Loading...
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.