 131% in Kennewick (rising from 9% to 16% of its total
population), and a low of 85% in Richland (rising from 3% to 5% of its population).
In the US, the reported Hispanic population growth rate was 58% during the same
period.21
These numbers illustrate the very significant changes taking place in Pasco and the
surrounding Tri-Cities area. The median income for Hispanics in the Tri-Cities is
significantly lower than the population as a whole, suggesting that Hispanics are in
general filling lower-wage and seasonal farming jobs in the area. Pasco's Median
Household Income is 35% less than that of Richland, which has a much smaller
Hispanic population. Further, 23% of Pasco's population is living in poverty,
compared with Richland's 8%.29 (See additional discussion, under Income, later in
this document.)
Table 8
Hispanic Population Change, 1990-2000
Total Hispanic Total Hispanic Change in Percent Change in
Location Population in Population in Hispanic Hispanic
1990 2000 Population Population
1990-2000 1990-2000
Kennewick 3,684 8,503 4,819 131%
Pasco 8,300 18,041 9,741 117%
Richland 983 1,826 843 86%
Benton
County 8,624 17,806 9,182 106%
Franklin
County 11,316 23,032 11,716 104%
Washington
State 214,570 441,509 226,939 106%
United States 22,354,059 35,305,818 1 12,951,759 1 58%
Source: US Census 1990,2000
Between 2000 and 2007, Franklin County's Hispanic population rose from 47% to
49% of the total population. With an annual growth rate of 7% during that time,
Franklin County's Hispanic population is growing more rapidly than the county's
population as a whole (6% annually)."
28 US Census 2000.
29 US Census 2000.
30 American Community Survey,2007.
31
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Table 9
Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2007
Race Location
Benton County Franklin County State
White alone 84% 62% 81%
Black or African
American alone 1% 2% 3%
American Indian or
Alaska Native alone 1% 1% 1%
Asian or Pacific
Islander alone 3% 2% 7%
Other race alone 8% 30% 4%
Two or more races 2% 4% 4%
Total* 99% 101% 100%
Ethnicity
Hispanic(of any
race)** 16% 49% 9%
*May not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
** Hispanics are counted separately under ethnicity and therefore should not be
counted in race calculations
Source: American Community Survey 2007.
Racial/ethnic population shifts have impacted the number of businesses owned and
operated by Hispanic persons, the growing number of new Hispanic hot�eowners,
and even, although very slowly, a small but growing number of middle-class and
upwardly mobile Hispanic professionals. This change in the demographics of
incomes has had a companion change in economies and business conditions. All
three communities show evidence of businesses working to attract new Hispanic
customers. Most likely those business changes will continue as the existing Hispanic
population participates in available higher education and training programs, and their
own economic outlook and opportunities will increase proportionally.31
FOREIGN BORN POPULATION
One-quarter of Franklin County's population in 2000 was foreign born. In each of
the Tri-Cities, the number of foreign-born residents increased by at least 50%
between 1990 and 2000, compared to the national average of 42%.32 Locally, the
communities report an increase in non-Hispanic foreign-born households settling in
the Tri-Cities. These new groups of immigrating citizens add to the Mexican-born
agricultural workers who have come to and settled in the Tri-Cities for many years.
Washington State as a whole, and particularly Eastern Washington, has been a
popular location over the last 10 to 15 years for families seeking personal, economic,
and religious opportunities they did not have in their country of birth. Foreign born
families are frequently multi-generational and larger than what is average its the US.
31 US Census 2000.
32 US Census 1990,2000.
32
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
The number of immigrants coming into the United States has increased significantly
in the last 25 years and is expected to continue as a major demographic trend in
coming years. The events of September 11, 2001 have led to tighter controls over
immigration and have slowed that process somewhat, but the rate of immigration is
expected to move back toward previous highs. Despite lower interest rates for
housing loans which became common in 2008,rise in housing prices that occurred in
the past 5 years continues to make first-time home ownership difficult for low-
income households, and for most immigrants whose initial employment is typically at
lower wage rates.
Table 10
Foreign Born Population, 1990-2000
Total Foreign Percent of Total Foreign Born Percent Change in
Location Born Population Population in who Entered Foreign Born
in 2000 2000 from Population
1990-2000 1990-2000
Kennewick 5,306 10% 2,770 52%
Pasco 9,760 30% 5,588 57%
Richland 2,782 7% 1,390 50%
Benton County 12,051 8% 5,718 47%
Franklin County 12,431 25% 6,810 55%
Washington State 614,457 10% 286,439 47%
United States 31,107,889 11% 13,178,276 42%
Source:US Census 1990,2000
In 2007, people born outside of the US or Puerto Rico rose 2% from 2000 (from
25% to 27% of the total population). Of those born outside of the US, 36% had
entered after 2000, and 82% were not US citizens in 2007. By contrast, Benton
County's foreign-born population made up just 10%of the total population.33
Immigrants in general face significant challenges when entering the country. Among
these are: weak to no English language skills; adjusting to a different role of
government; and the difficulties of adapting to a new culture, lifestyle, and climate.
They also often find their job skills incompatible with the local job market. See
additional discussion on the impact of migration in the Schools data section of this
document.
LINGUISTIC ISOLATION
In 2000, 20% of the Pasco population was considered linguistically isolated.34 This is
a high percentage in comparison to 4% in the State, and 5% in the nation. In
33 American Community Survey 2007; US Census 2000.
sa US Census 2000.A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years old and
over speaks only English, or speaks a non-English language and speaks English "very well." In
33
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II NEEDS
Benton County, only 4% of the population was linguistically isolated in 2000;
however, over half of its linguistically isolated population resided in Kennewick. The
same is true of the population speaking a language other than English: of the 8,391
who spoke English "less than very well"in Benton County, 46 0/o-3,827—resided in
Kennewick. Richland,by contrast, only housed 15% of the county's population who
spoke English "less than very well." 1
Fifty-six percent of Pasco's 9,559 foreign born population over five years of age
speaks English "not well" or "not at all," compared with 33% in Kennewick and
11% in Richland. Both Pasco and Kennewick are significantly higher than the state
average of 25% and national average of 29%. Forty percent of the total Hispanic
population in Pasco speaks English "not well" or "not at all." Twenty-six percent of
Kennewick's Hispanic population and 13% of Richland's fall into the same
category.36
In 2007. the sample size of the number of persons that are linguistically isolated was
too small to determine trends, however the large number of non-English speaking or
limited-English speaking persons in the area remains a challenge for schools, city
governments and social service organizations. Tri-Cities schools operating under the
new testing standards implemented to achieve "no child left behind" national
policies, have only one year to prepare a non-English speaking student to test with
their English speaking peers. In some households children become translators for
parents who have more limited language skills resources.
Social service organizations report budget impacts by increases in demands from
newly locating foreign-born households, who frequently arrive with insufficient
language to earn gainful wages. Poor foreign-born households need additional help
just to access the basic necessities that English-speaking lower-income persons can
obtain. Interpreters are essential for a range of basic daily issues such as medical
care, learning to use public transportation, accessing and enrolling in jobs training
programs,understanding community services,and accessing public schools.
HOUSEHOLDS
In Pasco, the total number of households increased by 41% between 1990 and 2000,
significantly more than both the county, 22%, and state, 21%. Households rose by
29%in Kennewick–more than both Richland, at 18%, and Benton County, at 25%.
The change was particularly great in large family households of five or more people,
which grew by 90% in Pasco and 36% in Kennewick.37 Benton County's large non-
other words, all household members 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with
English.
35 US Census 2000.
36 US Census 2000.
37 US Census 1990,2000.
34
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
family households rose by 103% between 1990 and 2000, though it is still a small
percentage of total households. "
This change suggests that family sizes are increasing. However, the change in the
number of non-family and/or related family households could be attributed to many
factors. The impermanency of local jobs impact decisions by relocating workers who
must decide whether to relocate alone or bring their families with them. Local real
estate markets impact the nature of household relocation by the availability of
suitably sized units. Racial, ethnic, or familial traditions can impact how household
constellations are created: for example,whether households are multi-generational or
whether they commonly offer help to unrelated displaced co-workers or friends.
Commonly, students, single parents, younger persons, and seasonal workers more
frequently "double-up" or couch—surf to create large, unrelated households. Lower
income levels could also play a part, as families may be forced to share households
with other families or relatives in order to afford rent or mortgages.
The consequences of an increase in household size strikes a number of community
conditions. Over-crowding is less acceptable over the long term and can create
problems if it becomes a permanent living condition. It can create health, family,
and social problems if it becomes a standard housing mode for individuals or
families. Furthermore, the configuration of a community's existing housing stock
generally fits the demands of its market. In the case of the Tri-Cities, a recent and
dramatic increase in the size of households may result in excess vacancies of smaller
units and increased demand and use of larger-sized housing units
The number of elderly single households increased in both Benton and Franklin
Counties between 1990 and 2000: the change was most significant in Kennewick,
whose elderly single households grew by 45%. At the same time, Benton and
Franklin Counties had no increase in the percentage of elderly in the population as a
whole (in fact the Franklin County's population over 65 dropped 1%). The change
may be attributed to movement into recently developed assisted living facilities and
senior housing in Kennewick, or could be related to an unidentified change in the
lifestyle of the elderly population in the two counties.
Current information on nursing home occupancy is not available. However, we
know that Pasco was home to all of Franklin County's nursing home residents, and
that population dropped from 199 to 116 from 1990 to 2000. In Richland, the
population in nursing homes also dropped: from 102 to 62,while in Kennewick, the
population in nursing homes actually increased from 117 to 162.39 Although not
officially documented, small number changes similar to this are commonly attributed
to the ebb and flow of various types of housing available at any one time for elderly
persons with special needs.
38 US Census 1990,2000.
39 US Census 1990,2000.
35
Q
W
�W
+ O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N c
M D N r N G1 N O
Q
O N 7 C' r N N O J G�� r,
M N V^ N G� O M
O
It M -Zt� N o0 C
N U r � N N " N
o o c 0
L"i O r N CV r 7 N N N
O � N
c 0 �
c O M V' M M oo N r O "t M
w p0 O Ln N O N M o0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OQ N N M cl In O nJ °M cM`I M N N N
c � a
3
y O N r O W O 0�0 M
10 oo
In en Ln
Q m p o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
N p 'n v1 O r M o0 7 00 00 N
V V
r W p O O N 71 � G� oo (A
V1 (V
C, O M
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O G1 O N c M
N N N M G\ Ln �
O 19 a
°M O N V C M P] �
N O G 7 M oo cl M N �? M
N N N r CT
O
y Z O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 M 7 N M N oo (p`1 O
a
v 0 �
Q c
W v I- N M C, u-, O r r 10 10
A N O
(�i
N
O O
Z
cli
o
V o
0
a
x Q
V v s
7 bA .�. ate+ u �
i .�. ¢> n
O
N
O
a-i
O
N
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
In 2007, 69% of Benton County households were family households, compared to
72%in 2000. Franklin County's family households also decreased between 2000 and
2007—from 78% to 76% of total households. Following suit,the average household
size decreased from 3.67 to 3.41 in Franklin County, and from 3.17 to 2.79 in
Benton County. The county's total households increased by 35% from 2000 to
2007, reflecting Franklin County's population increase of 41%. The number of
Benton County households increased by 7%during the same period.40
GROUP QUARTERS
Group Quarters Definition
As of 1983, group quarters were defined in the current population survey as
non-institutional living arrangements for groups not living in conventional
housing units or groups living in housing units containing ten or more
unrelated people or nine or more people unrelated to the person in charge.
Examples of people in-group quarters include a person residing in a rooming
house, in staff quarters at a hospital, or in a halfway house. Beginning in
1972, inmates of institutions have not been included in the Current
Population Survey.41
In 2000, the group quarters population in Pasco (1%), Kennewick (1%), and
Richland (less than 1 0/6)was a smaller group than either Franklin County or the state,
each with 2%. In all areas of the Tri-Cities region, the institutionalized population
comprised well over 50% of the Group Quarter population, with Franklin County's
Group Quarter population 87% institutionalized. Sixty-six percent of Franklin
County's institutionalized population resided in correctional institutions.42 In 2007,
1% of Franklin County's households and 2% of Benton County's households lived
in group quarters.'
40 American Community Survey,2007.
4'US Census 2000, Defintions.
42 US Census 2000.
43 American Community Survey,2007.
37
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT
In 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics ranked the Tri-Cities fifth of all MSAs in the
nation for job growth. The Tri-Cities also moved up forty spots from 69th to 29th
in"Milkin's 2008 Best Performing Small Cities."44
HANFORD
Activities at Hanford include cleaning the site and protecting the Columbia River
from the waste generated from 50 years of producing plutonium for weapons as well
as storing plutonium and other nuclear waste. Those cleanup efforts involve
thousands of workers and expenditures of huge amounts of National and State
resources. "Forty percent of the approximately one billion curies of human-made
radioactivity that exist across the nuclear weapons complex resides here and must be
dealt with to protect human health and the environment."45
General operations at the site are divided between the US Department of Energy,
Operations Office and the Office of River Protection. Together they I work on
cleaning up the liquid and solid waste as well as removing contaminants from the
ground, storage facilities, the river,and ground water.
The long-range impact of work at Hanford is clearly highlighted by the Operations
Office:
We are taking spent nuclear fuel out of wet storage and moving it away from
the Columbia River to safe, dry storage on the Central Plateau until it can be
shipped to the national geologic repository. We're stabilizing and packaging
plutonium for disposition offsite.... Our momentum over the past several
years has convinced us we can greatly accelerate risk reduction and the
completion of the Environmental Management (cleanup) mission at Hanford
from the original 2070 end date to 2035 or perhaps even earlier. Such
acceleration would mean early risk reduction and a savings to taxpayers in the
tens of billions of dollars. It's a goal worth fighting for.'
Given the importance of Hanford and its supportive industries to the Tri-Cities, the
end of the clean-up efforts will have a profound impact on the community;
economically and socially. For this reason, economic diversification is a priority issue
for the three cities. In particular, the communities will also need to use and expand
upon its scientific industries base by adding manufacturing, non-nuclear research
such as medical, chemical or transportation, or other equally well-paid industries.
44 Tri-City Industrial Development Council, September 2008.
45 US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Message from the Manager, Keith Klein,
2004
ibid
38
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
In December of 2008, Hanford was no longer the top employer in the region,
dropping approximately 1,000 employees between 2001 and 2008. The number one
Tri-Cities employer in 2008 was Battelle, who had gained 720 employees since 2001.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), located in Richland, employed
4,220 people at the end of 2008.47
In 2009, massive federal funding under the national economic recovery program was
dedicated to the Hanford cleanup. This funding will be used to expedite the process
and will create a major influx of employees into the region for at least 3 years.
PNNL is one of the US Department of Energy's ten national laboratories, with
annual revenue of$881 million in 2008. It has operated since 1965, and researches
alternative energy, cyber security, non-proliferation, and innovative scientific
research. According to the company's website, over the last ten years Battelle has
invested more than $18 million dollars in the Tri-Cities community to improve
science education and quality of life.48
Table 12
Major Employers in Tri-Cities MSA, 2008
Employer Number of Type of Business
Employees
Pacific NW National Lab/DOE 4,220 Research facility
Bechtel National Inc./BNI 2,800 Government contractor
Wyckoff Farms 2,500 Agricultural producer&distributor
ConAgra/Lamb Weston 2,128 Frozen food processing
Pasco School District 2,002 Public school district
CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc./CHG 1,950 Government contractor
Kennewick School District 1,800 Public school district
Tyson Foods 1,800 Meat packing
Fluor Hanford,Inc. 1,561 Government contractor
Kadlec Medical Center 1,422 Hospital
Richland School District 1,400 Public school district
Energy Northwest 1,228 Wholesale electric utility
Kennewick General Hospital 913 Hospital
Broetje Orchards 900 Organic apple producer&distributor
Columbia Basin College 824 Community college
Apollo Sheet Metal 800 Construction,sheet metal fabricator
URS-Washington Division 755 Government contractor,engineering
Lourdes Health Network 715 Hospital
Benton County 673 County government
AREVA NP,Inc. 650 Nuclear fuel fabricator
Lockheed Martin 650 Information technology services
Fluor Government Group 618 Government contractor
Boise Inc. 571 Manufacturer of pulp and paper
City of Richland 542 T-Citygovermnent and Utilities
47 Tri-City Industrial Development Council, December 2008.
48 http:/twww.pni.gov
39
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II I• NEEDS
Amazon 400 Fulfillment center
U.S.Department of Energy 394 Government agency
City of Kennewick 375 Ci overnrnent
Franklin County 273 County government
City of Pasco 270 City ove ent
AgriNorthwest 238 Agricultural produce services
Reser's 230 Agtcultural products(potatoes)
Agricultural producer & distributor
Douglas Fruit 210 tree fruits
Lam son International 200 Manufacturing equipment
Source: Tri-City Industrial Development Council,December 2008.
The Tri-Cities MSA had 35% fewer high-paying manufacturing jobs than the state
average in 2003; the majority of the area's manufacturing jobs were in food
manufacturing and processing.49 An estimated 47% of all Tri-Cities jobs were in the
Services industry in April 2004. Government followed with 19%, followed by Retail
and Wholesale Trade at 14%. Manufacturing jobs represented only 7% of April
2004 jobs; and Construction and Mining accounted for 6%. 50 A table indicating
employment by sectors may be found in the Appendix.
In 2008 there were 11,360 people employed in agriculture in Benton and Franklin
Counties, comprising 10% of the total employment in the two counties, and 12% of
total agricultural employment in Washington State.
The recession made a significant impact on agricultural workers in 2008. For
instance, in 2007, January unemployment in Benton County agriculture was
estimated to be 5,320 workers. By the peak month of employment in 2007,
unemployed workers had declined to 3,570, for a net drop in the unemployed of
1,750. Many of these 1,750, and undoubtedly some other entrants to the labor force
over that time period, were absorbed into the employed labor force. However, the
picture for Benton County was considerably different in 2008. While January 2008
unemployment had declined to 5,090 compared to 5,320 in 2007, by the 2008 peak
month, only an additional 240 unemployed workers were absorbed into the
employed labor force. An estimated 4,850 were still unemployed."
In June 2009 — the peak agricultural employment month, there were 11,630 people
employed in agriculture in the South Eastern Agricultural Reporting Area (Benton,
Franklin, and Walla Walla Counties), a gain of 7.6% since June 2008. Importantly,
this was 23% of the total Washington agricultural employment. The top-employing
crop was apple production, with 39% of the total agricultural workforce working in
the apple industry. Asparagus was the second largest crop with 2,756 workers (24%),
followed by cherries with 1,692 (15%).52
49 Washington State Labor Area Summary,2003.
50 Washington State Office of Financial Management.
51 Washington State Employment Security Department, 2008 Agricultural Workforce in Washington
State,June 2009.
52 Washington State Employment Security Department, Year-To-Date Seasonal Agricultural
Employment,June 2009.
40
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
According to the Washington State Employment Security Department, there was a
dramatic increase in the national and international demand for various U.S.
agricultural products between 2006 and 2007 — which produced a national revenue
increase of 24% in just one year. Some, but not all, of the increase in agricultural
exports was due to the depreciation of the dollar against the currencies of U.S.
trading partners. However, export prices declined almost as sharply during the last
quarter of 2008 — suggesting a decrease in international demand during 2008 relative
to 2007.
Nationally, the long-term trend for agricultural employment continues to drop, due
in large part to increasing productivity in agriculture. However, this has not been the
recent history for the agricultural labor force in Washington: over the past several
years, the level of seasonal and non-seasonal agricultural employment in the state has
remained relatively stable."
UNEMPLOYMENT
While Washington unemployment gradually increased from 1998 to 2002, the Tri-
Cities area as a whole decreased. That trend has continued: since 2003, the Tri-Cities
MSA unemployment rate has been steadily declining — from 7.3 in 2003 to 5.4 in
2008. Washington's unemployment rate decreased similarly: from 7.4 in 2003, to 5.4
in 2008. Pasco dropped from 10.1 in 2003 to 6.2 in 2008; Richland dropped from 4.8
to 4.4; and Kennewick dropped from 7.3 to 5.4.14
The unemployment rates in the first quarter of 2009 have increased substantially
compared to just two years earlier: the March 2009 unemployment rate for the Tri-
Cities MSA was 8.8, compared to 5.2 in 2007. In March 2009, Benton County
reported 8.2%unemployment,while Franklin County reported 6.3%.4
Until 1998, Pasco's population was too small for its unemployment rate to be
followed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, since 1998, Pasco's
unemployment rate has been consistently much higher than the rest of the Tri-Cities
area and more than double the state average for those years. These unemployment
rates, which are not seasonally adjusted, are affected by the high number of seasonal
farm workers and food process workers in the area.
53 Washington State Employment Security Department, 2008 Agricultural Workforce in
Washington State, June 2009.
54 Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ss Washington State Employment Security Department, Washington Labor Market Quarterty
Review, March 2009.
41
F compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED FLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Graph 1
vl�
Unemployment Rate*, 1990-2008 "
16
14 .jlennewick
12 -Pasco
10 �Richland
8 -Tricities
MSA
6 -Benton
County
4 -Franklin
County
-Washington
2
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
^� *Not Seasonally Adjusted. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Table 13
Biennial Unemployment Rate, 1990-2008
Year e
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Kennewick 6.9 8.5 6.0 9.7 7.6 7.4 7.2 6.5 5.4 4.9
Pasco n/a n/a n/a n/a 13.9 13.2 12.2 8.6 6.8 6.2
Richland 5.0 6.1 4.3 7.1 5.5 5.4 5.2 4.2 4.7l 4.4
Tri-cities MSA 7.0 8.4 6.0 9.3 7.4 7.2 6.9 6.3 6.0 5.4
Benton County 6.0 7.4 5.2 8.5 6.6 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.1
Franklin County , 10.1 11.5 8.4 12.1 9.9 9.5 8.7 7.5 7.0 6.2
Washington 1 4.91 7.61 6.4 i 6.51 4.81 5.21 7.31 6.21. 4.9 5.3
*Not Seasonally Adjusted,
Souce:Bureau of Labor Statistics
42
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CASION PDFCompressor i
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Graph 2
Highest Education Levels,2000
10°/.
09/9
Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton County FrankligN Washington ,U.S.
County
•No High School Diploma or Equivalency %`0 High School Diploma or Equivalency
Some College •Associate Degree
•Bachelor's Degree •Masters Degree or Above
Washington State has an education level that is higher than that of the nation. In
2000, Richland was the only city of the three Tri-Cities that surpassed the state, with
93% of its population with at least a diploma or equivalency, and 39% having a
Bachelor's Degree or above (compared with the state's 13% and 27%, respectively).
Pasco, at the opposite end of the spectrum, had a severely undereducated population
compared to the other two cities, the state, and the nation. Only 56% of Pasco's
population held at least a high school diploma or equivalency, and only 11% had a
Bachelor's Degree or above. This could in part be due to the high percentage of
foreign-born residents, as well as significant language barriers including linguistic
isolation, and a cycle of low income that economically prohibits those in poverty
from reaching higher education. While Kennewick's population was not as
drastically undereducated, it, too, had fewer degree holders, with 22% of its
population holding a Bachelor's Degree, compared with 27%in the state and 25%in
the nation.56
56 US Census 2000.
43
compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
- --Amk-
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Table 14
Highest Education Levels, 2000
Location
Highest Education Level Kennewick Pasc Benton Franklin
Attained o Richland County County Washington US
No High School Diploma 17% 44% 7% 15% 37% 13% 20%
or Equivalency
High School Diploma or 25% 22% 20% 24% 24% 25% 29%
Equivalency
Some College 26% 18% 25% 25% 20% 26% 21%
Associate Degree 10% 6% 9% 10% 7% 8% 6%
Bachelor's Degree 15% 7% 23% 17% 9% 18% 16%
Masters Degree or Above 7% 1 4% 16% 10% 5% 9% 9%
Source: US Census,2000
In 2000, 27% of Benton County's population had a Bachelor's Degree or higher. In
2007, that number dropped to 22%. In Franklin County, the number of people with
a Bachelor's Degree remained 14% in 2000 and 2007. By contrast, in 2097 30% of
Washington's population as a whole had a Bachelor's Degrees'
Table 15
Highest Education Levels, 2007
Highest Education Level Attained Benton ounty Franklin County
Number Percent Number Percent
No High School Diploma or Equivalency 14,245 14% 10,310 26%
Hi h School Diploma or Equivalency 31,375 31% 12,760 32%
Some College 24,899 24% 7,748 20%
Associate Degree 9,888 10% 3,487 9%
Bachelors Degree 14,229 14% 3,532 9%
Master's Degree or Above 8,250 8% 1,819 5%
Source: American Community Survey,2007
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, education levels are proportional to
both unemployment rates and median weekly earnings. While the unemployment
rate in the U.S. for a high school dropout was 7.1% in 2007, the rate for persons
with high school diplomas was 4.4%, and 2.2% for those with a Bachelor's Degree.
Only 1.8%of persons with a Master's Degree and 1.4%with a Doctoral Degree were
unemployed. " In 2007, those without a high school diploma or equivalency earned
23% less than those with an Associate Degree, and 63% less than thaIse with a
Bachelor's Degree.59 E
57 American Community Survey,2007.
58 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Population Survey, 2007.
59 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Population Survey,2007.
44
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Table 16
U.S. Median Weekly Earnings By Highest Level of
Educational Attainment, 2007
Unemployment Median Weekly
Rate in 2007 Education attained Earnings in 2007
1.4% Doctoral degree $1,497
1.3% Professional degree $1,427
1.8% Master's degree $1,165
2.2% Bachelors degree $987
3.0% Associate degree $740
3.8% Some college,no degree $683
4.4% f i h-school graduate $604
Less than a high school
7.1% diploma $428
Note: Based on 2007 annual averages for persons age 25 and over.Earnings are
for full-time wage and salary workers.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,Population Survey,2007.
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY INCOME
Probably in part due to its higher education levels, Washington has a higher median
household income than that of the nation in 2000. Richland surpassed the state in
2000 by 16%, with a median household income of $53,092. Pasco's median
household income by contrast, was 25% less than the state, at only $34,540. Its per
capita income was only $13,404, which is 42% less than the state. Kennewick's per
capita income was 12% less than the state, while Richland's was 11% more than the
state.60
The region's income is on the rise however, particularly in Pasco. Between 1990 and
2000, Pasco's median household income rose 93%. During the same time,
Kennewick's median household income grew by 46%, Richland's grew by 45%, and
the state's grew by 47%.61
Table 17
Income, 1999
Income Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton Franklin Washington U.S.
Measure County County
Median
household
income $41,213 $34,540 $53,092 $47,044 $38,991 $45,776 $41,994
Per capita $20,152 $13,404 $25,494 $21,301 $15,459 $22,973 $21,587
60 US Census 1990,2000.
61 US Census 1990,2000.
45
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
income !
Median
family
income $50,011 $37,342 $61,482 $54,146 $41,967 $53,760 $50,046
Median
earnings
male* $41,589 $29,016 $52,648 $45,556 $32,209 $4p,687 $37,057
Median
earnings
female* $26,022 $22,186 $30,472 $27,232 $24,533 $30,021 $27,194
*Working full-time,year-round.
Source: US Census 2000
In Pasco, 38% of the households made less than $25,000 per year in 2000, and only
7% were in the top income bracket, making $100,000 per year. In Kennewick, only
9% made $100,000 or more, and 28% made less than $25,000. In Richland, on the
other hand, 16% were in the top income bracket while only 20% of households
made less than $25,000 per year.62
Graph 3
Household Income Range, 1999
IW%
90%
80%
70%
$100,000 or morc
60%
•$50,000-99,999
50% $25,000-49,999
40% 515,000-$24,999
0$10,000-14,999
30% ■less than$10,000
20%
10%
0%
Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton Franklin Washington
County County
Source: US Census
62 US Census 2000.
46
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Table 18
Income, 2007
Income Measure Benton County Franklin County Washington
Median household income $51,464 $48,457 $55,591
Per capita income $25,411 $18,787 $29,027
Median family income $66,861 $53,954 $66,642
Median earnings male* $50,122 $34,867 $50,269
Median earnings female* $32,120 $30,176 $37,454
*Working full-time,year-round.
Source: American Community Survey,2007
Between 2000 and 2008, Benton County's median household income grew by an
estimated 15%, where Franklin County's income grew by 11%. By contrast,
Washington's median household income grew by 24% during the same period. In
2000, Benton County's household income was actually higher than the state's, but in
2008 it was an estimated 6% lower than the state. Franklin County's income
remained far below the state (34%below).63
Table 19
Median Household Income, 2000-2008
Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(Est.) (Proj.)
Benton
County $49,190 $51,638 $52,723 $54,335 $56,617 $54,873 $53,385 $55,429 $56,683
Franklin
Coun $40,349 $42,221 $42,636 $42,460 $41,317 $42,327 $43,017 $44,820 $44,800
Washington
State $48,301 $49,364 $50,003 $50,846 $53,890 $54,085 $56,184 $59,119 $60,010
Source:State of Washington Office of Financial Management,October 2008.
Median income levels by household type show a trend nearly across the board with
Pasco's having lower incomes than the region, county, and state. The only exception
for Pasco's trend of lowest incomes is for male seniors living alone. The lowest
income in Tri-Cities population groups is found in Pasco households composed of
single female householders with children under 18, at just$12,934. The income level
for this household type is 40% lower than the average for the same households in
the state, 31% less than Kennewick (still below that of the state), and 81% less than
Richland.
63 Washington Office of Financial Management,October 2008.
47
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II NEEDS
This information is significant in that it impacts a large group of children, Children
living in poverty during their school years have been studied for the potential impact
that poverty has on their lifelong patterns of certain behaviors. Family income
during child development years has a relationship to adult behaviors such as
educational attainments, the frequency of leaving school without graduating,living in
poverty as an adult, and other problems. Fortunately early intervention and
community and school programs (such as, pre-school environments), and supervised
after-school athletic and scholastic clubs have demonstrated that children can
succeed as adults without regard to family income. Families as a whole in Pasco have
median incomes of 31% less than the state average; Kennewick's median income for
families is 7%less than the state's,and Richland exceeds state averages. C4
Table 20
Median Income by Household Type, 2000
Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton Franklin Washington
County County
Families* $50,011 $37,342 $61,482 $54,146 $41,967 $53,760
Families with children<
18 years $45,149 $31,867 $58,604 $50,906 $36,730 $51,326
Families with female
householder,no husband
resent $22,817 $16,684 $28,262 $24,821 $17,304 $26,790
Female householder no
husband present,with
children< 18 years $18,877 $12,934 $23,432 $20,905 $13,531 $21,832
Non-family households $26,219 $20,087 $29,833 $27,638 $21,366 $29,394
Female householder
hying alone $20,545 P15,563 $22,744 $20,707 $16,629 $22,005
Male householder living
alone $30,136 $20,145 $43,990 $32,661 $22,131 $30,215
Male householder 65+
living alone $24,688 $22,500 $32,125 $24,938 $21,103 $21,808
Female householder 65+
living alone $16,286 P161173 $16,437 $16,656 $16,641 $16,882
*Including Couples.
Source: US Census 2000
In 2007, a female householder with no husband present earned $32,954, compared
to an overall median family income of$66,861. In Franklin County, the contrast is
more severe: a female householder with no husband present earned just $23,017,
compared to a median family income of$53,954.65
Minority Household Income
64 US Census 2000.
65 American Community Survey,2007.
48
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Of the three largest race and ethnic groups that include the categories of people
reporting two or more races, other races, and Hispanic, all have incomes below
$30,000 in Pasco and Kennewick. In 2000, the Hispanic population of Pasco had an
annual median household income of $26,673, which is 19% less than that of the
state; Kennewick's was 11% less than that of the state. 6G Income ranges for
Hispanic persons in Pasco may be strongly connected to their predominance in the
agricultural and food processing industries. Both types of employment pay low
wages and are seasonal.
Table 21
Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity, 2000
Location
Race Benton Franklin
Kennewick Pasco Richland Washington
Coun Coun
White alone $43,678 $42,665 $53,237 $49,536 $46,137 $47,312
Black or African
American alone $38,583 $23,359 $36,779 $38,500 $26,250 $35,919
American Indian or
Alaska Native alone $31,691 $35,625 $61,9641 $35,221 $31,750 $32,670
Asian alone $42,188 $43,250 $71,739 $64,464 $44,188 $47,517
Pacific Islander alone $75,432 $6,250 $150,211 $76,745 $6,250 $41,656
Other race alone $27,053 $26,653 $54,643 $32,056 $28,011 $31,363
Two or more races $27,448 $27,750 $42,125 $34,207 $28,899 $37,356
Ethnicity
Hispanic(of any
race) $29,176 $26,673 $45,707 $31,925 $28,518 $32,757
Source: US Census 2000
It has only been during the last 15 to 20 years that a large number of Hispanic
seasonal farm workers have settled into permanent residences in the Tri-Cities area.
Household incomes could increase as Hispanic workers seek permanent residence in
the communities (fewer workers are migrating between Mexico and the US during
picking seasons), as Hispanic-owned businesses proliferate and hire other Hispanic
persons into non-agricultural industries, and Hispanic children remain in schools
consistently and graduate with their peers.
Indicators for economic improvement for Hispanic persons are evidenced by the
2000 Census: increases in the number and size of permanent related households,
indicate that fewer Hispanic agricultural workers are single, unaccompanied males,
sending money earned to their families still in Mexico. The increase in children
enrolled in local schools show numbers large enough to support comprehensive
language skills programs in all three communities. Another indicator, which is not
reflected in the 2000 Census, is the increased numbers of Hispanic homebuyers in
66 US Census 2000.
49
2010-2014 TRi-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Pasco's newest housing developments since 2000. Their position as valued
consumers in the communities is also evident in the proliferation of businesses
catering to a range of ethnic-specialty desires/needs, such as bakeries, fancy dress
and tuxedo shops for cultural events, extensive advertising in the Spanish language
throughout business districts, and large numbers of mobile Mexican food
restaurants/vans.
Table 22
Median Household Income by Race and Ethnicity, 2007
Race Benton County Franklin County Washington
White alone $56,643 $58,039 $58,107
Black or African American alone * $47,605 $38,538
American Indian or Alaska Native alone $63,225 $26,250 $33,619
Asian alone $62,314 * $61,404
Pacific Islander alone * * $47,188
Other race alone $24,819 $33,612 $38,608
Two or more races $40,574 $44,126 $47,716
Ethnicity
Hispanic of any race $30,143 $33,474 $39,920
*No sample observations were available to compute an estimate,or a ratio of medians cannot be
calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval
of an open-ended distribution.
Source: American Community Survey,2007
Between 2000 and 2007, Hispanic household income in Washington grew by 22%.
However,it only grew by 17%in Franklin County,and it decreased by 6%in Benton
County. In Franklin County,Asian-American households saw a 41% loss in income,
dropping from $44,188 to $26,250. In contrast, African-American households saw
an 81%gain in median income in Franklin County between 2000 and 2007.67
HOUSEHOLDS LIVING IN POVERTY
Twenty-one percent of Pasco's residents were living in poverty in 2000 ($16,700
income for a family of four), compared to 11% in Kennewick and 8% in Richland.
The highest percentage of the population living in poverty is female householders
living alone with children under five: sixty-seven percent of these households were
living in poverty in Pasco in 2000. One third of families with children under five are
living in poverty in Pasco, while one quarter are living in poverty in Kennewick, far
more than the state's average of 15%.6" The definition of poverty levels by
household size may be found in the Appendix.
67 American Community Survey 2007; US Census 2000.
68 US Census 2000.
50
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Table 23
Percent of Population Living in Poverty, 1999
Population Group Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton Franklin Washington
County County
Individuals 13% 23% 8% 10% 19% 11%
Individuals 18 or
older 10% 19% 7% 8% 16% 10%
Individuals 65 and
older 9% 10% 6% 7% 8% 8%
Families* 10% 20% 6% 8% 16% 7%
Families with
children<18 15% 27% 9% 12% 22% 11%
Families with
children<5 24% 34% 13% 18% 30% 15%
Females alone with
children<18 37% 55% 26% 32% 53% 31%
Females alone with
children<5 56% 67% 43% 51% 65% 46%
Total All 11% 21% 8% 9% 17% 10%
Households
*Including Couples
Source: US Census 2000
From 2000 to 2007, the Benton County population living in poverty grew by 2%,
bringing it to the level of the state (11 0/6). Franklin County's population continued to
have a high poverty rate (16% in 2007), although it was slightly lower than in 2000.
The poverty rate increased significantly in both counties for females living alone with
children under five. In Benton County, those living in poverty included nearly the
entire population group (90%) in 2007. In Franklin County, the number was only
slightly better, at 79%. By contrast, 42% of Washington's females living alone with
children under five were living in poverty."
Table 24
Percent of Population Living in Poverty, 2007
Population Group Benton Franklin Washington
County Coun
Individuals 11% 16% 11%
Individuals 18 or older 10% 13% 10%
Individuals 65 and older 4% 13% 8%
Families* 8% 12% 8%
Families with children<18 13% 18% 12%
Families with children<5 23% 18% 13%
Females alone with children<18 34% 48% 34%
Females alone with children<5 90% 79% 42%
Total All Households 11% 16% 11%
*Including Couples
69 American Community Survey,2007; US Census 2000.
51
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Source: US Census American Community Survey 2007
Additionally, 23% of Benton County's Hispanic population was living in poverty in
Benton County, as was 21% of Franklin County's Hispanic population.70
There are several neighborhoods and targeted areas in the cities with 20% or more of
the population living below the poverty level. A table in the Appendix lists the
percentage of residents with incomes below poverty level by County, Census tract
and Block Group. That information will be considered when targeting areas for
special economic development activities as well as affordable housing and other
neighborhood improvements.
Franklin County has 13 block groups within its 4 different census tracts, with more
than 20% of area residents living below poverty. The highest percentage!in a single
block group is 48% of residents. Benton County has 14 block groups within its 14
different census tracts that have 20% or more of its residents with incomes below
the poverty level. Not all census tracts have a block groups within the 20% of
poverty or greater group.. The block group with the highest percentage of persons
living below poverty was 51%. The majority of block groups with 20% or more of
persons below poverty level are in Kennewick and small city or rural areas'of Benton
County. The city of Richland has only a few block groups at 20% of more persons
with incomes below poverty.
It is important to note that block groups vary in size and include anywhere from 100
to almost 5,000 residents. In addition, block groups can have spotty income or
demographic patterns, based on geographic layout of the census sub-division
patterns as opposed to political subdivisions, an area's street grids property, or
neighborhood layouts.
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS
As demonstrated by the following maps, the majority of the neighborhoods with
51% or more of households classified as low- and moderate-income tend to be
concentrated near the Columbia River, and generally in the eastern part of each city.
Not surprisingly, these areas are the oldest neighborhoods of the communities,
containing the oldest housing. For purposes of this Consolidated Plan, areas of low-
and moderate-income concentration are defined as U. S. Census Block Groups and
Census Tracts with at least 51%low and moderate income households.
The map entitled "CDBG Eligible Block Groups" indicates the areas in the Tri-
Cities where CDBG projects serving those neighborhoods may be carried out.
Typically, this is defined as areas where 51% or more of the households are at or
below the low and moderate income standard. However, because the city of
70 American Community Survey,2007.
52
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Richland has only a limited number of qualifying areas, HUD guidelines allow an
exception to add qualifying areas with 44.5% or more low- and moderate-income
households. A full listing of the HUD qualified census tracts and census block
groups may be found in the Appendix.
53
Q
W
z
o
H
U
N , �
A
N A
•
M
■
I_ ry
Tin-
81
d ..
- Q � n
S as `t
e�f n
n
O
r
Y d
1
N ti
A
Y r
O r
Z
0
U y W1.
w .- -
N �
U
a
0
N,
O.
O
N
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
SCHOOLS, CHILDREN AND YOUTH
A public school district serves each of the three communities. Richland and
Kennewick also have an additional private school district. School demographics are
frequently representative of an area's income, employment, family, and other
conditions. For the most part the data matches the demographic data on adults
provided earlier in this document (such as incomes, ethnicity/race and educational
achievements). Free or reduced school lunches reported by school districts reflect
the general pattern of income in the Tri-Cities — during the 2007-2008 school year,
they ranged from 27% of the students in Kennewick, to 29% in Richland, and 69%
in Pasco.
Between 2003 and 2007, Benton County saw a decline of 26% in licensed family
childcare businesses and a 4% decrease in licensed center facilities — for a net loss of
778 potential childcare slots. Infant care continues to be the most difficult care to
find, as well as the most expensive. For a family with an infant and a preschooler in
full-time care, the median cost was 21% to 25% of the county's median household
income for 2007.71
In 2007, there were 182 licensed family childcare businesses (with 1,558 slots) and 50
childcare centers (with 2,481 slots) in Benton County. An average of 1,944 children
per month were receiving childcare subsidies, and there were 364 Head
Start/ECEAP slots in 2008. A majority of providers spoke English, and 39%
indicated that one or more of their staff speaks Spanish.72
In Franklin County, between 2003 and 2007, 35 (16%) of licensed family childcare
businesses closed—resulting in 277 fewer slots. However, during the same time, the
number of childcare centers more than doubled — from 10 to 24 — providing a total
net gain of 811 slots. For a family with an infant and a preschooler in full-time care,
the median cost represented 27% to 36% of the county's median household income
for 2007.73
In 2007, there were 190 licensed family childcare businesses (with 1,624 slots), and
24 childcare centers (1,582 slots) in Franklin County. The annual median household
income in 2007 was $42,917 —childcare for an infant would cost approximately 21%
of that income ($9,100) at a childcare center. An average of 1,812 children per
month were receiving childcare subsidies, and there were 213 Head Start/ECEAP
slots in 2008. Eighty-six percent (86%) of the licensed facilities in Franklin County
report that one or more staff members speak Spanish.74
71 Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Child Care in Benton County,
September 2008.
72 Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Child Care in Benton County,
September 2008.
73 Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Child Care in Franklin County,
September 2008.
74 Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Child Care in Franklin County,
September 2008.
55
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
The Washington State Child Care Resource & Referral Network receives calls from
parents, providers, and community members seeking information and assistance
navigating the childcare system. The top three challenges parents identified when
calling the center in 2007: affordability, inconvenient locations, and hours that
match parents'needs.75
High school dropout rates among the three cities range from 3% in Richland, 6% in
Kennewick, and 9%in Pasco. While Pasco does have a slightly higher drop out rate,
the school district has implemented programs to address the issue. Also, local
community centers in Pasco are operating youth programs to emphasize academic
improvement, physical fitness, and safety. The public participation process including
focus groups, the community survey, and in advisory committee meetings supported
the need for supervised youth recreation in all communities.
Although information is not available specifically regarding youth involvement in
drug-related problems, the increase in methamphetamines usage and the ensuing
serious health, safety, and housing problems of recent years are thought to equally
impact both youthful and young adults .
i
i
I
75 Washington State Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Child Can: in Benton County,
September 2008.
56
2010-2014 TIU-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CRIME
The Police Departments of the three cities report known crimes to the Washington
Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for inclusion in the FBI Uniform Crime
Report (UCR). For the purpose of the UCR,crimes are designated as part 1 or part 2
crimes. Part 1 crimes consist of violent crimes (murder and non-negligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes
(burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson). All other crimes are
considered as part 2 crimes. While a useful measure for comparing crime rates over
time and between jurisdictions, these data do not tell the whole story of crime as
many crimes go unreported.
KENNEWICK
Crime rates in Kennewick for 2008, the most recent reporting period, were
comparable to those in the State of Washington for that year, but significantly above
those of Benton County as a whole. Violent crimes represent only a small portion of
the total crimes — there were 235 violent part 1 crimes reported in Kennewick for
2008, 156 of which were aggravated assault. During the same year, there were 2,412
part 1-property crimes, 1,810 of which were larceny.16
There were a total of 6,539 adult arrests and 1,014 juvenile arrests made in
Kennewick in 2008."
Table 25
Part 1 Crimes, 2007-2008 (Rate per 1,000)
Category Kennewick County State
All part 1 crimes 40.2 28.9 40.2
Violent crimes 3.6 2.5 3.2
Property crimes 36.6 26.4 36.9
Source:Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs,
Crime in Wlashin ton 2008 Annual Report.
The trend in the short run is shown in the figure below. The overall crime rate in
Kennewick has fallen since 1998 and nearly matched the state in the last year
reported.
76 Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Crime in Washington 2008 Annual Report.
77 Kennewick Police Department, 2008 Annual Report.
57
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II• NEEDS
Figure 5
Crime In Kennewick, 1995-2008
80.0
70.0 -
60.0 "
50.0
Y
p°r 40.0 Kennewick PD
30.0 Benton Coun SO
20.0
Total Benton ounty
10.0
Total Washin n State
0.0
to V r- 00 C+ .-• N M � Ln V r— a0
ON CS C� CS C% OO pO ppO g OO g
C% CT C1 C1 C% N N N A
Source: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs,
Crime In Washington Annxal Raportt,1995-2008
In 2008, the Kennewick Police Department reported 403 offenses involving
domestic violence, the majority of which (318) were simple assaults. Where is a
domestic violence advocate available to victims through the City Attorney's office.
Kennewick reported 2 hate crimes in 2008: one anti-Black and one anti"-American
Indian/Alaskan Native.
There has been a recent increase in gang activity in Kennewick, including a gang-
related murder. The Kennewick Police Department's 2008 Annual Report,noted that
it "continued to be challenged with violent criminal behavior as well a9lincreased
criminal gang activity." The Department saw gang-related graffiti incidents rise by
1,568% between 2003 and 2008. In June 2008, the Department created a."Violent
Crimes Gang Task Force" in collaboration with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation."
Additionally, a School Resource Officer (SRO) was assigned to each ke high
schools in Kennewick. A SAP (Selective Aggressive Probation) program provides
more intensive probation to some youth coming from juvenile detention. There
were a total of 1,014 juvenile arrests made in 2008.'
Illegal drug operations are a continuing problem in Kennewick and the Tri-Cities
area. The Kennewick Police Department, along with Richland and Pasco,is a partner
in the Tri City METRO Drug Task Force. Using federal grant funds to support the
r
78 Kennewick Police Department, 2008 Annual Report.
79 Kennewick Police Department, 2008 Annual Report.
58
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
iI -Y
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
task force, officers are trained in techniques to intervene in mid- to upper-level drug
operations. Methamphetamine labs and other illegal drug production and use are
typically linked to other crimes in communities. Intervening to reduce drug
operations should reduce crime rates in general. In 2008, there were 111
cases/investigations by the task force,with 152 arrests.80
The Kennewick Police Department is involved in several public safety initiatives,
including the Crime Resistant Community Living Program, which partners officers
with landlords to provide training in tenant screening and other strategies to reduce
and prevent crime through precautions such as environmental design (e.g., proper
security, locks, lighting). Buildings meeting specified requirements can be certified
and advertised as such.
Under the Business Watch program, the Kennewick Police Department provides
businesses and employees with training on several topics, conducts security surveys
as a resource for making improvements to prevent crime, and alerts businesses of
reported security risks. There is also an active Neighborhood Watch program in
Kennewick.
PASCO
Crime rates in Pasco were slightly lower than those in the State of Washington
during 2008, but quite a bit above those of Franklin County as a whole. Violent
crimes represent only a small portion of the total crimes — there were 166 violent
part 1 crimes reported in Pasco for 2008, 100 of which were aggravated assault.
During the same year, there were 1,688 part 1-property crimes, 1,030 of which were
larceny.
Table 26
Part 1 Crimes, 2007-2008 (Rate per 1,000)
Category Pasco County State
All index crimes 35.5 29.5 40.2
Violent crimes 3.2 2.7 3.2
Property crimes 32.3 26.9 36.9
Source:Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police
Chiefs,Crime in Wlashin ton 2008 Annual Report.
The trend in the short run is shown in the figure below. The overall crime rate in
Pasco has fallen since 1996;it fell just below the state in the last year reported.
80 Kennewick Police Department, 2008 Annual Report.
59
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Figure 6
Crime In Pasco, 1995-2008
100.0
90.0
80.0
g 70.0
60.0
a 50.0
Pasco PD
� 40.0
30.0 'Franklin County SO
20.0 Total Franklin County
10.0 Total Washingpon State
0.0
� CSON � � AD
Source: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Policc Chiefs,
Criwe In Washington Annual Repow,1995-2008
In 2008, the Pasco Police Department reported 503 offenses involving domestic
violence, 350 of which were simple assaults. There is a domestic violence advocate at
the department, and available to assist victims. Franklin County also reported one
anti-Hispanic hate crime in 2008.81
During the first quarter of 2009, the Pasco Police Department reported 449 total
crimes, 255 of which were larceny. This is down 9% from the first quarter of 2008.82
Illegal drug operations are a continuing problem in Pasco and the Tri C ities area.
The Pasco Police Department, along with Richland and Kennewick, is a partner in
the Metro Drug Task Force, (described in the Kennewick Crime section) wthehich is a
program that Pasco administers.
Like Kennewick, the Pasco Police Department is involved in several or public
safety initiatives. The Crime-Free Multi-Family Housing Program also trains Pasco
landlords in tenant screening, supports crime prevention through environmental
design (e.g., proper security, locks, lighting), and trains tenants on how to be safe.
There are currently over 1,400 rental units in the program. Neighborhood safety is
improved through a Neighborhood Watch (Block Watch) program. The Police
Department works closely with the Planning Department and with the�Pasco and
Franklin County Housing Authority,which has adopted a "1 strike you're out" policy
to evict tenants for specific offenses including drugs and weapons.
81 Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Crime in Washington 2008 Annual Report.
82 Pasco Police Department, Crime Statistics, 2009.
60
f
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI i PDFCompressor
1 11
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
A School Resource Officer (SRO) is assigned to each of Pasco's high schools and
middle schools. The DARE program is presented in 5`'' grade classes. Graffiti has
been reduced by 97% from 1,200 reported events about eight years ago to 45
reported events in 2003. The graffiti abatement program (GAP) assists both
businesses and residents in removing graffiti.
The Pasco Police Department also utilizes Community-Oriented Policing, with a
mini-station in each of the patrol areas that is staffed and linked to officers on patrol.
This program helps connect the police officer in the community. Officers are trained
to help solve problems on the spot, if possible. The Citizens Academy brings
community members into the department to learn about procedures and operations.
Finally, there is an advisory committee made up of ten individuals representing the
community.
RICHLAND
Crime rates in Richland were slightly below those in Benton County and well below
the State of Washington for 2008. Violent crimes represent only a small portion of
the total crimes—there were 101 violent part 1 crimes reported in Richland for 2008,
62 of which were aggravated assault. During the same year, there were 1,055 part 1-
property crimes, 788 of which were larceny.
Table 27
Part 1 Crimes, 2007-2008 (Rate per 1,000)
Category Richland County State
All index crimes 25.1 28.9 40.2
Violent crimes 2.2 2.5 3.2
Property crimes 22.9 26.4 36.9
Source:Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs,
Crime in Washin ton 2008 Annual Report.
The City of Richland received a "Municipal Excellence Award" from the Association
of Washington Cities honored at its 2009 conference in Spokane, winning the public
safety category for its "PARSTAT" program. Since 2006, the Richland Police
Department has used the Performance and Accountable Response to Statistics
(PARSTAT) process as its primary crime-fighting strategy. Richland Police
Department uses the program to incorporate "increased accountability and effective
crime-fighting strategies into a values-based organization. ,81
The figure below provides information on crime trends. Richland's overall rate of
crime has remained relatively steady since 1998 and has been consistently below the
state's trends.
83 City of Richland,"Richland Receives Statewide Excellence Award,"June 2009.
61
2010-2014 T1itI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION Il • NEEDS
Figure 7
Crime In Richland, 1995-2008
70.0
60.0
g 50.0
40.0
y
30.0 Richland PD,
20.0 Benton Count SO
Total Ben to n County
10.0
Total Was on State
0.0
tun V^ t` 00 C' .-+ N M � N V r` 00 i
ON GS C� 0% C% 0 0 0 O O
f
Sourcc: Washington Association of Sheriffs and Policc Chiefs,
Crime In Washington Anna!Reports,1995-2008
In 2008, the Richland Police Department reported 232 offenses involvin domestic
violence, the majority of which (175) were simple assaults. There is Idomestic
violence advocate available to victims, although not on staff at e Police
Department. II
Richland reported 4 hate crimes in 2008: two anti-Black, one anti-multi racial, and
one anti-multi-religious. I
As with the balance of the Tri-Cities, Richland is experiencing an increasing number
of illegal drug operations. In addition to participation in the Metro Drug Task Force,
the Richland Police Department's PAC Team does drug enforcement and
surveillance. Drug violations in Richland increased considerable between]1997 and
2007— from 121 to 363 annually. The highest year on record during that lime was in
2006,with 460 drug-related calls." II
The Richland Police Department is involved, or planning to be involved, in several
other public safety initiatives. Anticipated soon is Crime Resistant Community
Living, which partners an officer with landlords to provide training in tenant
screening and other strategies in order to reduce and prevent crime through
precautions such as environmental design (e.g., proper security, locks, lighting).
Buildings meetin specified requirements can be certified and advertise as such.
ea Richland Police Department, 1997-2007 crime comparison data.
62
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
r
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
The Police Department is being proactive in anti-gang initiatives to combat the area's
recent increase in gang activity. A School Resource Officer (SRO) will be assigned
to each of the high schools in the fall.
63
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
HOUSING NEEDS AND
HOUSING MARKET TRENDS
AND ANALYSIS
HOUSING SUPPLY
The housing markets of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland are surprisingly different
given the proximity of the communities. Even more remarkable is the sudden
growth in owner-occupied units overall and especially in Pasco, which has
traditionally experienced the lowest incidence of homeownership. Kennewick is the
closest to Pasco in new development for buyers although the new developments in
Kennewick tend to offer larger and more costly housing units.
i
During the 1990s,the overall number of housing units in both Pasco and Kennewick
increased at the very high rates of 34% and 29% respectively, compared to Richland
at 19%. By comparison, residential units in the state rose by only 21% during the
same time.
One critical change in the Tri-Cities area housing market is the recent development
of a relatively large number of family-type owner-occupant units in Pasco — and in
Richland and Kennewick to a lesser degree. This growth is reflected in Pasco's status
as the fastest growing city in Washington State and its position as one of the fastest
growing areas the United States. The housing permit data found in the Appendix
provides detailed information on this recent housing growth. Since 2000, Pasco has
permitted 2,414 single-family residential units, Kennewick has permitted 1,179, and
Richland has permitted 1,264.
The recent strength of single-family housing markets in Pasco, Richland and
Kennewick has driven the communities to expand infrastructure and amenities into
new neighborhoods serving newly annexed areas as well as areas in other cities.
Pasco and Kennewick in particular have expansive new neighborhoods with newly
created parks, schools, libraries, paths, streets and sidewalks. The housing is
overwhelmingly composed of family-style units on curving and cul de sac-style
neighborhoods, with three or more bedrooms, multiple baths, and ample yards and
garden areas.
64
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
The Tri-Cities housing stock in 2000 was primarily made up of single-family
detached homes with the highest percentage in Richland (63%), followed by Pasco
(54%) and Kennewick (53%). Those percentages have increased significantly in
Pasco and Kennewick since 2000, as new-single family subdivisions have been
developed. This development is in part in response to lowered mortgage interest
rates that have resulted in qualifying more households for homeownership. As
mortgage rates return to historical patterns, homeownership rates may again begin to
decrease, softening the single-family home market.
New multi-family rental development has accompanied the single-family owner-
occupant unit boom. However, the amount of new rental units developed is
relatively small in comparison to the percentage of growth among single-family units.
Small multi-family units made up 18% of the housing stock in Pasco, 16% in
Kennewick and 12%in Richland in 2000.85
Figure 8
Types of Housing, 2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
Mobile homes,Other
60% •Large multifamily(10+units)
50% (Small multifamily(2-9 units)
40% /Single family attached
30% Single family detached
20%
10%
0% ;t
Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton Franklin Washington
County County
Source. US Census 2000
More Richland households owned their homes in 2000 (66%) than did households in
Pasco (60%) and Kennewick (60%) or Washington as a whole (65%). This is
85 US Census 2000.
65
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CASION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II e NEEDS
probably because comparatively fewer Pasco and Kennewick residents are able to
afford the high costs of housing due to their relatively lower incomes.
Major shifts in the type of housing constructed have occurred over the first 9 years
of the decade. This is particularly evident in Pasco where single-family units have
more than doubled during that period. The limited number of apartment units
constructed in the Tri-Cities during this period means that there are relatively fewer
affordable housing choices for very low income households.
Table 28
Change in Housing Type, 2000-2008
Kennewick Pasco Richland
Structure Type Percent Percent Percent
2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change
Total 22,068 26,638 21% 10,341 17,094 65% 16,458 20,. 01 22%
Single Unit 12,452 16,287 31% 5,819 11,952 105% 11,533 14, 85 23%
Multi-Unit 2+ 7,542 8,334 11% 3,145 3,655 16% 4,161 5 28 210
Manufactured,
Motor Homes, 2,074 2,017 -3% 1,377 1,487 8% 764 88 3%
Trailer,Other
Source: OFM Forecasting,State of Washington,A ri 2009.
The recent increase in home ownership has a positive influence on neighborhoods
and could be expanded to include more lower-income households and households of
minority ethnicity or race. Richland has the highest housing cost; any subsidy to
increase homeownership among lower-income persons would have the greatest
impact on Buyer Program funds. Additionally, in Richland, new home development
is generally in the $200,000 and above rangesG, which would be a prohibitive cost for
lower-income buyers. Accordingly, Richland might emphasize buyer opportunities
in older, established housing with or without rehabilitation, depending on the
condition of the units.
Table 29
2000 Tenure by Type of Household —Comparison Chart
Kennewick Pasco Richland Benton Franklin Washington
Coun County
Percent of Households
Renters 40% 40% 34% 31% 34% 35%
Owners 60% 60% 66% 69% 66% 65%
Single Individuals
Renters 55% 52% 52% 47% 47%1 51%
86 City permit information,Year 2000 to July 1,2004; Pasco, Richland and Kennewick
66
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Owners 45% 48% 48% 53% 53% 49%
Singles,Elderly
Renters 440/. 38% 37% 36% 35% 37%
Owners 56% 62% 63% 64% 65% 63%
Non-Family Households
2 or more
Renters 57% 52% 53% 49% 47% 53%
Owners 43% 48% 47% 51% 53% 47%
Family Households*
Renters 33% 36% 25% 24% 31% 27%
Owners 68% 64% 75% 76% 69% 74%
Population in Households
Renters 19,416 12,765 11,536 39,566 17,319 1,840,204
Owners 35,081 18,856 26,982 102,087 31,114 3,917,432
Average Household Size
Renters 2.3 3.3 2.2 2.4 3.4 2.3
Owners 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.7
Total Households 54,497 131,6211 38,518 141,6531 48,433 5,757,636
*Totals may not equal to 100%due to rounding.
Source:US Census 2000
The Hispanic population has a much lower percentage of owners than renters in the
Tri-Cities, particularly in Pasco and Kennewick, where Hispanic income is
substantially lower. In Pasco, 43% of householders of Hispanic or Latino descent
own their homes; in Kennewick the number is even lower at 35%.1' Given that
Hispanic households also have lower income in general, increasing homeownership
in this group may require not only financial assistance and'iomebuyer counseling but
also assistance in developing budgeting and financial management skills.
HOUSING CONDITION
AGE OF HOUSING
The 2007 American Community Survey found the Tri-Cities housing stock to be
significantly newer than the state as a whole. In Franklin County, approximately
32% of all housing units were built since 2000. Approximately 24% of housing units
in the Tri-Cities area were built prior to 1960, compared with 26% in the state as a
whole."
Table 30
Age of Housing Units, 2007
Total Built Built Built Built Built 1939
Housing 000-2007 % 1980-1999 % 1960-1979 % 1940-1959 % or earlier %
Units
87 US Census 2000.
88 American Community Survey,2007.
67
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Benton I63,307 10,31716% 15,59225% 21,34634% 13,958 2% 2109 3%
Coup
Franklin 22,310 7,13132- 3,77117% 6,921310 3,87117% 616 3%
County
Washington 2,744,324 359,86213%1 875,692 2% 794,69129%1 393,20814% 320,871 12%
Source:American Community Survey,2007
Housing in Richland is older than the twoother communities: as of the 2000 Census,
40% of Richland housing was constructed prior to 1960, compared with 34% for
Pasco and Kennewick (20%)with the youngest housing stock.
Common problems in older units include asbestos siding and wraps on older
furnaces, unreliable knob and tube wiring, lead-based paint on walls, woodwork and
saturated plaster, lead-based solders on utilities pipes, and on occasion wood and
timber treatments with toxic components. As the table below indicates, the vast
majority of units in the Tri-Cities were constructed after World War II. The housing
building boom of the 1960's and 1970's created a bulge to which the 2000 boom has
added significantly.
Federal community development and affordable housing funds will require review of
properties that might be historic or culturally significant. Richland inventoried and
applied for historic status in a specific district for alphabet housing built for Hanford
employees in the 1940's and 1950's. That historic status was granted because the
housing provides a look into the remarkable culture, scientific achievements and
community of Hanford's historic activities during WW 1I and the Cold War.
68
Q _
z � •
0
U
W
rn
S s
Y
I�1
W
A
0
Z
0
U
W
U
H
o
0
0
N
PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II -NEEDS
HOUSING CONDITIONS IN SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
Street view ("windshield") surveys of selected residential areas in Kennewick and
Pasco were conducted by consultants in July 2004 and in July 2009. In Richland, a
survey was conducted by consultants in July 2004, and a separate survey was
conducted in July 2008, by an Urban and Regional Planning Program student from
Eastern Washington University who was serving as an Intern to the city.
The 2009 survey in Kennewick and Pasco consisted of visually viewing each house
from the street, using a five-point rating system to assess overall exterior condition
(1= "excellent" condition to 5 = "dilapidated"). The primary elements rated were
roofs, foundations, porches, and windows — although other elements ',(chimneys,
fascia, and siding) were considered as well. Structures rated 3 through 5 reflect
deferred maintenance to key areas of the building's components or appearance that,
if left unresolved, would result in more severe problems of safety or structural
integrity. These unresolved conditions tend to create a depressing i effect on
investment in the area,and can lead to overall deterioration of values and livability of
the neighborhood. The survey concluded that housing rehabilitation activities could
be beneficial in several of the areas, improving the quality of both the housing stock
and the neighborhoods themselves.
The 2008 survey of Richland also used a street view of the homes to rate the quality
and condition of housing. A three-point system of"good", "fair", and `!poor" was
used to categorize the results. The survey report concluded that the current housing
conditions were often a reflection of the original quality of the structure as the
housing surveyed fell into to two distinct types of housing: prefab and "executive"
(higher quality construction) housing. The report also found that some of the
neighborhoods are candidates for reinvestment. Other conclusions are found below
in the Richland Surveys section.
Comparisons Between 2004 and 2009 Surveys
Care should be taken when drawing conclusions from a comparison of the detailed
results of the 2004 and 2009 surveys. While there appear to be some changes and
trends in the condition of structures (when comparing 2004 data with 2009 data),
some of the numbers within structure categories are relatively small, so a shift of 4-5
units from a "good" to a "fair" rating may give the appearance of a large percentage
change.
A rapid population gain, combined with the impact of the current recession which
began some 18 months ago, resulted in housing costs became a higher percentage of
total income, and increased unemployment rates—may have had a negative effect on
overall conditions of housing in both Kennewick and Pasco as homeowners and
landlords tended to defer needed repairs. You will find that some of the individual
70
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
categories appear to show that some housing slipped from a rating of"1" to a "2", a
442" to a"3", or even a "3" to a"4" between the 2004 and 2009 surveys.
Additionally, a mobile home park in the Bridge-To-Bridge Neighborhood (north of
Columbia) that was in the 2004 survey,was not surveyed in 2009,as it was purchased
by the Port of Kennewick and slated to be completely vacated by early 2010. In
2004, this area had in general, better-kept mobile homes. Therefore, the survey total
shows a greater percentage of"2"s, "3"s, and "4"s than it would have had this area
been included.
The following is a summary of the conditions found in the 2008 and 2009 Surveys —
a complete Housing Conditions Report may be found in the Appendix.
Kennewick Conditions Survey
GENERAL COMMENTS
Housing conditions were surveyed in four neighborhoods: First and Washington;
Metaline-Filmore; and the "Bridge to Bridge" neighborhood which was split into
north of Columbia and south of Columbia. While a 25% sampling of housing units
in most neighborhoods was conducted, because the Metaline-Filmore neighborhood
consisted of only 56 total homes in 2004, a 100% sampling was conducted to insure
the validity of the survey. The 2009 survey also conducted a 100% sampling in this
neighborhood.
The results of the surveys revealed that, while visibly not in as good of condition as
most residential neighborhoods of the city, the basic condition of housing in the
neighborhoods was generally good. Fifty-five percent of all units were considered
"good" to "excellent" and only 2% fell into the "poor" category. (Generally the
latter were vacant units clearly slated for demolition.) Housing in "fair" condition
represented 31%of all housing surveyed.
The survey found that the limited number of multi-family units surveyed (12), tended
to be in better condition than either mobile/manufactured or single-family
structures. More than one-half (55%) were rated "good" or "excellent." This is in
stark contrast to the previous survey, when 43% were rated either "good" or
"excellent."
THE BRIDGE-TO-BRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD
The survey split the neighborhood into north and south of Columbia Drive. The
north of Columbia Drive neighborhood is home to approximately 200 households
living in mobile homes, representing approximately 80% of the residences in the
neighborhood. The mobile home park east of Washington Drive has been
purchased by the Port of Kennewick and is mostly vacated.
This area north of Columbia Drive is a mixture of higher-end mobile homes (to the
west of Washington Drive, for example), and more dilapidated areas that have gone
71
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
through considerable turnover since the 2004 survey. Many of the mobile homes
exhibited roof problems, and several had porch, siding, and/or paint problems.
Overall, the area contains a higher percentage of homes needing repair (69% in fair
to poor condition) than other neighborhoods surveyed.
The neighborhood south of Columbia Drive is primarily a single-family
neighborhood, mixed with commercial/industrial units and several duplexes. Well-
restored large, older homes are side by side with smaller homes in need of repair.
Twenty of the 34 (58%) single-family structures surveyed were in "good" or
"excellent" condition. It appeared that there had been some decline in the condition
of single family homes in the 5 year period between surveys as a net of
approximately 6 homes shifted from"good" to "fair". In this area, several houses in
"fair" condition were being repaired by owners.
FIRST AND WASHINGTON
Approximately 280 residential structures are located in this neighborhood lying just
east of downtown Kennewick. In general, this is a well-kept neighborhood with
extremes on either end of housing condition. In 2009, one-third (32%) of the
residences in this predominately single-family neighborhood were found in need of
some rehabilitation (in fair to deteriorated condition). This was up fro{n 24% in
2004 representing a net shift of 5 units which moved into the "in need of repair"
category. Roof repairs and paint issues were the most commonly noted problems.
This area had a relatively low percentage (22%) of houses that needed no repair.
There were several houses for sale, or being readied for sale,in 2009.
METALINE AND FILMORE
Fifty-seven residential structures were surveyed in this small, isolated neighborhood
in transition located in northern Kennewick. In 2004, this neighborhood contained
the greatest range of housing choices and conditions,with new,well designed homes
mixed with housing that is in only fair condition. The quality of other single-family
residences on two sides of the neighborhood was above average.
Between 2004 and 2009, the condition of the mobile homes in this neighborhood
had deteriorated somewhat. Overall in 2004, 27% of Metaline-Filmore housing
stock was in "fair" to "deteriorated" condition. In 2009, that percentage rose to
42%. However, single-family homes showed signs of improvement overall.
Whereas in 2004, 73% were "good" to "excellent," in 2009, 95% of these homes
were rated"good" to"excellent."
Pasco Conditions Survey
GENERAL COMMENTS
The area surveyed consisted of 45 square blocks, composed of the Pasco downtown
core and the residential area just north of downtown. A 100% survey of-residential
and commercial structures was conducted in the area bounded by Tacoma Avenue,
72
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Columbia Street, 14`h Avenue and Bonneville Street. A little more than 40% of the
structures are residential.
In the 2009 survey, the area contained 133 residential structures (115 of which were
single-family homes),204 commercial/retail structures and 3 buildings categorized as
mixed use. Since 2004, the number of residential structures increased by 6%, and
14% more commercial structures were evident in the downtown area. Between
surveys, significant change was evident, as several of the central commercial
buildings had been divided into multiple retail spaces, and there had been some new
commercial construction. In general, the revitalization of several storefront facades
was evident in the central business district, while in the outlying commercial areas,
many businesses had deteriorated since the last survey. While there appear to be
some changes in the condition of structures (when comparing 2004 data with 2009
data), caution should be used in drawing conclusions. Since some of the numbers
within structure categories are relatively small, a shift of 4-5 units from a "good" to a
"fair"rating may give the appearance of a large percentage change.
Ten percent of the structures appeared to be vacant (compared to 15% in 2004) and
30 of these 34 vacant structures were commercial/retail buildings.89 In general, there
are a significant number of structures in need of repair. Fifty-three structures (16%)
were rated"deteriorated" to "poor," and 91 (48%) were rated"fair."
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
There were a total of 133 residential structures and 3 more mixed-use structures in
the target area. The vast majority of the residential buildings (115) were single-
family homes primarily located in the north and west of the area. Multi-family
housing tended to be in slightly better condition than single-family housing.
Fifty-five percent of the multi-family structures were rated "good" or better,whereas
46% of single-family structures were rated as high. A total of 62 single-family homes
were rated "fair" to "poor", requiring at least some attention to assure they remain
decent, safe, and sanitary. Among these were 4 single-family homes that required
substantial renovation or possible demolition. The most common issues found in
single-family homes were a need for roof repair or replacement, a need for new
paint, and/or a need for front porch repairs or replacement. In addition, fascia
damage was often found, and exterior surfaces (stucco, siding, and window frames)
were in need of repair.
Of the 18 multi-family residential only structures, 4 (22%) were "fair", and 4 (22%)
were "deteriorated," requiring attention to assure their continued use for housing.
Porch integrity was often cited, along with unsafe balconies, paint issues, roof
problems,and door and window frames in need of repair.
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL BUILDINGS
891t is likely that the actual number of vacancies is higher as observable vacancies tend to be
conservative estimates.
73
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
The commercial buildings tended to be in significantly better condition than the
residential structures. A total of 204 commercial/retail structures were observed in
the target area. Sixty-six (32%) were found to be in "excellent" condition and there
was evidence of recent upgrading of buildings, both in a superficial (painting,
awnings, etc.) and substantial way (renovation and major repair). Another 67 (33%)
were in good condition. One-quarter of all units were in "fair" condition, and 10%
were in"deteriorated" to"poor" condition. Vacant structures were in approximately
the same condition as those that were occupied — several banks and other large
businesses were vacant. The most commonly cited defects were foundation and
siding cracking and settling, door and window frame damage (or lacking protective
paint), and deteriorated paint surfaces.
Richland Housing Surveys
The 2004 Survey also included several neighborhoods in Richland. This a�ea was re-
surveyed in July 2008 by an intern to City of Richland using a 3 point scale to rate
housing condition in a more confined area of the City.
The results of the 2004 survey follow:
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE 2004 SURVEY
Four neighborhoods were included in the survey: three predominately residential
neighborhoods near downtown Richland, and one mixed-use neighborhood in East
Richland near the Columbia River (the Wye/Island View Neighborhood). 370 of
almost 1,500 residential structures in the neighborhood were surveyed.
In general,most housing in the three neighborhoods in the central Richland area was
found in reasonably good condition. The survey found only one building that had
deteriorated beyond rehabilitation. Over one-half of all structures were categorized
as in "excellent" condition. Approximately 20% of the units fell into "fair" to
"deteriorated" condition. It is estimated that there are approximately 304 properties
within the four neighborhoods that need attention (with ratings of deteriorated to
poor); there was a somewhat higher percentage of multi-family structures (25%) in
need relative to single-family homes (20%).
DAVENPORT-GOETHALS-ABBOT-GEORGE WASHINGTON
This was the largest of the four neighborhoods, containing approximately 740
structures. Of the three central Richland neighborhoods, this neighborhood
contained a larger number of structures needing attention. While just over one-half
of the structures were in "excellent" condition, a significant number of homes fell
into the "fair" to "deteriorated" categories (24 1/4). Approximately 140 single-family
residential structures and about 40 duplexes/triplexes were in this category. Siding
problems, roof repair/replacement, porch repairs, and paint were the most frequent
conditions noted.
PUTNAM-WRIGHT-S W IFT-SANFORD
74
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
This relatively small neighborhood of approximately 150 residences is in generally
good condition, demonstrating the positive signs of pride in ownership. 55% of all
structures were categorized as being in "excellent" condition. Porches and roofs
were the most often referenced conditions. Paint and siding problems were also
found. About 20 structures fell in the categories as needing treatment but only one
structure in the survey was determined to be in"deteriorated" condition.
WRIGHT-THAYER-LEE
Housing in this neighborhood was in the best condition among all areas surveyed.
Almost 2/3 of all structures (63%) were found in "excellent" condition and needing
no attention. Recent work on a significant number of homes was evident. New
roofs,new siding, and recent repairs were evident.
WYE/ISLAND VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD
The Wye Neighborhood is located on a large expanse of land near the confluence of
the Yakima and Columbia Rivers. There are over 130 residential structures of three
or less units in the area. Most of the homes need considerable work and only 12%
were considered to be in "excellent" condition. Fifty-eight percent of the residential
structures were rated"fair" or lower. The majority of homes require work on several
components in order to remain decent and safe housing.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE 2008 SURVEY OF CENTRAL RICHLAND
The 2008 survey concentrated on the areas surrounding the downtown core. A total
of 6,000 structures were surveyed. The general boundaries were from the river to
the By-Pass Highway and I-182 to Saint Street. The three-point scale used is not
comparable with the 5-point scale system in the 2004 survey, so direct comparisons
are not possible.
The survey concluded that today's housing conditions reflect the quality of the
original construction and are perhaps influenced by other factors. The factors
affecting the condition of housing appear to be the quality of the original housing
stock, the presence or lack of curb/gutter/sidewalks, the proximity/distance to parks
and schools and the neighborhood income, poverty and foreclosures rate. The best
maintained homes were the "executive housing" constructed near the Columbia
River while the prefab homes in the neighborhoods away from the River tended to
have more cases of"fair" to "poor" housing. Three neighborhoods were found to
have significant"fair" to "poor"ratings:
• Torbett-Stevens-Williams-Wright-Symons-Perkins
• Williams-Thayer-Sanford-Wright
Benham-George Washington Way-Abbot-Goethals
LEAD-BASED PAINT AND LEAD HAZARDS
75
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 seeks to identify
and mitigate sources of lead in the home. A high level of lead in the blood is
particularly toxic to children age six and younger. Lead can damage the central
nervous system, cause mental retardation, convulsions, and sometimes death. Even
low levels of lead can result in lowered intelligence, reading and learning disabilities,
decreased attention span,hyperactivity,and aggressive behavior.
A leading source of lead in the home is painted surfaces. Deteriorating paint, friction
in sliding windows, lead on impact surfaces, as well as unsafe renovation practices,
can all result in the accumulation of dust in the house and lead in the soil.
Unfortunately lead contamination can also be found in some water pipes,generally in
the soldering materials used in early infrastructure systems. That method of
contamination is not subject to HUD residential issues so is not reported;here. It is
generally the responsibility of communities to review the potential in their'own water
systems and make decisions in concert with engineers and other experts on utility
systems.
The presence of deteriorating paint, lead-contaminated dust, and/or bare, lead-
contaminated soil can result in significant lead-based paint hazards." According to a
1999 national survey of homes, 27% of all homes in the United States had significant
lead-based paint (LBP) hazards.' The national survey found that location in the
country was a factor in the probability of hazards. Significant LBP hazards are more
prevalent in the northeast (43%) than in the west (19%).
Age of housing is also an important matter, and is commonly used to estimate the
risk of significant hazards in the home. Lead was banned from residential paint in
1978. The 1999 national survey found that 67% of housing built before 1940 had
significant LBP hazards. This declined to 51% of houses built between 1940 and
1959, 10% of houses built between 1960 and 1977,and just 1%after that.
The table below shows the number of housing units by date of construction as of the
2000 Census, and an estimate of the percentages of possible LBP hazards. The
estimates derived in this table may be high because they are based on national
averages,and the incidence of lead-based paint hazards is lower in the west.
Richland, with the largest stock of older units will have a greater incidence of the
potential for lead-based paint problems. However, Richland's older housing stock is
generally in better condition than that of Pasco, in particular. Kennewick is
somewhat in the middle, with some older homes, particularly in its lower income
neighborhoods that have the potential for unidentified lead hazards. Given the local
cost of inspection of units for lead, Pasco's target homes, particularly those occupied
by lower income renters and owners are not likely to have been rehabilitated and
90 HUD Lead Safe Housing Rule(24 CFR 35).
91 Clickner, Robert et al. (2001) National Survey of Lead Allergens in Housing, Final Report,
Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Report to Office of Lead Hazard Control, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
76
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
cleared of lead-based paint hazards. Despite the varied incidence of lead-potential
housing age as well as condition, the Tri-Cities has proposed a regional approach to
ensure that area owner/occupants and renters have access to information about the
potential for hazards, identification of lead-based paint conditions, and ways to
address the hazards. This plan includes regional strategies and objectives in the
Strategic Action Plan for reducing lead based paint hazards in local housing.
Table 31
Age of Housing and Estimates of Presence of Lead-Based Paint by
Income Level, 2000
Year Built Total #of units %of Units
Income Group Before 1940- 1960- with LBP with LBP
1940 1959 1979 Units Hazards Hazards
Kennewick
All Housing Units 413 3,935 10,595 14,943 2,390 16%
Owner Occupied
with inhabitants
below poverty level 19 110 275 404 72 18%
Renter Occupied
with inhabitants
below poverty level 37 223 941 1,201 148 12%
Pasco
All Housing Units 473 2,965 4,396 7,834 1,873 24%
Owner Occupied
with inhabitants
below poverty level 17 144 149 310 86 28%
Renter Occupied
with inhabitants
below poverty level 84 377 820 1,281 257 20%
Richland
All Housing Units 135 6,371 6,069 12,575 3,400 27%
Owner Occupied
with inhabitants
below poverty level 0 172 103 275 89 32%
Renter Occupied
with inhabitants
below poverty level 1 0 271 1 364 635 142 22%
Source: US Census 2000;Clickner et al.
The Environmental Health Division of the Benton and Franklin Health District has
responsibility for responding to lead based health cases and works in conjunction
with the Preventative Health Division when a case has been reported. While cases
have been relatively rare, when reported, it appears that the elevated lead levels in
children often are from children who have moved into the area from other
communities. A potential source of lead in the Tri-Cities area other than lead based
paint use in older homes is from pesticides that were used in older orchards.
77
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing affordability is defined as housing costs which are below 30% of the
household income. In most communities of the state a significant percentage of the
households are living with housing costs exceeding 30% of their income. However,
the Tri-Cities area enjoys one of the highest affordability indices in the State. Benton
County has the second highest index in the State, meaning housing in only one other
county is more affordable 92. Franklin County is the 7`h ranked county among the 39
in the State. In spite of the relatively affordable housing stock, there are population
groups in the Tri-Cities that are unable to afford available housing.
A more detailed analysis of data on housing affordability related to specific
households is compiled in the HUD CHAS Tables from US Census data only every
ten years. The most current data (see HUD CHAS Tables found in the Appendix)
provide data that describe year 2000 affordability and housing-cost burden
conditions for owners and renters. They provide a wealth of information on various
categories of households with levels of income indicating which are cost-burdened.
The Tables indicate the great difficulty households at the lowest income levels,
particularly extremely low- (households at 30% of MFI) and low- (50oro of MFI)
incomes have in finding affordable housing. The disposable income available to
these households to pay for housing and other living costs is inadequate; and a large
majority pay far more 30% of their income for housing.
Owners are generally considered cost burdened when they pay more than 30% of
their monthly income for principal, interest, property taxes, insurance and basic
utilities. According to HUD CHAS data, 61.5% of extremely low-income
homeowners in the Tri-Cities in 2000 were cost burdened.
Renters are considered cost burdened when their rent plus basic utilities exceeds
30% of monthly income. A total of 53% of Tri-Cities renter households that have
incomes of less than 50% of median income, are paying more than 30% of their
income for rental housing. The corresponding percentages for the individual cities
are: Richland (54 0/o), Kennewick (53%) and Pasco (50%).
The problem is even more severe for large families with limited income. A total of
84.2% of families with five or more members who are extremely low-income renters
(less than 30% of median area income) were cost burdened in 2000. In addition,
when overcrowding is considered with this group, over 98% have "housing
problems" (defined as cost burdened and/or overcrowded). Surprisingly, in each of
the three cities, the largest percentage of cost-burdened households was households
of 2-4 persons. This suggests a critical need for affordable two- to three-bedroom
rental housing units.
92 The Housing Affordability Index, Washington Center for Real Estate Research, First Quarter
2009.
78
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Table 32
Low-Income Ranges and Affordable Housing Costs,
Tri-Cities MSA, 2009
Definition Percent of AMI Income Limit Maximum Monthly
Housing Costs
Extremely low income to 30%of AMI $19,400 $486
Very low income to 50%of AMI $32,400 $810
Other low income to 80%of AMI 1 $51,840 1 $1,296
Notes:Estimated AMI(Area Median Income)for the Tri-Cities MSA was$64,800 in 2009.
Source:National Low Income Housing Coalition,Out o Beach,2009.
In the first quarter of 2009, the Housing Affordability Index (HAI) was 193.7 in
Benton County and 152.2 in Franklin County. By contrast, statewide the HAI was
125.5, suggesting that the Tri-Cities area is currently more affordable than the state
as a whole." However, the lower-income population in the Tri-Cities is still finding
it difficult to afford housing. In Franklin County, for instance, the HAI for first-time
homeowners was much lower, at 99.7.
Table 33
Housing Costs, 2007
Type of Cost Benton County Franklin County Washington
Median Value, $162,700 $140,800 $300,800
Owner Occupied
Median Owner Costs
$1,296 $1,215 $1,675
With Mortgage
Median Owner Costs $396 $410 $453
Not Mortgaged
Median Gross Rent $681 $609 $816
Selected Owner Costs,
With Mortgage, 28% 28% 41%
30%or more of income
Selected Owner Costs,
Not Mortgaged, 11% 11% 14%
30%or more of income
Selected Renter Costs, 46% 39% 47%
30%or more of income
Source: American Community Survey,2007
The data in the table above show that housing in the Tri-Cities is expensive but still
well below the state median home values and median gross rents. However, 46% of
Benton County renters and 28% of homeowners with a mortgage were paying 30%
93 The Housing Affordability Index, Washington Center for Real Estate Research, First Quarter
2009. The Index measures the ability of a middle-income family to carry the mortgage payments
on a median price home. When the index is 100 there is a balance between the family's ability to
pay and the cost. Higher indexes indicate housing is more affordable.
79
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
or more of their income for housing costs in 2007. Similarly, 28% of Franklin
County homeowners with a mortgage and 39% of renters were paying 30%o or more
of their income.94 Rental assistance and buyer assistance would help at all levels of
lower-income housing to make existing units more affordable.
Persons with disabilities often have Social Security Income (SSI) as their sole source
of income and thus have a great deal of difficulty finding housing they can afford.
Based on the SSI payment of$683/month in 2008, a disabled Tri-Cities renter would
have to pay 73.6% of their benefit for an efficiency apartment95. If SSI represents an
individual's sole source of income, only $202 in monthly rent is affordable. This
example is the most drastic along the housing need continuum, but it illustrates the
necessity of affordability for lower-income households. It also demonstrates that
some lower-income persons cannot obtain decent safe and sanitary housing without
assistance.
Table 34
Renter Housing Costs and Income for Tri-Cities MSA, 2009
Number of Bedrooms
Housing/Income Factor Zero One Two Three Four
Fair Market Rent(FMR)* $503 $548 $688 $930 $1,102
Income needed to afford $20,120 $21,920 $27,520 $37,200 $44,080
Hourly wage required to afford
$9.67 $10.54 $13.23 $17.88 $21.19
(working 40 hours/week
Hours per week at minimum wage 45 49 62 84 99
$8.55 in Washington)
*HUD FY2009 Fair Market Rents.
Source:National Low Income Housing Coalition,Out of Reach 2009
A report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition reveals major problems in
affordability for area renters. To be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the
HUD-established Fair Market Rents, the amount of annual income needed by a
family of four in the Tri-Cities is $27,520. Using this as a base, only 61% of the
households in the area have sufficient incomes to afford an apartment. A wage
earner working 40 hours per week would have to earn $12.17 an hour (much higher
than the Washington State minimum wage of $8.55) to afford to pay the rent and
utilities.96
Table 35
Tri-Cities Residential Housing Sales, 2009
Month I Active I Total Sold I Average Median Homes
94 American Community Survey,2007.
95 Priced Out - The Housing Crisis for Persons with Disabilities, the Technical Assistance
Collaborative,4/09.
96 National Low Income Housing Coalition; Out of Reach,2009.
80
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Listings Sale Price Sale Price Under
Contract
January 1,205 127 $186,100 $165,000 134
February 1,222 132 $178,800 $163,700 145
March 1,249 178 $178,500 $153,500 179
April 1,228 191 $178,500 $156,800 222
May 1,052* 260 $188,500 $163,300 426**
June 1,040* 266 $200,000 $171,000 420**
Source:Tri-City Association of Realtors,July 2009
*Counting methods changed in May,reducing the number of active listings.
**Includes propelties that went under contract and sold in the same month.
In July 2009, 266 homes were sold in the Tri-Cities, down 31% from July 2006. The
median sale price was $171,000 in July 2009, down from $185,200 in July 2006.97
Between 2006 and 2008, the number of residential housing permits in Kennewick
decreased by 172%,in Pasco they decreased by 83%, and in Richland they decreased
by 38%.J8
More importantly, the permit data reveals that since 2006 there has been very limited
construction of multi-family housing in the area. This limits housing choices,
particularly for new families and lower income households, because the more
affordable units are generally multi-family units.
A major impact on housing resources over the next three years will be a large, but
short-term, influx in the population as a result of new jobs created from massive
federal funding dedicated to expedite the Hanford cleanup under the national
economic recovery program. This influx will pose great pressure on the multi-family
housing market and upward pressures on rents.
i
i
Table 36
Tri-Cities Residential Building Permits, 2000-2009
Type of Units 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*
Kennewick
Units in Single- 267 331 403 328 384 413 316 209
Family Structures 104 26
Units in All Multi- 0 10 216 8 43 114 10 23 16 25
Family Structures
Total Units 267 341 619 336 427 527 326 232 120 31
Pasco
Units in Single-
Family Structures 228 380 738 871 1,031 1,008 729 518 398 85
�
Units in All Multi-
0 0 2 204 724 168 0 0 0 0
Family Structures
Total Units 228 380 740 1,075 1,755 1,176 729 518 398 85
I
97 Tri-City Association of Realtors,June 2009.
98 HUD State of the Cities, Permit Database,July 2009.
I
81
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
Richland
Units in Single- 231 383 378 321 296 340 318 296 227 48
Family Structures
Units in All Multi- 46 154 110 93 280 0 0 176 3 20
Family Structures
Total Units 277 537 488 414 576 340 318 472 230 68
Source: State of the Cities Data Systems(SOCDS)Permit Database,socds.huduser.org.
*As of May 2009
The Tri-Cities has not been totally insulated from the economic recession as noted
by the decreased sales in single-family homes. While the housing market in the
region has experienced a decline in both single-family sales and values, these
decreases have been much less than statewide and national declines. Nonetheless,in
just one year, the number of home sales in Benton and Franklin Counties decreased
by nearly one-fourth between e Quarter 2007 and 2008.99
Table 37
Existing Home Sales (Seasonally Adjusted), 2007-2008
Location 07:Q2 07:Q3 07:Q4 08:Q1 08:Q2 08:Q3 08:Q4 C ange
Last tr Year ago
Benton County 3,990 3,940 3,550 3,340 3,390 3,260 2,710 -16.9%i -23.7%
Franklin County 820 810 730 690 700 670 560 -16.4% -23.3%
Washington 130,780 115,090 101,230 97,730 89,720 85,210 71,730 -15.8%' -29.1%
Source: Washington Center for Real Estate Research,March 2009
In the first quarter of 2009, the Benton-Franklin market had a median resale price of
$159,400 (down 1.8% from the year before) in the first quarter of 2009.100
The table below demonstrates how difficult it is for the lowest-income households
(i.e., those living in poverty) to budget for daily expenses. The source of these data is
an analysis of national costs and expenditures prepared by the Catholic Campaign for
Human Development.101 It can be used for illustrative purposes here, but care
should be taken in applying this information directly to conditions in the Tri-Cities
where many of these costs may be less. The budget starts with an annual income of
$20,614 per year, a national figure for a household of four living in poverty in 2007.
As the table shows, families living in poverty have insufficient income to meet their
daily living expenses.
Table 38
Budgeting for Poverty in the United States, 2007
99 Washington Center for Real Estate Research, March 2009.
100 Washington Center for Real Estate Research, March 2009. Housing Affordability Index
measures the ability of a middle-income family to carry the mortgage payments on a median price
home. When the index is 100 there is a balance between the family's ability to pay and the cost.
Higher indexes indicate housing is more affordable.
101 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Campaign for Human Development,
www.usccb.org/cchd,20052007.
82
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
Item Source Amount
Annual Income US Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and
(for a family of 4 Economic Supplement,2006. $20,614
living in poverty)
Rent DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures -5,756
Sure ,February 2007 $14,858
Utilities DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures -2 6
Survey,February 2007 $12,202
Transportation DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures -5.330
Surve
y,Februag 2007 $6,872
DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures 4A64
Food Survey, February 2007 (assuming food stamps for the $2,808
majority)
DOL, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures 2,329
Health Care Survey, February 2007 (assumes health insurance through $479
employer)
US Dept. of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and 2.600
Child Care Promotion, Expenditures on Cbildren by Families, April 2007 $-2,121
assumes subsidy of 3/4 of real cost
Source: Catholic Campaign for Human Development, Poverty USA,2007.
The expenditures noted above assume a substantial subsidy in the form of food
stamps and child care, as well as employer-paid health insurance. The list leaves out
toiletries, school supplies, shoes, clothes, holiday gifts, education life insurance,
furnishings,recreation, cleaning supplies, entertainment,birthdays, and so on.
BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Since the beginning of this century the Tri-Cities communities have been very
successful in attracting development of single-family units. Additionally,
infrastructure and facilities have been added to enhance newly developed
neighborhoods and improve existing areas. Pasco has annexed significant parcels of
land specifically to make room for new development, and as it did so it insured
infrastructure was put in place to support the new housing.
Over the past three years, single-family prices have remained relatively steady, falling
only slightly while much of the state faced significant price fallback. In April 2009,
Richland still appeared to have the highest average cost for housing, particularly for
owner-occupied units. Kennewick was the second most expensive.
The purchase price of a home generally serves as the greatest barrier to obtaining
affordable housing in most communities. However, the housing stock of the Tri-
Cities area is one of the most affordable in the state and local HUD-funded housing
programs provide opportunities for lower-income households to become first time
homebuyers. In some cases, the city programs can lower the mortgage payment to
the same level that the household was paying for rent. An on-going study of real
estate trends shows that significant affordable single-family housing is available in the
83
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION III•NEEDS
I
area relative to other communities in Washington.102 In early 2009, Franklin County
was second on the list of 39 counties ranked for affordability in their s1gle-family
housing stock, while Benton County ranked fourteenth. Furthermore, there is
evidence that housing is becoming even more affordable in the Tri-Cities as generally
low mortgage rates and housing prices — which have tended to remain relatively
steady over the past three years—have helped keep sales prices relatively low.
a
The trend over the past three years has been toward steadily increasing affordability:
the affordable housing index for middl —income single-family housing purchasers in
Benton County has risen from 169.7 in the first quarter of 2007, to 175.9 in 2008,
and to 193.7 in 2009.103 The increases in Franklin County have been at a;lightly less
rapid pace: from 127.0 in 2007, to 132.8 in 2008,and finally to 152.2 in 2009.
In terms of housing affordability for first-time homebu rs (purchasers assumed to
be 70% of the median household income), in 2009 Benton County was ranked as the
second most affordable county in the State with an affordability index ofu116.2 and
Franklin County was seventh at 99.7. The statewide index of 73.3 reflects that
housing is relatively less affordable to first-time homebuyers in most other areas of
the state. A barrier to affordable homeownership is the inability of lower-income
households to save enough money to make the down payment and pay closing costs
for home purchase, and this is even more difficult for those households below 70%
of median.
In the multi-family housing market, some of the major factors affecting costs — and
thereby putting upward pressure on rents — are land costs, limited land zoned for
multi-family housing, cost of infrastructure construction, energy costs, and low
vacancy rates. Antiquated building codes can also create cost barriers to new
construction. However, the three cities have updated their codes, having adopted
late versions that were developed by the industry to decrease the impact �f codes on
housing costs.
In the Tri-Cities, while there is still available land that is properly zoned and
reasonably priced in many areas of the region, sites with this combination of
favorable factors are becoming more limited. As we will see below,vacancy rates had
fallen to below 3% early in 2009 while rents had escalated by 8% from 28 to 2009,
d
reflecting a market under pressure. An adequate supply of affordable housing can
relieve that pressure. Given the projected growth rates for the area additional
pressure will be place on the market unless new affordable rental Dousing is
developed.
The vast majority of housing permits in the two-county area have been for single-
family housing, and represented 98% of all residential permits in 2008. Of the three
I
102 Washington State's Housing Market- A Supply/Demand Assessment, Washington Center for
Real Estate Research,April 2009.
103 An index of 100 is considered to be"balanced"in terms of the ability of the family to pay and the
cost. A rate of more tha100 indicates the housing is more affordable.
84
PF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CAI A PDFCompressor
i-- X z
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II •NEEDS
communities, Richland has recently been developing the largest number of multi-
family units in the area. Since 2005, no multi-family permits have been issued in
Pasco. Rental housing is relatively less expensive than single-family housing — yet
households at the lower income levels (50% of median income or less) are typically
already priced out of the single-family homeowner market and face limited
opportunities without receiving some type of financial assistance. Given the
significant low-income population in the Tri-Cities (particularly in Pasco), its high
growth rate, and low production levels of new rental housing, very low-income
families and individuals — plus large families requiring several bedrooms — face
significant challenges in obtaining adequate housing they can afford.
Another group with limited choices includes the elderly and persons with disabilities.
With limited choices of affordable assisted- and independent-living units, members
of this group (particularly those in the lower income brackets) face difficulty in
obtaining affordable housing. Given the numbers and percentages of elderly with
housing cost burdens, there may be an insufficient range or number of units that
address their needs.
Providing a sufficient supply of housing that meets these special needs will help
prevent escalation of rents for these groups. Governmental assistance will be
necessary to bring their housing costs into affordable ranges. The limited amount of
funds available from the HOME and CDBG entitlements limits the potential for
impacting the need for affordable housing. In 2008 and 2009, state-generated
funding from the Housing Trust Fund and from the "2060" Revenues has reduced
the ability of the cities and developers to leverage HUD funds for new rental
housing. Currently state and federal low-income housing tax credit programs have
criteria that encourage larger developments. Without access to leveraged state funds,
affordable housing development for renters will generally be limited to a few small
multi-family projects.
VACANCY RATES
In March 2009, apartment rental costs in Benton and Franklin Counties had risen to
an average of$656, reflecting an annual rental rate increase of 8% since March 2008.
Vacancy rates in the Benton-Franklin market region have been low in recent years, as
shown in the table below. Between March 2008 and 2009, the vacancy rate fell from
4.2% to 2.9%. In contrast, the statewide vacancy rate rose from 4.1% to 6.3%
during the same period.104 Generally, vacancy rates of approximately 5% are
considered in the industry to reflect a balanced housing market; and rates of 3% or
lower place upward pressure on rental rates.
Table 39
II
104 Washington Center for Real Estate Research,Washington Apartment Market, March 2009.
85
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II • NEEDS
1k
Apartment Costs and Vacancy Rates, Benton-Franklin Market, Spring
2009
Type of Unit Average Average Vacancy Rate
Size Rent
One-Bedroom Units 705 $578 3.4%
Two-Bedroom Units 886 $644 2.9%
Overall Apartment Nfarket 842 $656 2.9%
Source:Washington Center for Real Estate Research,Washington Apartment Market,March
2009.
The total housing inventory of Benton County homes was 64,772 in 2007 up 14.6%
from 2000. In Franklin County, there were 23,121 homes in 2007, up 41.9% since
2000. By contrast, the state housing inventory as a whole grew by just 13.1%
between 2000 and 2007. In Benton and Franklin Counties, 1,436 homes were
available for sale in 2007 (in 2008, there were 1,421 homes for sale, down 11% from
the year before). In December 2008, 7.4% of the housing market was vat in the
Benton-Franklin market.105
Review of the 2003 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Aggregate Report for
Richland, Kennewick, Pasco MSA demonstrates that minority populations of
ethnic/racial persons are relatively less successful than Caucasian persons at
accessing certain types of mortgage financing. The information did not provide
enough data to determine if a pattern of racial discrimination is evident i e rtain
racial/ethnic households were not economically qualified.
HMDA data does not take into consideration the variable in a community such as
the lack of buyer counseling, budgeting programs, and debt managemeit that can
help a lower-income household of any race become more competitive on mortgage
applications. All three communities want to encourage ownership among all races
and ethnicities, and accordingly will review their program materials to ensure that
standard and specialized (e.g. longer term assistance for buyers at risk) homebuyer
counseling and special programs are integrated into buyer assistance91programs.
Additionally the income differential between Caucasians and persons of minority
racial/ethnic origins creates a financial barrier to obtaining affordable hosing. The
creation of gainful employment opportunities for former agricultural workers and
service-industry workers would make the biggest difference in opening up access to a
variety of affordable housing options.
PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND PLANS
There are three public housing authorities serving the needs of low-moderate income
households in the region. The cities will continue to encourage a
105 Washington Center For Real Estate Research, Washington State's Housing Market: A
Supply/Demand Assessment,4th Quarter 2008, February 2009.
86
compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVI PDFCompressor
I — W___W –
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION II•NEEDS
working relationship with the local housing authorities to ensure the best use of
limited resources.
87
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
i
SPECIAL NEEDS
POPULATIONS
i
THE NEEDS OF HOMELESS PERSONS
EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness is clearly a major issue in the Tri-Cities. In January 2009, a one day
count of the homeless found 474 homeless persons meeting the definition of
"homeless" in the two-county area, including 308 households. Another 219
individuals, including 117 households, were precariously housed (temporarily living
with friends or family, doubled up, or "couch surfing"). This latter group tends to
become tomorrow's homeless, as they are at high risk of being forced to exit to the
streets.
While shelters and transitional facilities of the community were able to temporarily
house the vast majority of homeless persons on that day, 35 households representing
51 individuals were found out of doors or staying in a vehicle. The other homeless
counted were staying in shelters (119 persons), transitional housing (211 persons) or
were temporarily in jail but with no place identified to stay at release (93 persons).
Organizers of the 2009 count stated that, as in previous counts, the numbers of
homeless found on the streets or in vehicles did not fairly reflect the total number of
persons without housing on that one day in winter — they represented a significant
undercount. National studies confirm that one-day counts miss large numbers of
homeless persons.
While more than 50 volunteers from 20 agencies participated in the 2009 homeless
count, they were not able to find all of the homeless in the Tri-Cities area. They
canvassed feeding stations, shelters, libraries, transit stations, truck stops,
employment agencies, county jails, and health clinics. They also visited parks and
other spots in the urbanized area where homeless were seen. They obviously could
not cover all areas of the counties, including areas outside of the cities, and they
could not cover all areas for the full 24 hours. In addition, it is well known that
unaccompanied youth are notoriously difficult to find, and even when found are not
willing to provide any information. It is believed that there are many undocumented
individuals and families that similarly will not identify themselves as homeless and
not speak with canvassers for fear of recrimination. Finally, the count was
88
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
conducted in mid-winter, a time that homeless individuals are "taken in" by the
community and friends because of the harsh weather. Typically, the number of
homeless persons seeking shelter increases in more mild months.
The 2009 homeless count number represented an 8% reduction in the number of
homeless persons counted in 2008 (517), and represents a drop of 36% over the
2007 count (740). Homeless providers cite weather variables, improvements in the
system of care, resources, and improved coordination as reasons for this decline.
While the decline in the number of homeless in the community is a significant
outcome in early 2009, the economic downturn appears to have had a counter effect
as more persons showed up at food banks and shelters. The following chart shows
the long-range trends in the homeless counts for Benton and Franklin Counties.
Table 40
Historical Results of Benton-Franklin Counties
Homeless Counts
Year of Point in Time Count Number of Homeless Individuals Counted
2004 349
2005 483
2006 996
2007 704
2008 517
2009 474
Source:Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee Homeless Count Data Base, une 2009
While the Point in Time Count under-represents the extent of homelessness, it does
illustrate the detail of the "face of homelessness" in the Benton-Franklin area.
Children 18 or under made up over one-third of the homeless. One-third of persons
served in the annual count indicated they had a mental illness and another 26% said
the suffered from drug or alcohol addiction. Fifteen percent said they had co-
occurring disorders, and 20% said they were physically disabled. (Since this was self-
reported, and substance abusers are often careful not to discuss addiction for fear of
loss of benefits or incarceration, the percentage of persons with disabilities from
substance abuse is likely to be higher than what was counted).
CAUSES OF HOMELESSNESS
The causes of homelessness in the Tri-Cities area are varied. Often there are
multiple events and circumstances that lead up to a person or family becoming
homeless. HOME BASE, the Benton Franklin 2006-2015 10 Year Homeless
Housing Plan, outlines the causes of homelessness in the region:
89
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
"The roots of the problem he in the uneven way the economy has dealt with persons
who are economically at risk. ,106 An underlying factor is that low-income persons are
unable to cope with the cost of living in spite of the fact that the area has enjoyed a
strong economic and population growth, expansion of jobs, and significant new
housing construction. Households in poverty are particularly vulnerable to
becoming homelessness. The percentage of households in poverty in the Tri-Cities
exceeds the state standard (ranging from 8% in Richland to 21%in Pasco, compared
to 10% statewide).
Financial instability caused by a lack of living wage jobs, and the impacts of high
housing costs, are major contributing factors leading to homelessness.10' The lack of
adequate income has a major impact on the ability of families and individuals to cope
with adversity. The cost of housing places a severe burden on those with limited
incomes. In 2009, a household consisting of two adults and two children would need
to have an income of$27,520 to be able to afford to rent a two-bedroom°unit at the
current Fair Market Rents (in other words, they would be able to pay less than 30%
of MHI for housing).10' Looked at another way, the same worker employed at state
minimum wages would have to work 62 hours a week to afford rent on a two-
bedroom unit. Thirty-nine percent of all renters in the two-county area are unable to
meet the affordability standard. This means that many households are forced to pay
far more than 30% of their income for housing, leaving little for other necessities
and emergencies.
The Benton and Franklin Counties Continuum of Care found that among the other
significant homelessness factors was disability (particularly due to mental illness or
chronic substance abuse). A total of 32% of those surveyed indicated they suffered
from mental illness.109 Family dysfunction was frequently cited, including domestic
violence and parent-child conflicts. Also,many who are new to the area and without
a job are unable to rent housing due to limited funds or poor rental history. Still
others suffer from minor psychological or social dysfunction, which makes it very
difficult to hold a job let alone maintain a livable wage. In the current economic
conditions, this results in an inability to compete for the few new jobs available.
More often than not, homeless persons suffer from a range of these difficulties.
The loss of a job, a family break-up, and illness or drug abuse are often the
precipitating event leading to homelessness.
As the table below indicates, the most often cited causes of homelessness reported
by persons interviewed during the Point-in-Time count were mental illness and a loss
of employment.
106 HOME BASE—A Continuum of Care System for Benton and Franklin Counties,2006
10'HOME BASE—A Continuum of Care System for Benton and Franklin Counties,2006
108 Out of Reach,The National Low Income Housing Coalition,2009
109 Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee,2009 Point in Time Count data,June 2009
90
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Table 41
Situations Causing Homelessness — Number Cited by Homeless
Persons, 2009
Situation Cited Number of Homeless
Citing Cause
Loss of job 119
Mental Illness 113
-Drug or Alcohol Use 81
Unable to Pay Rent/Mortgage 76
Family Break-up 75
Source: 2009 Point in Time Count,Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee,
June 2009
CRITICAL NEEDS OF THE HOMELESS
An underlying critical need of homeless persons is housing or shelter. However,
housing alone will not return many homeless persons to self-sufficiency without the
appropriate type of services. A strong case management component is critical for
assuring the progress of the homeless person or family. The Network has outlined
the following major needs of the homeless in its 2006-15 Benton-Franklin Ten-Year
Homeless Housing Plan:
• Many homeless, including transients, need shelter and food for a
minimum period of time.
• For persons in crisis, their need for respite beds (there are only 3 crisis
beds in the 2-county area) and crisis counseling is immediate.
• Domestic violence victims need immediate, secure housing.
• Persons coming out of detox or substance abuse rehabilitation need
longer-term transitional housing and services.
• For others who are homeless but continue to actively abuse substances,
there is little or no housing available.
• Many youth are in need of respite care and shelter.
i
I
• For many adults, such as the seriously mentally ill, permanent housing
with an accompanying service component is the only appropriate answer
to their needs.
• The persons with developmental disabilities and persons with HIV /
AIDS need long-term housing with supporting services.
91
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
• Families with children will need childcare so that the adult can receive
counseling and services such as job training; after obtaining work, they
will need childcare.
• Life skills training and basic education are particularly important for
youth and adults alike. They also are usually in need of skills training,
including budgeting and financial management.
• While the needs of homeless persons who are unwilling to seek out (or
refuse) services may be acute, the primary need simply may be to assure
that they are protected from harm by providing food and clothing, and
assuring they are monitored during severe weather.
In open meetings discussing community needs in 2007, homeless providers indicated
that there was a major need in the Tri-Cities for a Crisis Response Center that would
provide immediate stabilizing services and counseling for homeless persons in crisis.
Affordable housing continues to be a major problem. The number of individuals and
families that are a paycheck away from homelessness is increasing.y' One-half of
lower-income households in the two counties pay more than 30% for their income
for rent, and a homeless person with little or no income from employment can little
afford to pay for housing.
Low-income persons, the homeless, and persons in crisis typically are unable to meet
housing costs. Often the final event causing homelessness is the inability to pay rent,
which leads to eviction. But the lack of housing affordability is multi-faceted. As
noted earlier, the loss of jobs is an increasingly greater event leading to eviction.
Once evicted, people have difficulty qualifying for adequate housing (even if they
could afford it), due to the cost and results of credit checks/housing references
required as move-in costs by prospective landlords. Finally, even if a homeless
person in transitional housing "graduates" and is otherwise ready for permanent
housing, rentals are still not affordable because monthly rents are outside of their
means or initial rent/security deposit requirements are higher than they can afford.
HOMELESS HOUSING RESOURCES
A variety of housing options are available to assist the homeless in the Tri-Cities;
however, the mix of housing for the homeless is not sufficient to meet current needs.
The following chart indicates the populations served by existing homeless projects.
There are currently no youth shelters in the area, no transitional housing for youth,
and no shelters for families in general. Resources for male heads of households with
children are lacking as well. Further, there are insufficient transitional units to meet
the needs of homeless persons who are victims of domestic violence. Finally, given
70 HOME BASE,A Continuum of Care System for Benton&Franklin Counties-Ten Year Homeless
Housing Plan 2006-15,2006
92
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV- SPECIAL NEEDS
the significant needs and the lack of turnover, permanent supportive housing for
disabled homeless persons is needed, particularly for those with serious mental
illness.
Table 42
Year Round Homeless Housing Resources, June 2008
Provider Agency Target Populations Family Individual Total
Beds Beds Beds
SHELTERS
Union Gospel Mission Sin le Male 54 54
Union Gospel Mission Single Male&Female
with Children 8 8
Union Gospel Mission Single Female 4 4
Benton-Franklin CAC ESAP Single Male&Female
Vouchers with Children 120 120
Benton-Franklin CAC 2163
Vouchers Single Male&Female
with Children 41 41
Domestic Violence Services DV-Single Females with
Confidential House Children 35 - 35
Domestic Violence Services DV-Single Females
Emergency Shelter with Children 36 36
Prosser Jubilee Ministries Single Male&Female
Vouchers with Children 5 5
Shelter Totals 1 84 1 219 303
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Benton-Franklin CAC THOR Families with Children 21 21
Benton-Franklin CAC TBRA Families with Children 192 192
BF DHS Mobiles Single Males&Females 20 20
BF DHS jadwin House Single Males&Females 8 8
Elijah Family Homes Families with Children 26 26
Single Males
Oxford Houses 68 68
Oxford Houses Sin le Females 7 7
Single Households with
Oxford Homes Children 16 16
Bi-County HGAP Single Males&Females 56 56
Bi-County HGAP Families with Children 48 1 48
Transitional Totals 303 1 159 462
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE DISABLED
Benton-Franklin CAC
Bateman House 1 Single Males&Females 18 18
I
Benton-Franklin CAC
Bateman House 2 Single Males&Females 22 22
Single Males&
BF DHS Females 9 9
Benton-Franklin CAC
Home Choices 1 Single Males&Females 35 35
Benton-Franklin CAC
Home Choices 2 Single Males&Females 14 14
Permanent Supportive Housing Totals 0 98 98
Year Round Shelter&Housing Resources 387 476 1 863
93
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Source:Benton-Franklin Counties Point in Time Housing Inventory,May 2008.
PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR HOMELESS
PERSONS
The Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland Housing Authorities provide subsidized units
to low- and moderate-income families and individuals. However, these units are
rarely available to the homeless due to the extensive waiting lists and wait periods for
housing. In addition, there are a number of HUD-subsidized rental units operated
by non-profits and private owners in the area. These apartments are also rarely a
resource for the homeless due to rents beyond affordable ranges for the homeless, or
inability to compete for vacant units due to past evictions or low credit scores. The
private market is also not capable of providing a source of affordable housing for
homeless individuals who are graduating from transitional housing and other
homeless housing.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
Homeless persons require a wide range of services and support to assist them in
gaining self-sufficiency and independence. Case management, which includes
advocacy, mentoring,referral, and other support, is considered the most critical need
within a continuum of services. Case managers can assist homeless persons to
obtain other services in the community that they may need such as counseling, life
skills training, financial assistance, drug abuse treatment, medical assistance, and job
training. The non-profit homeless providers have a wide variety of services to assist
the homeless. However, as noted by the gaps below, due to inadequate resources the
level of service and intensity of services available is often insufficient to assure that
the homeless are supported enough to reach self-sufficiency.
MAJOR GAPS IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF HOUSING &
SERVICES
An analysis of needs and available resources conducted by the Benton-Franklin
Housing Network in 2006 resulted in the identification of the following critical gaps
in the community's Continuum of Care system:
Gaps in Services
• Case management and assessment for all homeless populations, including
goal planning,referral, and advocacy;
• Rental assistance for families with children and single adults.
94
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Gaps in Housing
Transitional housing for all homeless populations with intensive case-managed
services designed to enhance economic stability and self-sufficiency,particularly:
• Transitional housing for families, especially large families
• Transitional housing for single adults
• Transitional housing for domestic violence victims, specifically women
with children
• Youth shelter
• Affordable permanent housing
Gaps in the Systems Serving the Homeless
A centralized client intake, assessment, and referral system is lacking for all homeless
populations. In addition, the analysis also noted the following gaps in the system,
which while not as critical as the major gaps identified above, are important to the
success of the continuum:
• Shelter for all populations,
• Permanent affordable housing for persons who are at 30% or lower of
the median income,
• Affordable child care,
• Dental assistance,
• Rental assistance and mortgage payment for families in crisis,
• Landlord/tenant mediation services,
• Life skills training,
• Transportation assistance,
• Mental health care for persons with mental "health issues" but who are
not clinically diagnosed,and
• Help for elderly and disabled who have Medicare or do not have
insurance to pay for prescription drugs.
95
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
ELDERLY
Generally a person who is 65 years of age or older is referred to as elderly, senior, or
a senior citizen. An elderly household is defined as a person 65 years of age or older
living alone, or a group of more than one person who shares a common dwelling,
and has at least one person in residence 65 years of age or older.
The demographics of the elderly population have changed significantly in the United
State as a whole, as well as in the Tri-Cities. Nationally, since the beginning of the
century the number of persons 65 years and older has increased tenfold; while the
general population has only experienced a twofold increase."' The percentage of Tri-
Cities populations that were elderly in 2000 is provided below.
Table 43
Tri-Cities Elderly Populations, 2000
City Total Elderly Population %of Elderly in General
65+ Population
Kennewick 5,567 10.2°,x'0
Pasco 2,785 8.7%
Richland 4,959 12.8%
Source: US Census 2000
In 2000, the Tri-Cities overall had a slightly higher percentage of elderly than the
United States as a whole (8.4%).72 Data for age differences among the three cities is
discussed earlier in the general population data. However, it is important to note
that in about six years, significant numbers of aging Baby Boomers will push these
numbers much higher than any previous growth percentage (currently at a national
growth rate of about 13% every ten years).
The post-war "Baby Boomers" are just now becoming today's seniors. The first
group of aging boomers is entering the early-mid 60s in 2009. While there is
currently not an accurate updated count of population by age available, the 2000
Census indicated that Kennewick had 2,331 baby boomers (aged 55 to 59 years of
age), Richland had 2,149, and Pasco had 1,028. Since today's Boomers are
considered to be the core community of middle-class consumers, taxpayers, and key
workers, their aging into the normal retirement years may initiate significant
sociological as well as financial transitions in the communities. Most Baby Boomers
will have lower incomes in retirement than they had while in the workforce, less
"' US Census 2000 Special Report: US Census Demographic Trends in the 20th Century
"Z US Census,2000.
96
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
comprehensive (if any) medical insurance, and will have increasing health conditions
typical of elderly persons.
Today's local facilities and resources are insufficient to address this significant
increase in need: independent and assisted-living residential units, medical or nursing
care-based units, and in-home services will all be in great demand. As of the 2000
Census the Tri-Cities had a total of 330 persons in local nursing homes, and another
255 in non-institutional group-living situations. According to these numbers, the
majority of elderly still remain in their own homes or in independent retirement
apartments.
One of the newest phenomena among the elderly is the role of head of household in
a family constellation that includes young children. Grandparents serving as sole
primary caretakers of children less than 18 years of age are a significant demographic
growth area. In the year 2000, Richland had 395 elderly households with minor
children in residence, and in 166 of those grandmothers/grandfathers held primary
responsibility for one or more minor child. Pasco had 941 households with a mix of
elderly and minor children, and of those, 280 households included a grandparent as
primary caretaker of the children. Kennewick had 982 elderly households with
children, and 465 in which the elderly householder was the primary caretaker of
those children. The US Census reports that in the years between the 1990 Census
and a survey completed in 1997, the number of households where a grandparent had
primary responsibility for a minor child increased by 19%. 113
Table 44
Population Over 65 as a Percentage of Total Population,
2000-2030
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Benton County 10% 10% 11% 1 13% 15% 16% 18%
Franklin County 9% 1 8% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9%
Source: Washington Office of Financial Management,Medium Forecast,October 2007
The table above shows a steady increase in population over 65 from 2000 to 2030.
Benton County's elderly population will rise from 10% to 18% during that time.114
In 2007, there were 17,700 people over 65 in Benton County (11% of the total
population), and 5,287 people over 65 in Franklin County (8% of the total
population)."'
During the Consolidated Planning focus groups, nutrition and affordable housing
were identified as priority needs for the Tri-Cities elderly population. Assisted
housing for the elderly, as well as subsidized affordable rental housing and increasing
13 US Census,2000.
114 Washington Office of Financial Management, Medium Forecast,October 2007.
115 American Community Survey,2007.
97
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
ADA accessibility were also noted as priority needs A related issue was the aging of
parent care-givers of children with disabilities,especially developmental disabilities.
FRAIL ELDERLY
Frail elderly are defined as persons over the age of 65 that have significant physical
and cognitive health problems. As people age, their chances of becoming "frail"
increase. Furthermore, as life expectancy rates increase in the US, the elderly
population becomes older. The US population of age 85 and older has been the
fastest population growth of any age group since the beginning of the 20th century.
According to the US Census Special Reports on Elderly, an estimated 9.2% of 65
years olds need help with basic living needs; 11% of 70 to 74 year olds, and more
than 49% over 80 years olds need assistance with everyday activities.176
Data on the actual number of frail elderly is not available; generally related data is
used to create estimates. Census data for disabled persons by age can provide a close
estimate of the number of frail elderly. Pasco has 655 persons over the age of 65
with a disability; Richland has 1,881; and Kennewick has 1,426 persons over 65 with
a disability."' Although not all disabled persons are frail, the number of frail elderly
who consider themselves sick rather than disabled (and accordingly did not report a
disability to the census) probably balances these numbers.
In 2007, 2,334 people over 65 years old had a disability in Franklin County— nearly
half of the total population over 65 (46%), compared to just 12% of the total
population. Similarly, 46% of people over 65 in Benton County had a disability in
2007—7,843 people."'
Frail elderly are more likely to need intensive living and health supports than the
general population of elderly. According to the Census Bureau, 70% of all women
and 53% of all men who live to be 65 will live to the age of 80. Five years later,
almost one-half of all 85 year olds will have severe disabling conditions."' The 2007
American Community Survey found 2,158 people in Benton County and 504 people
in Franklin County who were 85 years and older.
Many frail elderly have difficulty obtaining suitable affordable housing with
supportive services. Among the elderly, the incidence of low income is higher than in
the general population and many of the frail elderly have fixed social-security
incomes. Many are limited to care that can be obtained through Medicaid.
Independent living and in-home support costs force many into group living facilities
and into facilities that have openings for Medicaid-paid care. Medicaid assisting
living and nursing home beds are limited: six facilities between Richland and
116 DSHS Report to WA State Legislature,2002
117 US Census Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)—Sample Data, by City
118 American Community Survey,2007.
119 WA State Department of Health Special Report on Elderly.
98
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Kennewick advertise financially assisted residential care for the elderly or persons
with disabilities.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In 2007, the American Community Survey reported 7,008 people in Franklin County
with a disability (12% of the population). Of those, 1,023 were children ages 5-15,
and 2,334 were over 65 years of age. In Benton County, 23,831 people were living
with a disability (16% of the population). 1,784 were children ages 5-15, and 7,843
were over 65 years of age.
Washington's public schools are required to provide education to children with
disabilities at least to age 21. Educational services range from mainstream standard
classrooms to one-on-one home- or hospital-based tutoring. Once they become
adults, some can qualify for assistance under a variety of programs with the
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (offering assistance in job training and
placement), the Division of Developmental Disabilities, and specialized programs for
persons who are visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing.
As many disabled persons rely on social security supplemental income (the majority
income source within the disabled community), housing for persons with disabilities
is a tremendous affordability problem. As discussed earlier in this document as an
example of cost burden, persons on social security supplemental income can afford
less than $200 a month for rent and utilities (approximately 1/3 of total SSI income).
Without rent assistance, this extremely low-income group of individuals has little
choice but to live in over-crowded or sub-standard units, reside in their parent's or
sibling's homes well into adulthood,couch surf,or become homeless.
Additional needs for the disabled population include help with nutrition and food,
and therapeutic services for mental illness or chemical dependency. Among the
disabled population the incidence of mental illness and alcohol or drug abuse is
higher than among the general public. Reliable transportation, particularly to evening
shift jobs and social events is always a need. Local para-transportation systems
generally cannot provide the individual flexibility that is enjoyed by those with full
mobility and personal transportation.
Focus groups and survey respondents identified assisted living, affordable rental
units, job training, and emergency assistance (shelter, food, medicine) as priority
needs for Tri-Cities residents with disabilities.
99
2010-2014 TIU-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
In 2006-2007, DSHS reported 583 clients in Kennewick, 287 in Richland, and 433 in
Pasco with developmental disabilities-'20
The DSHS Division of Developmental Disabilities, a division of the Aging and
Disability Services Administration (ADSA), provides support services and
opportunities for the personal growth and development of persons with
developmental disabilities resulting from mental retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy,
autism or similar neurological conditions that originated before adulthood. DDD
clients' disabilities are life-long and constitute a substantial handicap to everyday
functioning. Children under age 6 may receive services if they have Downs
Syndrome or have developmental delays of 25% or more below children of the same
age.
121
DDD provides a variety of residential, training, job placements, living skills supports,
and other services to augment what is provided to persons with other types of
physical or mental disabilities. Persons with developmental disabilities ge#erally are
born with one or multiple types of specific disabling conditions, either congenitally
or due to mechanical injuries during birth. Because of these conditions,persons with
developmental disabilities have a significantly lower than "normal" cognitive ability,
and may have severe to mild problems with speech or communication, motor
control, impulse control, or other physical anomalies. The majority of
developmentally disabled persons have multiple disabilities. They may also have
disorders such as mental illness or substance abuse problems. As with the elderly
and those with other types of disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities
have benefited from improvements to medicine, adaptive technologies, and special
therapies.122
Generally as a group developmentally disabled people are living longer, are less likely
to reside in nursing homes and institutions, and are more independent than in years
past. Since the disabled civil rights advancements of the 1970's and ensuing changes
in legislation and programs, DDD clients may exercise choice in residence, job
placement, family planning,and other personal rights issues.
Housing for adult developmentally disabled persons is a severe affordability need.
As with other disabled persons, they most likely live on social security supplemental
income and thus have extremely low incomes. With the advent of de-
institutionalization, which began occurring in the 1970's, most DDD persons live in
community settings within the general population. Adult clients of DDD also pay
120 Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Data Analysis Division, February
5,2009.
121 Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Data Analysis Division, February
5,2009.
122 DSHS Client Services Data Base,7-22-03; DSHS Special Reports on Disabilities 2001.
100
2010-2014 TIU-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
for their own rent, food and transportation, though they may receive other funded
services to pay for other living expenses, skills development, or job training.
Focus groups identified a major concern with the aging parents of children with
developmental disabilities. As parents reach their senior years, they are less able to
continue care-giving. As a consequence, a major cost becomes hiring assistance at a
time when the parent's income and resources are typically declining.
MENTAL ILLNESS
Mental illness ranges from mild and short-term depression to chronic, lifetime
conditions such as schizophrenia. Publicly funded services focus on persons whose
mental illness affects their ability to work and live in the community independently.
Most persons with depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses that can be self-
managed do not reside in institutions. This is largely due to the fact that the major
focus of publicly funded mental health services is on stabilization and avoidance of
institutionalization.
The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services served 1,670
mental services clients in Kennewick in 2006-2007: with 74 cases of inpatient
evaluation and treatment, 35 in cases in state institutions, and 1,664 cases in
community services. In Richland, there were 1,010 clients: 59 inpatient evaluation
and treatment, 20 state institutions, and 1,003 community services. In Pasco, there
were 998 clients: 49 inpatient evaluation and treatment, 25 state institutions,and 991
community services.t '
Focus groups revealed a need for a crisis response center to triage and provide
immediate stabilizing services for persons with mental illness who are found in crisis.
Currently, many people coming out of jails with mental illness or substance abuse
issues do not have housing or financial resources creating a crisis. Both temporary
housing (shelter and transitional) and permanent supportive housing with intensive
services,were described as critical needs. The 2009 homeless count noted that 32%
of the individuals found homeless suffered from mental illness. A total of 54% of
the homeless persons surveyed in the count indicated that "mental illness" was a
reason for them becoming homeless"'
123 Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Research and Data Analysis
Division, February 2009. Note: these numbers do not add up, likely due to an overlap of cases
between programs.
12' 2009 Point in Time Count Review of Findings, Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee,
July 2009.
101
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS
HIV and AIDS are two different conditions: while those who have HIV may not
contract AIDS, everyone with AIDS has already contracted HIV. HIV and AIDS
are spread through blood to blood contact, transfer of body fluids during
unprotected sex, from a pregnant mother to her fetus, or during nursing or birth.121
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the virus that causes AIDS. It invades key
immune system cells, changes them and eventually displaces and/or destroys them,
in ways that science does not yet totally understand.
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is diagnosed into different
categories, based on numeric levels of reduced T-Cell counts as well as the presence
(or history) of different types of diseases.126 The first condition is a low count of an
infected person's CD-4 T-Cells, which area part of everyone's immune system and
create the body's defenses against disease. The second factor that confirms the
presence of AIDS is the existence (or history) of one or more "AIDS Defining
Illnesses". Defining illnesses include a long list of cancers and other serious and
often deadly diseases that gain a stronghold in a body with a suppressed or defective
immune system.
As the disease progresses many persons with HIV and most persons with AIDS
experience temporary or permanent impairment or loss of various physical
functioning. They can have impaired speech, sight, mobility, stamina, physical
strength, mental health, breathing, ability to process nutrients, and ability to
withstand light. They can also experience the failure of major organs, or the ability
to regulate body temperature. Overall, the ability of a person with HIV/AIDS to
care for oneself will generally decline as the disease progresses. In addition,
opportunistic diseases thrive on the failing immune systems of persons with HIV or
AIDS. For example, over 1/3 of HIV-diagnosed persons also have Hepatitis-C
another dangerous, debilitating and contagious disease.127
Environmental and social issues can complicate the individual health of a person
with HIV/AIDS, as well as the potential for that person to transmit the disease to
others. For instance, "people with HIV are more likely to abuse alcohol at some time
during their lives. Alcohol use is associated with high-risk sexual behaviors and
injection drug use, two major modes of HIV transmission".1213 Studies show that
decreasing alcohol use among HIV patients not only reduces the medical and
psychiatric consequences associated with alcohol consumption in those already
125 AIDSMap Web-site, Maintained by the British AIDS Association and the International AIDS
Alliance.
126 US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington State HIV Surveillance Quarterly
Report,April 2009.
127 US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health.
128 Alcohol use in HIV patients by Petry, N.M.: What we don't know may hurt us. International
Journal of STD and AIDS 10(g):561-570, 1999.
102
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•SPECIAL NEEDS
suffering from declining health, but also decreases other drug use and HIV
transmission.129
As of 2008, Benton County had a cumulative history of 115 HIV diagnoses. Of
those, 19 were newly diagnosed between 2003 and 2008. Eighty-five people in
Benton County currently have HIV, and 53 of those people have AIDS. Franklin
County records a total history of 71 persons diagnosed with HIV — 26 of them
diagnosed between 2003 and 2008. Of those currently living, 57 people have HIV
and 34 of them have AIDS.130
Locally the incidence of the diseases is relatively small; however, the disease is
becoming increasingly prevalent in suburban and rural areas. Locally the Benton —
Franklin Health District has developed a Bilingual Outreach Project to educate
migrant farm workers about the risks of contracting HIV/AIDS. A Spanish-
speaking outreach worker provides information at labor camps, English as a second
language classes,jails, and alcohol and drug dependency treatment facilities.73'
The Tri-Cities area has not recently accessed funds from the competitive HUD
Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA). This program, though
monetarily limited, provides grants to assist in development of permanent or
transitional housing for persons with AIDS and their families. The Tri-Cities might
also qualify for some funds through the state's entitlement share of HOPWA, which
provides aid for services such as case management. Additional HUD competitive
multi-family programs can provide for development of affordable (and/or assisted)
units for persons with AIDS as well as other diseases and disabilities. Section 8 rental
assistance programs may also include selection criteria for a "set-aside" of vouchers
for persons with HIV/AIDS and or families with members that have HIV/AIDS.
The needs identified by focus groups and survey respondents for persons with
HIV/AIDS, are similar to those needs identified for disabled persons. They include
help with nutrition and food, and therapeutic services for both mental illness and
chemical dependency. Also identified were needs for assisted living, affordable
rental units,job training,and emergency assistance (shelter, food and medicine).
PERSONS WITH DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCY
The Center for Disease Control uses the following definition for alcoholism:
Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and
environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The
129 Lucas, G.M.; Gebo, K.A.; Chaisson, R.E.; and Moore, R.D. Longitudinal assessment of the
effects of drug and alcohol abuse on HIV-1 treatment outcomes in an urban clinic. AIDS
16(5):767-774,2002.
130 Washington State's HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, September 2004.
131 Washington State Department of Health's Health Education and Resource Exchange.
103
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or
periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug
alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in
thinking,most notably denial.1 '
Alcoholism is associated with numerous health conditions including liver cirrhosis,
pancreatitis, and cancers of the liver, mouth, throat, larynx, and esophagus; high
blood pressure; heart disease; and psychological disorders. Other community, family
and social problems linked to alcoholism include motor vehicle injuries and deaths,
other disabling accidents, domestic violence, rape, divorce, job loss, financial
problems, and child abuse (Naimi, 2003). Withdrawal from long-term dependency
on alcohol can also be dangerous and has been linked to strokes, heart attack or
death for some persons. Excessive ingestion of alcohol, even for early abusers or
first-time users, can cause death.
Drug abuse is generally defined as uncontrollable, compulsive drug seeking and use,
despite negative health and social consequences.13' Drugs that are the object of an
addiction can range from legal prescription medications for pain or physiological
health, to illegal natural or synthetic chemicals, including byproducts 'of natural
plants.
A relatively new drug abuse problem is the proliferation of illegal methamphetamine
labs and the manufacture of the drug by laypersons (addicts), in their homes, motel
rooms, storage units, and automobiles. The problems related to methamphetamine
transcend the addictive problems and dangers to the person who uses it. Because of
its chemistry and the potential for exposure to hazardous contamination, children of
abusers and other non-using family members, police, and the general public are all
put at risk.
The most visible social issues associated with drug abuse are crime, poverty, neglect
and abuse of children, family problems, and the decline of neighborhoods, public
schools and areas associated with heavy drug trafficking and use.
Generally a person with a singular diagnosis of alcoholism or drug addiction
(currently combined into the term; chemical dependency (CD)) is not considered a
candidate for Social Security Disability. To qualify as a disabled person for the
purposes of receiving SSI, an alcoholic or drug addict must have another co-
occurring disabling condition.
Many alcoholics and drug addicts have secondary or co-occurring disorders as a
result of long-term use of chemicals or pre-existing conditions that precipitated the
use of the addicting chemicals. For example, drug addiction can unintentionally
132 CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Alcohol and Public Health.,ASAM,2001.
133 The Essence Of Drug Addiction By Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Director, National Institute Of Drug
Abuse, National Institutes Of Health.
104
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
occur with the use of pain killing medications for very real and painful physical
ailments. Alcoholism can be exacerbated when a person with mental illness seeks
ways to escape the frightening symptoms of their disease. Unfortunately the alcohol
or drug dependency usually worsens physical and mental conditions and provides an
additional debilitating problem.
Most alcoholics and drug addicts do not successfully quit using without intervention,
detoxification and treatment help. Successful treatment programs generally stress
abstinence and significant changes in the person's life style as the only "cure" for the
chemical dependency. Prevention and early intervention are thought to be the best
way to deal with drug or alcohol abuse.
Many treatment programs require aftercare maintenance treatments for the newly
sober/clean, chemically dependent person that includes transitional housing in
alcohol/drug-free environments. Generally these are group-living environments with
in-house case management, after-care therapeutic programs, medical/health
supervision, and on-going help with correcting the damage of a debilitating past
lifestyle and its consequences. Programs offer a range of help: employment training,
debt management, medical/health management and care, behavior modification, and
legal assistance with past-due child support or other civil, criminal, or financial issues.
During 2006-2007, 721 persons received some type of state-funded alcohol/drug-
abuse related services from DSHS in Pasco (including 487 in outpatient treatment
and 80 in residential treatment); 464 in Richland received DSHS treatment (289 in
outpatient treatment and 42 in residential treatment);and 968 in Kennewick received
DSHS treatment (665 in outpatient treatment and 155 in residential treatment). The
type of help ranged from assessment of their alcoholism to residential treatment
programs.
Addictions have been reported as a major cause of homelessness in the Tri-Cities. In
the most recent homeless count, 81 (39%) of the persons found homeless in the Tri-
Cities self-reported alcoholism/drug abuse as the reason for their homelessness.
DSHS estimates 33.1% of Medicaid Disabled, 31.1% of Other Medicaid Adults, and
47.3% of General Assistance-Unemployable (GA-U) clients in need of drug and
alcohol treatment actually received treatment in 2008 in Washington.134
The priority needs for persons with alcoholism and drug addictions is treatment
options and care during detoxification, and post-treatment assistance with
developing a sober/drug-free life. Affordable transitional and permanent housing is
vital, particularly for lower-income chemically dependent persons. The Tri-Cities,
like most communities in Washington and the US, do not have enough assisted
affordable housing to meet the current need, let alone the growing need for post-
134 Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, DASA Treatment Expansion:
Spring 2009 Update.
105
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
recovering chemical dependents. Rental assistance vouchers or development of
group-setting housing units are needed to add to the chances that lower-income
persons exiting treatment remain clean and sober.
Some communities have created so-called "damp" housing units with on-site
supervision and response access for emergencies. These units do not require
sobriety or clean time from drugs as a lease condition. They keep the target
population off the streets, near medical/mental health intervention services, and
provide a degree of day-to-day supervision. It is also considered a possible
connection to treatment over the long-term. For the most part it is a less threatening
environment that can somewhat protect the hardest to reach alcoholic/drug addicts.
At the same time,it protects the community and general public from the damage and
costs suffered from the potentially detrimental lifestyle and ill health of an addict..
HUD's Safe Haven housing program is a funding source for development of such
units.There currently are no Safe Haven units in the Tri-Cities.
Needs beyond housing, both damp and clean and sober units, include access to
treatment, assistance in obtaining Medicaid/Medicare, outreach, and intensive case
management,in addition to the needs identified for other disabled persons.
SPECIAL NEEDS SERVICES
Information on the numbers of special needs individuals in the Tri-Cities are
generally a guesstimate, based on service-related data. If a person does not seek
service and ends up in Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
(DSHS) or other programs, most likely they are not included in the estimates for
special populations. The Table below provides a comprehensive list of area residents
that receive one or more services from the variety of programs sponsored by DSHS,
which has the primary responsibility within the State to serve special needs persons.
The 2007 data below provides the most recent comprehensive list of persons
receiving these services.
Table 45
Residents Receiving DSHS Services — Kennewick, FY2007
All Ages Youth(Ages 0-17) Adults Seniors
Number Use Number Use Number Use Number Use
Served Rate Served Rate Served Rate Served Rate
Aging and Adult 672 1.04% - - 249 0.62% 423 6.15%
Services Total
Adult Family Homes 60 0.09% - - 20 0.05% 40 0.58%
Adult Residential Care 31 0.05% - 1 0.0% 30 0.44%
Assisted Living 81 0.13% - - 16 0.04% 65 0.94%
Comprehensive 493 0.76% - - 198 0.5% 295 4.29%
Assessments
In-Home Services 324 0.5% - - 161 0.4% 163 2.370/,
106
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Nursing Facilities 172 0.27% - - 31 0.08% 141 2.05%
Additional Services 79 0.12% - - 45 0.11% 34 0.49%
Alcohol and Substance 968 1.49% 131 0.73% 835 2.09% 2 0.03%
Abuse Total
ADATSA Assessments 136 0.21% 1 0.01% 135 0.34% 1 - -
Assessments-General 462 0.71% 75 0.42% 386 0.97% 1 0.01%
Detoxification 119 0.18% 2 0.01% 117 0.29% - -
Opiate Substitution 15 0.02% 3 0.02% 12 0.03% - -
Treatment
Outpatient Treatment 665 1.03% 68 0.38% 596 1.49% 1 0.01%
Residential Treatment 155 0.24% 14 0.08% 141 0.35% - -
Additional Services 34 0.05% 24 0.13% 10 0.03% - -
Children's Services 2,627 4.06% 1,278 7.1% 1,280 3.21% 15 0.22%
Total
Adoption and Adoption 339 0.52% 146 0.81% 182 0.46% 4 0.06%
Support
Behavioral Rehabilitation 21 0.03% 21 0.12% - - - -
Services
Child Care Services 101 0.16% 99 0.55% 2 0.01% - -
Child Protective Services 1,729 2.67% 835 4.64% 844 2.12% 9 0.13%
CPS Case Management
Child and Family Welfare
Services Case 528 0.82% 312 1.73% 213 0.53% 1 0.01%
Management
Family Reconciliation 301 0.46% 141 0.78% 148 0.37% 4 0.06%
Services FRS
Family Voluntary
Services Case 85 0.13% 41 0.23% 44 0.11% - -
Management
Family-Focused Services 157 0.24% 76 0.42% 80 0.2% 1 0.01%
Foster Care Placement 153 0.24% 147 0.82% 6 0.02% - -
Services
Foster Care Support 244 0.38% 185 1.03% 59 0.15% - -
Services
Other Intensive Services 22 0.03% 22 0.12% - - - -
Additional Services 7 0.01% 7 0.04% - - - -
Developmental 583 0.9% 276 1.53% 296 0.74% 11 0.16%
Disabilities Total
Case Management 578 0.89% 275 1.53% 292 0.73% 11 0.16%
Community Residential 126 0.19% 3 0.02% 112 0.28% 11 0.16%
Services
County Services 192 0.3% 64 0.36% 123 0.31% 5 0.07%
Family Support Services 119 0.18% 63 0.35% 56 0.14% 3 0.04%
Personal Care Services 184 0.28% 70 0.39% 111 0.28% 2 0.03%
Professional Support 60 0.09% 7 0.04% 51 0.13% - -
Services
RHCs and Nursing o o
Facilities _
3 0.0/o - - 3 0.01/o -
Voluntary Placement- 2 0.0% 1 0.01% 1 0.0% - -
Children
Economic Services 21,057 32.51% 9,064 50.32% 11,576 29.02% 376 5.46%
Total
Basic Food Program 1 12,665 19.55% 1 6,138 134.08% 1 6,248 15.66% 279 4.05%
Child Support Services 1 13,941 21.52% 1 5,886 132.68% 1 7,969 19.98% 45 0.65%
107
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL,NEEDS
Consolidated Emergency 45 0.07% 24 0.13% 21 0.05% - -
Assistance Program
Diversion Cash 149 0.23% 87 0.48% 62 0.16% - -
Assistance
General Assistance 670 1.03% 2 0.01% 641 1.61% 27 0.39%
Refugee Assistance 36 0.06% - - 36 0.09% - -
Refugee and Immigrant 484 0.75% 126 0.7% 325 0.81% 33 0.48%
Services
Supplemental Security 237 0.37% 3 0.02% 62 0.16% 172 2.5%
Income-State
TANF and State Family 4,227 6.53% 2,885 16.02% 1,341 3.36% 1 0.01%
Assistance
Working Connections 3,358 5.18% 2,172 12.06% 1,186 2.97% - -
Child Care
Additional Services 437 0.67% 2 0.01% 434 1.09% 1 0.01%
Juvenile Rehabilitation 41 0.06% 30 0.17% 11 0.03% - -
Total
Community Placements 5 0.01% 4 0.02% 1 0.0% - -
Dispositional 13 0.02% 9 0.05% 4 0.01% - -
Alternatives
Functional Family Parole 18 0.03% 12 0.07% 6 0.02% - -
Institutions,Youth
Camps,and Basic 20 0.03% 17 0.09% 3 0.01% - -
Training
Medical Assistance 18,270 28.2% 10,681 59.3% 6,837 17.14% °
Total 952 10.93/o
Dental Services 6,704 10.35% 4,657 25.86% 1,905 4.78% 142 2.06%
Hospital Inpatient Care 786 1.21% 141 0.78% 570 1.43% 75 1.09%
Hospital Outpatient Care 4,253 6.57% 1,370 7.61% 2,547 6.39% 336 4.88%
Managed Health Care 12,356 19.07% 8,773 48.71% 3,537 8.87% 46 0.67%
Payments
Medically Eligible Clients 17,148 26.47% 10,189 56.57% 6,212 15.57% 747 10.85%
I'19
Medically Eligible Clients 1,595 2.46% 630 3.5% 960 2.41% 5 0.07%
not T19
Other Medical Services 9,400 14.51% 4,850 26.93% 4,037 10.12% 513 7.45%
Physician Services 6,465 9.98% 2,788 15.48% 3,297 8.27% 380 5.52%
Prescription Drugs 5,973 9.22% 2,168 12.04% 3,407 8.54% 398 5.78%
Mental Health Services
Total 1,670 2.58% 481 2.67% 1,144 2.870/6 45 0.65%
Childrens Long Term
Inpatient Program 2 0.0% 2 0.01% - - - -
CLIP
Community Inpatient
Evaluation and 74 0.11% 12 0.07% 61 0.15% 1 0.01%
Treatment
Community Services 1,664 2.57% 481 2.67% 1,138 2.85% 45 0.65%
State Institutions 35 0.05% 1 0.01% 33 0.08% 1 0.01%
Vocational 481 0.74% 4 0.02% 474 1.19% 3 0.04%
Rehabilitation Total
Medical and 3 0.0% - - 3 0.01% - -
Psychological Services
Placement Support 21 0.03% - - 21 0.05% -
Support Services 31 0.05% - - 31 0.08% - -
Training,Education,and 16 0.02% - - 15 0.04% 1 0.0]
108
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Supplies
Vocational Rehabilitation 481 0.74% 4 0.02% 474 1.19% 3 0.04%
Case Management
Vocational Assessments 61 0.09% 2 0.01% 59 0.15% - -
ob Skills
DSHS Total 27,314 42.16% 12,491 169.35% 1 13,895 34.84% 833 12.1%
Population 64,780 18,010 39,890 6,880
Table 46
Residents Receiving DSHS Services - Pasco, FY2007
All Ages Youth(Ages 0-17) Adults Seniors
Number Use Number Use Number Number Use
Served Rate Served Rate Served Use Rate Served Rate
Aging and Adult 523 1.13% - - 173 0.65% 350 8.95%
Services Total
Adult Family Homes 18 0.04% - - 3 0.01%1 15 0.38%
Adult Residential Care 26 0.06% - - 1 0.0% 25 0.64%
Assisted Living 52 0.11% - - 8 0.03% 44 1.13%
Comprehensive o 0 0
Assessments 404 0.87/o - - 143 0.53/0 261 6.68/o
In-Home Services 323 0.7% - 132 0.49% 191 4.88%
Nursing Facilities 128 0.28% - - 32 0.12% 96 2.46%
Additional Services 42 0.09% - - 18 0.07% 24 0.61%
Alcohol and Substance 721 1.55% 99 0.63% 619 2.31% 3 0.08%
Abuse Total
ADATSA Assessments 49 0.11% 1 0.01% 48 0.18% - -
Assessments-General 422 0.91% 79 0.5% 341 1.27% 2 0.05%
Detoxification 63 0.14% 1 1 0.01% 62 0.23% - -
Opiate Substitution 12 0.03% 2 0.01% 10 0.04% - -
Treatment
Outpatient Treatment 487 1.05% 58 0.37% 427 1.6% 2 0.05%
Residential Treatment 80 0.17% 11 0.07% 69 0.26% - -
Additional Services 5 0.01% 4 0.03% 1 0.0% - -
Children's Services 2,098 4.52% 1,097 6.96% 940 3.51% 16 0.41%
Total
Adoption and Adoption 216 0.47% 101 0.64% 106 0.4% 5 0.13%
Support
Behavioral Rehabilitation 12 0.03% 11 0.07% 1 0.0% - -
Services
Child Care Services 55 0.12% 50 0.32% 5 0.02% - -
Child Protective Services 1,439 3.1% 762 4.83% 634 2.37% 8 0.2%
CPS Case Management
Child and Family Welfare
Services Case 360 0.78% 198 1.26% 154 0.58% 3 0.08%
Management
Family Reconciliation 290 0.62% 155 0.98% 131 0.49% 1 0.03%
Services FRS
Family Voluntary Services 45 0.1% 25 0.16% 19 0.07% - -
109
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Case Management
Family-Focused Services 64 0.14% 34 0.22% 30 0.11% - -
Foster Care Placement
99 0.21% 97 0.62% 2 0.01% - -
Services
Foster Care Support 147 0.32% 116 0.74% 31 0.12% -
Services
Other Intensive Services 14 0.03% 13 0.08% 1 0.0% -
Additional Services 5 0.01% 5 0.03% - - -
Developmental 433 0.93% 256 1.62% 171 0.64% °
Disabilities Total 6 0.15/o
Case Management 427 0.92% 252 1.6% 169 0.63% 6 0.15%
Community Residential 34 0.07% 1 0.01% 31 0.12% 2 0.05%
Services
County Services 76 0.16% 38 0.24%1 37 0.14% 1 0.03%
Family Support Services 96 0.21% 59 0.37% 37 0.14%
Personal Care Services 153 0.33% 76 0.48% 74 0.28% 3 0.08%
Professional Support 30 0.06% 8 0.05% 21 0.08% 1 0.03%
Services
RHCs and Nursing
Facilities
Voluntary Placement- 1 0.0% 1 0.01% - - - -
Children
Economic Services 19,031 40.99% 9,585 60.81% °
Total 8,925 33.36/0 495 12.66/o
Basic Food Program 11,933 25.7% 7,112 45.12% 4,443 16.61% 378 9.67%
Child Support Services 10,420 22.44% 4,705 29.85% 5,641 21.08% 48 1.23%
Consolidated Emergency 98 0.21% 54 0.34% 44 0.16% -
Assistance Program
Diversion Cash 208 0.45% 127 0.81% 81 0.3% - -
Assistance
General Assistance 511 1.1% 1 0.01% 450 1.68% 60 1.53%
Refugee Assistance 17 0.04% 7 0.04% 10 0.04% - -
Refugee and Immigrant 320 0.69% 114 0.72% 173 0.65% 33 0.84%
Services
Supplemental Security 320 0.69% 1 0.01% 55 0.21% 264 6.75%
Income-State
TANF and State Family 4,178 9.0% 3,260 20.68% 915 3.42% 3 0.08%
Assistance
Working Connections 4,190 9.02% 2,813 17.85% 1,377 5.15% - -
Child Care
Additional Services 314 0.68% - - 313 1.17% 1 0.03%
Juvenile Rehabilitation 44 0 o o 38 0.24/0 6 0.02 - -
Total 09% /o
Community Placements 4 0.01% 3 0.02% 1 0.0% - -
Dispositional Alternatives 13 0.03% 12 0.08% 1 0.0% - -
Functional Family Parole 20 0.04% 16 0.1% 4 0.01% - -
Institutions,Youth
Camps,and Basic 27 0.06% 23 0.15% 4 0.01% - -
Trainin
Medical Assistance 19,919 42.9% 13,492 85.59% 5,678 21.22% 749 19.16%
Total
Dental Services 8,068 17.38% 6,405 40.63% 1,521 5.68% 142 3.63%
Hospital Inpatient Care 1 1,001 2.16% 133 0.84% 774 2.89% 94 2.4%
Hospital Outpatient Care 4,116 8.87% 1,521 9.65% 2,189 8.18% 406 10.38%
110
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Managed Health Care 13,586 29.26% 10,944 69.43% 2,558 9.56% 84 2.15%
Payments
Medically Eligible Clients 18,137 39.06% 12,445 78.95% 4,962 18.55% 730 18.67%
19
Medically Eligible Clients 2,631 5.67% 1,284 8.15% 1,326 4.96% 21 0.54%
not T19
Other Medical Services 10,547 22.72% 6,493 41.19% 3,485 13.03% 569 14.55%
Physician Services 7,382 15.9% 3,905 24.77% 3,047 11.39% 430 11.0%
Prescription Drugs 6,274 13.51% 2,655 16.84% 3,167 11.84% 452 11.56%
Mental Health Services 998 2,15% 339 2.15% 646 2.41% 13 0.33%
Total
Childrens Long Term
Inpatient Program CLIP
Community Inpatient
Evaluation and 49 0.11% 14 0.09% 35 0.13% -
Treatment
Community Services 991 2.13% 337 2.14% 641 2.4% 13 0.33%
State Institutions 25 0.05% - - 25 0.09% - -
Vocational 284 0.61% 10 0.06% 271 1.01% 3 0.08%
Rehabilitation Total
Medical and 2 0.0% - - 2 0.01% - -
Psychological Services
Placement Support 9 0.02% - - 8 0.03% 1 0.03%
Support Services 14 0.03% - - 14 0.05% - -
Training,Education,and 5 0.01% - - 4 0.01% 1 0.03%
Supplies
Vocational Rehabilitation 284 0.61% 10 0.06% 271 1.01% 3 0.08%
Case Management
Vocational Assessments 35 0.08% 1 0.01% 34 0.13% - -
(job Skills
DSHS Total 26,886 57.91% 14,659 93.0% 11,351 42.43% 805 20.59%
Population 46,430 15,760 26,760 3,910
Table 47
Residents Receiving DSHS Services - Richland, FY 2007
All Ages Youth(Ages 0-17) Adults Seniors
Number Use Number Use Number Use Number Use
Served Rate Served Rate Served Rate Served Rate
Aging and Adult 461 1.02% - - 134 0.48% 327 5.55%
Services Total
Adult Family Homes 29 0.06% - - 9 0.03% 20 0.34%
Adult Residential Care 44 0.1% - - 3 0.01% 41 0.7%
Assisted Living 96 0.21% - - 7 0.03% 89 1.51%
Comprehensive 358 0.79% - - 105 0.38% 253 4.3%
Assessments
In-Home Services 196 0.43% - - 93 0.33% 103 1.75%
Nursing Facilities 116 0.26% - - 24 0.09% 92 1.56%
Additional Services 41 0.09% - - 18 0.06% 23 0.39%
111
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Alcohol and Substance 464 1.03% 66 0.58% 397 1.42% 1 0.02%
Abuse Total
ADATSA Assessments 34 0.08% - - 34 0.12% - -
Assessments-General 251 0.56% 47 0.41% 203 0.73% 1 0.02%
Detoxification 51 0.11% 2 0.02% 48 0.17% 1 0.02%
Opiate Substitution 13 0.03% 1 0.01% 12 0.04% - -
Treatment
Outpatient Treatment 289 0.64% 34 0.3% 255 0.91% - -
Residential Treatment 42 0.09% 3 0.03% 39 0.14% - -
Additional Services 6 0.01% 3 0.03% 3 0.01% - -
Children's Services 1,244 2.75% 595 5.25% 615 2.2% 8 0.14%
Total
Adoption and Adoption 177 0.39% 65 0.57% 104 0.37% 2 0.03%
Support
Behavioral Rehabilitation 4 0.01% 4 0.04% - - - -
Services
Child Care Services 55 0.12% 55 0.49% - - - -
Child Protective Services 798 1.77% 386 3.41% 393 1.4% 3 0.05%
CPS Case Management
Child and Family Welfare
Services Case 285 0.63% 169 1.49% 112 0.4% 1 0.02%
Management
Family Reconciliation 166 0.37% 78 0.69% 0 0
Services(FRS) 83 0.3/0 3 0.05/o
Family Voluntary
Services Case 22 0.05% 10 0.09% 12 0.04% - -
Management
Family-Focused Services 73 0.16% 34 0.3% 39 0.14% - -
Foster Care Placement 94 0.21% 93 0.82% 1 0.0% -
Services
Foster Care Support 126 0.28% 105 0.93% 21 0.08% - -
Services
Other Intensive Services 16 0.04% 16 0.14% 393 1.4% -
Additional Services 7 0.02% 7 0.06% 112 0.4% 1 - -
Developmental 287 0.63% 149 1.32% 4 0.07/o 134 0.48% o
Disabilities Total
Case Management 286 0.63% 148 1.31% 134 0.48% 4 0.07%
Community Residential 50 0.11% 1 0.01% 46 0.16% 3 0.05%
Services
County Services 116 0.26% 47 0.41% 68 0.24% 1 0.02%
Family Support Services 39 0.09% 17 0.15% 21 0.08% 1 0.02%
Personal Care Services 77 0.17% 20 0.18% 55 0.2% 2 0.03%
Professional Support 33 0.07% 5 0.04% 26 0.09% 2 0.03%
Services
RHCs and Nursing o 0
4 0.01% - - 4 0.0 /o 1 - -
Facilities
Voluntary Placement- 1 0.0% 1 0.01% - - - -
Children
Economic Services 9,661 21.37% 3,939 34.77% 5,440 19.44% 259 4.4%
Total
Basic Food Program 5,648 12.5% 2,554 22.54% 2,890 10.33% 204 3.46%
Child Support Services 6,523 14.43% 2,753 24.3% 3,723 13.31% 24 0.41%
Consolidated Emergency 3 0.01% 2 0.02% 1 0.0% - -
Assistance Program
112
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Diversion Cash
83 0.18% 51 0.45% 32 0.11% - -
Assistance
General Assistance 324 0.72% 3 0.03% 294 1.05% 27 0.46%
Refugee Assistance 6 0.01% 1 0.01% 4 0.01% 1 0.02%
Refugee and Immigrant 332 0.73% 129 1.14% 157 0.56% 46 0.78%
Services
Supplemental Security 175 0.39% 1 0.01% 35 0.13% 139 2.36%
Income-State
TANF and State Family 1,477 3.27% 941 8.31% 536 1.92% - -
Assistance
Working Connections 1,331 2.94% 840 7.41% 491 1.75% - -
Child Care
Additional Services 178 0.39% 1 0.01% 177 0.63% -
juvenile Rehabilitation 46 0.1% 32 0.28% 14 0.05% - -
Total
Community Placements 20 0.04% 13 0.11% 7 0.03% - -
Dispositional 12 0.03% 10 0.09% 2 0.01% - -
Alternatives
Functional Family Parole 18 0.04% 13 0.11% 5 0.02% - -
Institutions,Youth
Camps,and Basic 26 0.06% 18 0.16% 8 0.03% - -
Trainin
Medical Assistance 7,916 17.51% 4,261 37.61% 3,112 11.129/6 543 9.22%
Total
Dental Services 2,801 6.2% 1,837 16.22% 855 3.06% 1 109 1.85%
Hospital Inpatient Care 305 0.67% 44 0.39% 206 0.74% 55 0.93%
Hospital Outpatient Care 1,859 4.11% 541 4.78% 1,084 3.87% 234 3.97%
Managed Health Care 5,252 11.62% 3,515 31.03% 1,690 6.04% 47 0.8%
Payments
Medically Eligible Clients 7,668 16.96% 4,206 37.13% 2,921 10.44% 541 9.19%
19
Medically Eligible Clients 375 0.83% 105 0.93% 265 0.95% 5 0.08%
not T19
Other Medical Services 3,804 8.42% 1,651 14.57% 1,773 6.34% 380 6.45%
Physician Services 2,665 5.9% 955 8.43% 1,423 5.09% 287 4.87%
Prescription Drugs 2,730 6.04% 938 8.28% 1,512 5.4% 280 4.76%
Mental Health Services
Total 1,010 2.23% 306 2.7% 676 2.42% 28 0.48%
Child Study and
Treatment Center 1 0.0% 1 0.01% - - - -
CSTC
Childrens Long Term
Inpatient Program 3 0.01% 3 0.03% - - - -
CLIP
Community Inpatient
Evaluation and 59 0.13% 14 0.12% 43 0.15% 2 0.03%
Treatment
Community Services 1,003 2.22% 305 2.69% 671 2.4% 27 0.46%
State Institutions 20 0.04% 19 0.07% 1 0.02%
Vocational 233 0.52% 2 0.02% 226 0.81% 5 0.08%
Rehabilitation Total
Medical and 3 0.01% - - 3 0.01% - -
Psychological Services
Placement Support 8 0.02% - - 8 0.03% - -
Support Services 11 0.02% - - 11 0.04% - -
113
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV• SPECIAL NEEDS
Training,Education,and 10 0.02% - - 10 0.04% - -
Supplies
Vocational Rehabilitation 232 0.51% 2 0.02% 225 0.8% 5 0.08%
Case Management
Vocational Assessments 32 0.07% 1 0.01% 31 0.11% - -
ob Skills
DSHS Total 12,559 27.79% 5,279 46.6% 6,635 23.71% 596 10.12%
Population 45,200 11,330 1 27,980 5,890
Domestic Violence
The mission of Domestic Violence Services of Benton and Franklin Counties,a non-
profit agency, is to advocate for and empower domestic violence victims by
providing free, safe and confidential shelter and support services. From the time
DVS started in November 2003, through December 2008, it has provided the
following services:
• Sheltered 1,912 domestic violence victims and their children: 895 women,
991 children, and 26 men.
• Provided 29,501 bed nights.
• Answered 65,603 calls on 24-hour crisis line.
• Provided legal advocacy to 9,282 clients;Assisted with 1,679 protection
orders.
• Provided over 18,500 advocacy and group counseling hours.
• Provided over$100,000 in rental assistance.
• Provided over 8,000 hours of education&training to volunteers and
community.
114
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
2010 TO 2014
STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
much;it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
INTRODUCTION
The Strategic Action Plan is drawn from an analysis of the needs and resources
identified through the planning process. The goals and strategies are designed to
provide a framework for action in undertaking housing and community development
activities over the next five years.
The Goals describe the priority areas for overall improvement in the cities of
Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland. The Strategies describe the general methods that
the entitlement communities will employ to impact living and working conditions.
The Objectives detail the specifics of the strategies, the tools that will be used to
implement the strategies, and the populations and areas that will be targeted. Finally,
to determine progress in meeting the goals,Performance Measures will be tracked.
RESOURCES
Federal resources expected to be available during the five-year period of the plan are
expected to reach almost $11million. Based on the 2009 HUD allocations, the
expected funding available to the three communities in the first year of the program
is approximately $1.45 million in CDBG funds and almost $700,000 in HOME
funds. Additional resources will become available from program income and
potentially from Section 108 Loans and Float Loans.
The following Goals, Strategies, and Objective are not listed in community priority
order.
STRATEGIC PLAN
GOAL I: IMPROVE LOCAL ECONOMIES
115
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
Strategy 1. Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-
income residents.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Provide assistance to existing or new micro-enterprises and other
businesses to add or retain lower-income workers and/or lower-
income business owners.
Strategy 2. Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-
income neighborhoods.
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Support recruitment or job retention activities to ensure that essential
businesses can provide services to an area that has a majority of
lower-income persons, or an area with 20% or more of its population
living at poverty levels.
Strategy 3. Support businesses that provide stability to at-risk areas or to
areas with existing conditions of degradation and/or blight.
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Support incentives to businesses locating in an area that is
underdeveloped, degraded, or blighted, that will create jobs and add
stability to the area.
Strategy 4. Support activities that improve the skills of the local workforce
and prepare lower-income and special needs workers for access to living
wage jobs.
4.1 OBJECTIVE
Support training and work-skills programs that prepare lower-income
workers for obtaining or retaining living wage employment in local
industries and businesses.
Strategy 5. Support facilities, infrastructure or other eligible
improvements that create living wage jobs, and that need economic
development assistance by virtue of their qualifying physical,
environmental, economic, or demographic conditions.
5.1 OBJECTIVE
116
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
Support a range of eligible special economic development activities,
to address economic development needs in the following targeted
strategy areas:
• Richland's Downtown area
• Kennewick's Downtown area and the Bridge-Bridge/River-
Railroad area
• Pasco's Downtown area
5.2 OBJECTIVE
Continue implementation of existing Business Improvement District
(BID) and/or Local Improvement District (LID) in selected at-risk
or degraded/blighted areas business neighborhoods, integrating code
enforcement as a method of removing health and safety issues. Study
the potential for developing new improvement districts in
neighborhoods where there is a demonstrated need for
comprehensive improvements. Support community improvement
strategies in areas determined to have the potential for success.
GOAL II: IMPROVE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE,
REVITALIZE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MEET
UNANTICIPATED NEEDS
Strategy 1. Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-
income neighborhoods while minimizing costs to households below 80%
of area median income.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Provide assistance to lower-income households that participate in
local improvement districts for infrastructure projects. Assistance
may be limited to selected neighborhoods or to the neediest
households based upon a percentage of median income and fund
availability.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
Assist infrastructure activities that revitalize and stabilize older or
declining neighborhoods, or areas in which the majority of
households are lower-income.
Strategy 2. Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly
by improving streets and sidewalk systems.
117
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Support projects that construct or retrofit sidewalks and other
pedestrian facilities for ADA-compliance.
Strategy 3. Access new funding opportunities to revitalize neighborhoods
and address other community needs.
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Support the potential future use of funding options, including
possible application for the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
and/or Float Loans if needed, to complete economic development or
related activities.
GOAL III: IMPROVE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Strategy 1. Support the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and
supporting public facilities that serve lower-income neighborhoods.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Support development or improvement of community and/or
neighborhood centers that provide a variety of supervised activities,
resources, and community programs.
Strategy 2. Improve parrs and recreation facilities in targeted
neighborhoods.
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Support a range of improvements to existing or new parks such as
building bike and walking paths, constructing water features or
swimming pools, improving public restrooms, landscaping, or
installing play equipment in lower-income neighborhoods.
Strategy 3. Support the beautification of communities by integrating art
into public facilities as needed to address local policies.
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Include artwork and beautification efforts in community facilities that
serve lower-income neighborhoods.
118
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
Strategy 4. Support the development of a crisis response center to
provide immediate stabilization and assessment services to persons in
crisis, including homeless persons.
4.1 OBJECTIVE
At such time as the development plan is completed, determine
appropriate methods for potential support.
GOAL IV: IMPROVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOWER-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND
HOUSEHOLDS
Strategy 1. Expand the supply of affordable units by developing owner-
and renter-occupied housing in in-till areas or targeted neighborhoods,
consistent with local comprehensive plans.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Promote the use of mixed-income housing development and mixed-
use developments that provide both affordable housing and
economic opportunities.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
Develop new single-family housing units that create permanent
affordable housing,with priority given to projects in target areas.
1.3 OBJECTIVE
Support local efforts to provide rental assistance vouchers that meet
a variety of needs, including persons at risk of homelessness and
homeless persons.
1.4 OBJECTIVE
Support coordinated community efforts to develop new affordable
rental housing units for lower-income households by providing
financial assistance to local housing development organizations.
Focus on developing new rental housing for senior households and
for large families needing 3 or more bedroom units.
1.5 OBJECTIVE
Increase community outreach efforts to promote lead-free housing
and reduce health dangers to young children. Increase education and
knowledge of lead-based paint hazards, and reduce the cost burden
of assisted lower-income households by paying for tests that identify
lead hazards.
119
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
Strategy 2. Sustain or improve the quality of existing affordable housing
stock.
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Rehabilitate housing units for homebuyers, current owners, and
renters,using the method of purchase/rehabilitation/resale.
2.2 OBJECTIVE
Implement and support housing activities, which provide assistance
to properties working to meet local codes and making improvements
that align with neighborhood character. Activities include eligible
code enforcement tasks, energy efficiency improvements, accessibility
provision, and meeting other needs.
2.3 OBJECTIVE
Remove spot blight conditions in targeted neighborhoods through
housing rehabilitation — and/or demolishing deteriorated housing,
and building replacement housing.
Strategy 3. Provide homeownership opportunities for lower-income and
special needs households.
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Provide gap financing and/or down payment/closing costs assistance
to eligible lower-income homebuyers. Terms of the assistance may
vary based on household income, specific housing needs,
rehabilitation,neighborhood factors, and local priorities.
Strategy 4. Minimize geographic concentration of new tax-exempt
housing development in Pasco.
4.1 OBJECTIVE
Pasco currently has a concentration of tax-exempt housing
developments,which and deprive the local government of revenue to
provide necessary public services (such as maintenance of
infrastructure, fire protection, public schools, and police protection).
Priority for new assisted housing projects will be given to those that
do not involve property tax exemptions.
GOAL V: SUPPORT PRIORITY PUBLIC SERVICES
120
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
Strategy 1. Strategically support public services activities that respond to
the immediate needs of persons in crisis.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Support public service activities that provide:
1. Crisis intervention and assistance aimed at stabilization and
appropriate placement with services and/or housing.
2. Program assistance that provides the tools or resources to assist
the client from crisis modes to increasing self-sufficiency.
Strategy 2. Support regional efforts to meet the basic living needs of
lower-income households and individuals.
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Support coordinated efforts to provide effective public services for
individuals and households by addressing one or more of the
following needs.
• Low income workers: including micro-enterprise owner/workers —
employment services needs (e.g. child-care,job skill training).
• Lower-income homeowners: anti-predatory lending, loan default, and
foreclosure prevention.
• Lower-income homebuyers: buyer counseling and debt management.
• Seniors: supportive services such as nutrition, health, and living-skills
support.
• Children and youth: child care and supervised recreation.
• Veterans: medical care and re-training.
• Lower-income and special needs persons: food, utilities assistance, parenting
skills, public transportation, access to health/dental care and/or insurance,
information on lead-based paint hazards, fair housing rights.
• Persons with disabilities: recreational programs, living skills training and
support, obtaining housing with needed supports or access features.
121
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
GOAL VI: SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE HOMELESSNESS BY
2015 THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BENTON AND
FRANKLIN COUNTIES HOMELESS HOUSING PLAN
Strategy 1. Support existing homeless facilities and increase housing
resources that assist homeless persons toward housing stability and self-
sufficiency
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Support the development of emergency shelters for youth (including
parenting teens), victims of domestic violence, and families with
children.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
Increase transitional housing resources with intensive case
management services for homeless persons who are victims of
domestic violence,veterans, and families with children.
1.3 OBJECTIVE
Develop permanent supportive housing resources for veterans, and
for disabled homeless persons who are seriously mentally ill, have
chemical dependencies, have developmental disabilities, or are
chronically homeless.
Strategy 2. Support the Continuum of Care's efforts to expand flexible
voucher rental assistance programs for at-risk populations and homeless
persons to achieve the following objectives:
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Use voucher assistance for persons at-risk of homelessness,including
those leaving institutions, to prevent them from becoming homeless.
2.2 OBJECTIVE
Use vouchers as a "rapid rehousing" resource to provide to stable
housing to households that have recently become homeless.
2.3 OBJECTIVE
Use vouchers to serve as a stable, but temporary source of
transitional housing for homeless persons in need of time and
services to develop self-sufficiency.
122
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
Strategy 3. Increase case management capabilities and improve
coordination among providers.
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Support the use and coordination of the integrated case management
system to provide a high level of communication and coordination
among case managers and housing providers.
3.2 OBJECTIVE
Support the Continuum of Care's efforts to focus on meeting the
individualized needs of homeless persons.
GOAL VIII. INCREASE COMMUNITY AWARENESS OF FAIR
HOUSING LAWS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
Strategy 1. Increase the knowledge of the general public, including
lower-income and special needs persons, about their rights under fair
housing laws.
1.1 OBJECTIVE
Ensure lower-income and special needs renters and homebuyers have
information available to assist them to access a full range of local
housing opportunities by distributing a English and non-English
HUD-approved fair housing literature to housing development and
management partners,as well as to program clients.
Strategy 2. Partner with local real estate professionals — including
property management firms, realtors, lenders, housing organizations and
others — to co-sponsor workshops or other educational events to identify
and promote fair housing practices.
2.1 OBJECTIVE
Provide proactive information to the public, as well as those directly
involved in real estate and related industries, about fair housing
requirements.
Strategy 3. Continue to progress in eliminating barriers to fair housing in
the Tri-Cities region.
3.1 OBJECTIVE
Update the Tri-Cities Assessment of the Impediments to Fair
Housing.
123
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
MEASURING PERFORMANCE IN ACHIEVING GOALS
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has instructed CDBG and
HOME jurisdictions to establish performance measures to determine if proposed
activities achieve desired results or "outcomes". These outcomes are the basic and
major changes or benefits that communities are attempting to achieve in carrying out
the strategies and objectives described in the plan. Listed below are the specific
outcomes expected to be reached over the next five years, followed by measures that
will be used to determine if the outcomes are being achieved. Data on these
measures will be collected over the period of the plan to monitor progress in
achieving desired outcomes.
The Tri-Cities consortium intends to reach its adopted long-term goals through
achievement of the following HUD-designated objectives:
• Providing new or improved decent housing
• Providing a suitable living environment
• Creating economic opportunities
The achievement of these broad objectives will be measured by the following three
HUD-designated outcome categories:
• Availability/Accessibility to lower-income households, including persons
with disabilities
• Affordability to lower-income households
• Sustainability of livable and viable communities by benefiting lower-income
persons or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas
ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES
The Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan focuses on meeting the needs of the low-moderate
income persons. Within that group are persons living in poverty who often are more
vulnerable than other lower-income groups because of their limited resources. In
Benton and Franklin Counties, persons in living in poverty in 2007 equaled over
12% of the population. It is the goal of the three cities is to reduce the percentage of
families living in poverty.
The Consortium will use its HOME and CDBG funds to reduce the impacts of
poverty on low and moderate income families and individuals in the community
while working toward moving persons out of poverty. HOME and CDBG resources
will be used to reduce housing costs to make housing more affordable for
homeowners and tenants through rehabilitation and weatherization activities, and if
feasible to assist in the construction of new affordable rental housing. The three
cities will explore ways to use CDBG funds to support programs that help employ
124
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SECTION IV•ACTION PLAN
persons in poverty such as the Pasco Kitchen and to assist the Benton-Franklin
Continuum of Care to expand the communities' housing and services designed to
help homeless persons back to full sufficiency.
Importantly, the communities will continue to coordinate with the public housing
authorities to support opportunities to expand voucher programs and maintain the
current capacity to assist the lowest income households. Over the years, a close,
cooperative relationship between the Benton Franklin Community Action
Committee (CAC) and the three cities has resulted in supporting the CAC's anti-
poverty strategies while enhancing the cities' effort to assist families in poverty. The
following goals of the Consolidated Plan are specifically aimed at combating poverty
over the next five years:
• Improve Local Economies — Support activities that create job
opportunities for lower-income persons, and support activities that prepare
lower-income persons to access living wage jobs
• Improve Affordable Housing Opportunities for Lower-income
Individuals and Households — Promote mixed-income housing
development, and improve the quality of the existing affordable housing
stock
• Support Priority Public Services - Support services that respond to the
needs of persons in crisis, and focus efforts on meeting the basic-living needs
of lower-income families
• Substantially Reduce Homelessness by 2015 through Implementation
of the Benton and Franklin Counties Homeless Housing Plan -
Increase housing resources that assist homeless persons to reach housing
stability, and support expansion of the voucher rental assistance programs
125
2010-2014 TRI-CITIES CONSOLIDATED PLAN
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
126
Summary of Strategic Plan Goals and Needs Assessment
Goal I: Improve Local Economies
Strati 1. Support businesses that create permanent jobs for lower-income residents.
Strategy 2.Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods.
Strategy 3. Support businesses that provide stability to at-risk areas or to areas with existing conditions of
degradation and/or blight.
Strategy 4. Support activities that improve the skills of the local workforce and prepare lower-income and
special needs workers for access to living wage iJobs.
Strategy 5 Support facilitiesinfrastructure or other eligible improvements that create living wage,Jobs and
that need economic development assistance by virtue of their quahfjdag 12hysical, environmental econorr c,
or demographic conditions.
• Projects that increase and support tourism such as assistance and promotion for
wineries, and further enhancement of the river shores.
• Efforts which help provide middle income jobs. Hanford contracts bring many
high income jobs, agricultural related work offers many unskilled jobs, but it is
the middle income jobs that need to be increased.
• A "soft-step" is needed for businesses coming out of the Pasco incubator kitchen
as they transition into established businesses.
Goal II: Improve Community infrastructure, Revitalize Neighborhoods, and
Meet Unanticipated Needs
Strategy 1 Expand or improve basic community infrastructure in lower-income neighborhoods while
mi�ing costs to households below 80%of area median income.
Strategy 2 Improve access for persons with disabilities and the elderly by improving streets and sidewalk
s sy terns.
Strategy 3. Access new funding opportunities to revitalize neighborhoods and address other community
needs.
• Projects to retain residents in the 20 year—30 year old age group; especially
projects which offer attractive recreation to this age group. Examples include
recreation sites, parks, and entertainment venues.
• Formation of an LID in conjunction with a BID would be very beneficial to Pasco.
It would require a partnership among business owners, building owners, and the
City and could be a mechanism to upgrade Pasco downtown.
Summary of Strategic Plan Goals and Needs Assessment
o A carrot and stick approach involving code enforcement and lower interest
financing could accomplish the needed building infrastructure improvements in
downtown Pasco.
Goal III: Improve Public Facilities
Strategy 1. S=ort the revitalization of neighborhoods by improving and supporting_public facilities that
serve lower-income neighborhoods and people.
o After school education and recreation programs for 6th grade—8th grade
students would help eliminate graffiti and mischief in the business districts.
o Make capital improvements to neighborhood facilities providing priority public
services in low-moderate income neighborhoods.
Strategy 2. Improve parks and recreation facilities in targeted neighborhoods.
Strategy 3. Support the beautification of communities by integrating art into public facilities as needed to
address local policies.
Strategy 4. Support the development of a crisis response center to provide immediate stabilization and
assessment services to persons in crisis,including homeless persons.
o Shelter beds for all populations, and especially for families with children
o Housing and shelter for homeless youth with supportive counseling and
education
o Housing for agricultural workers
Goal IV: Improve Affordable Housing Opportunities for Lower-Income
Individuals and Households
Strategy 1. Expand the supply of affordable units by developing owner- and rental-occupied housing in in-
fill areas or targeted neighborhoods,consistent with local comprehensive Mans.
o Infill new construction projects
o CHDO new construction projects
Strategy 2 Sustain or improve the duality of existing affordable housing stock
o Homeowner rehabilitation Program
o Rental rehabilitation Program
o Code Enforcement
Summary of Strategic Plan Goals and Needs Assessment
Strategy 3. Provide homeownership opportunities for lower-income and special needs households.
o Down payment assistance programs
o Rental assistance for people with very low incomes
o Special needs housing for people who are not eligible for housing authority units,
such as people with substance abuse problems, and people coming out of jails
and prisons
o Affordable elder housing
Strategy 4. Minimize geographic concentration of new tax-exempt housing development in Pasco.
Goal V. Support Priority Public Services
Strategy 1. Strategically support public services activities that respond to the immediate needs of persons in
crisis.
o A safe house for victims of domestic violence; open to the community
Strategy 2. Support regional efforts to meet the basic living needs of lower-income households and
individuals.
o Continue to provide public services to priority populations at three local public
facilities.
o Child care is needed, especially for swing shift and graveyard shift workers.
Goal VI: Substantially Reduce Homelessness by 2015 Through implementation
of the Benton and Franklin Counties Homeless Housing Plan
Strategy 1 Supuorr t existing homeless facilities and increase housing resources that assist homeless 1ersons
toward housing stability and self-sufficiency.
Strategy 2 Support the Continuum of Care's efforts to expand flexible voucher rental assistance programs
for at-risk populations and homeless Persons to achieve the listed objectives.
Strategy 3. Increase case management capabilities and improve coordination among providers.
o Group homes for disabled mentally ill
o Housing with services for people with HIV/AIDS
o Assisted living units for elderly
Summary of Strategic Plan Goals and Needs Assessment
Goal VII. Increase community awareness of fair housing laws consistent with
the Community's assessment of the impediments to fair housing
Strategy 1. Increase the knowledge of the general public. including lower-income and special needs
persons,about their rights under fair housing laws.
Strategy 2. Partner with local real estate professionals — including VropeM management firms, realtors,
lenders, housing organizations,and others—to co-sponsor workshops or other educational events to identify
and promote fair housing practices.
Strategy 3. Continue to progress in eliminating barriers to fair housing in the Tri-Cities region.
o Continue to hold annual workshops and training to increase community
awareness of fair housing laws for general public and housing providers.
o Continue to participate in an annual effort to distribute materials and
disseminate information regarding fair housing laws to the general public.