Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018.03.26 Council Workshop Packet
Workshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. March 26, 2018 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 3 - 5 (a) Planning Commission Interviews Council to conduct brief interviews with Abel Campos, Rebecca Francik and Isaac Myhrum (b) End of Legislative Session Presentation Briahna Murray, Chelsea Hager, Paul Hoover and Dale Learn, Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Presenters 6 - 7 (c) Downtown Pasco Development Authority 2017 Annual Report (d) Information Services Presentation Presented by Jesse Rice, Information Services Manager 8 - 13 (e) Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Fund Request 14 - 80 (f) 2017 Fire Department Performance Report 81 - 85 (g) Biennial Budget 86 - 93 (h) Proposed Charter for Inclusivity Commission 94 - 100 (i) Chapel Hill Boulevard LID Formation, No. 16030 101 - 213 (j) 2017 Community Survey Page 1 of 225 Workshop Meeting March 26, 2018 214 - 218 (k) Sole Source Services for SCADA and PLC System Upgrades 219 - 225 (l) Request to Sell City Properties 5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7. ADJOURNMENT. REMINDERS: 1. 7:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 28, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd – Visit Tri-Cities Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Rep.; CRAIG MALONEY, Alt) 2. 12:00 p.m., Thursday, March 29, Pasco Red Lion – TRIDEC’s 55th Annual Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBERS BLANCHE BARAJAS and CRAIG MALONEY) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 2 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 21, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Planning Commission Interviews I. REFERENCE(S): Resolution No. 3388 Applications (3) (Council only) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Council to conduct brief interviews with Abel Campos, Rebecca Francik and Isaac Myhrum III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Planning Commission is composed of nine members; terms are for six years. The Commission meets on the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 pm. The Planning Commission conducts workshop meetings and public hearings on land- use policy and development proposals and issues recommendations for the City Council. The scheduled interviews are in consideration of filling a vacancy in Position No. 6, a term that expires on 2/2/19. Upon a review of all applications indicating an interest in the Planning Commission, the Council Screening Committee selected the following candidates to be interviewed for possible appointment to Position No. 6: 1. Abel Campos 2. Rebecca Francik 3. Isaac Myhrum V. DISCUSSION: Page 3 of 225 After conduct of interviews at the March 26 Workshop meeting, it is proposed that appropriate appointments be made by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council at the April 2 business meeting. Page 4 of 225 RESOLUTION NO. ` A RESOLUTION Providing a Process for Appointments to City Boards and Commissions. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco maintains several citizen advisory boards to assist the delivery of municipal services as well as to advise the City Council in making various policy decisions; and WHEREAS, the appointment process prescribed by the Pasco Municipal Code requires the Mayor to appoint citizens to vacancies on such boards, subject to confirmation of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council desire to establish an appointment process which is more collaborative yet efficient for both the applicants and City Council alike;NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DOES RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Applications for city boards and commissions shall be solicited annually by the City Manager on behalf of the City Council. Section 2: All applications received by the City Manager shall be reviewed by a City Council committee appointed by the Mayor; such committee, to be known as the "Appointment Screening Committee," shall be ad-hoc, appointed annually, and consist of three members, including the Mayor. The Appointment Screening Committee shall select those applicants it deems best suited for the respective board/commission but not more than three applicants for each vacancy to be filled. The Appointment Screening Committee shall consider the following factors in making their selections for further consideration: a) Geographic representation; b) Gender representation; c) Ethnic representation; d) Familial and financial relationships of board members Section 3: Those applicants selected by the Appointment Screening Committee shall be interviewed by the City Council during a public meeting; provided, however, the Screening Committee may recommend reappointment of an incumbent applicant without interview by the City Council if the incumbent has •-- • - - -•served not more than two consecutive• terms since the last interview. At a City Council meeting following such interview, an interviewed candidate shall be selected by the Mayor for appointment to each vacancy. Any candidate selected by the Mayor shall be subject to confirmation vote of the City Council; a majority vote of the quorum present at such meeting shall be required to confirm the Mayor's appointments. Section 4: Any prior resolutions of the City Council in conflict with the provisions of this resolution shall be superseded by this resolution. PAS D by the City Council ity of Pasco at its regular meeting this 16th day of April, 2012. Matt Watkins, Mayor T T: f APP'S AS TO FORM: Debra Clark,City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 5 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 21, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Downtown Pasco Development Authority 2017 Annual Report I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: City Council formed the DPDA in December of 2010 to undertake revitalization of the Downtown area, provide management of the Pasco Specialty Kitchen and Farmer’s Market, promote utilization of the façade improvement program funded through Community Development Block Grant funds and in doing so - undertake revitalization of Downtown Pasco. The DPDA was licensed in Washington State as a non-profit corporation in May of 2011 and a full Board was appointed in July of 2011. The current Funding Agreement with the DPDA, approved by Council in November of 2016 and expires at the end of this year, provides for an annual report to be submitted to City Council. V. DISCUSSION: This past year, a number of important objectives were achieved by the DPDA, including: • Qualification for the Main Street Tax Credit Reimbursement Program which allows the City to receive a tax credit of $70,500 in 2019 for the City’s $100,000 contribution in 2018; Page 6 of 225 • Continued the Food Truck Friday event which ran continuously through most of 2017; • Conducted successful Cinco de Mayo, Fiery Foods Festival and Christmas en la Plaza events with total attendance of approximately 20,000; • Assisted 30 businesses with technical and marketing support; and • Instituted quarterly Downtown business meetings for owners and operators of businesses. The DPDA will provide Council a presentation for the 2017 Annual Report at the March 26 Workshop Meeting and will be available to answer Council questions. Page 7 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 19, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Fund Request I. REFERENCE(S): Letter from Visit Tri-Cities dated March 19, 2018 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Visit Tri-Cities provides an annual report for the prior year plus an outline of the current year work plan. Kris Watkins, President and CEO will present the reports as well as a request for approval to spend from the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) Reserve Account. The TPA was formed in late 2004 to generate and administer the proceeds of a "per room night assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri-Cities, imposed by the hotels themselves. The interlocal agreement (between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland), that created the TPA, requires the annual budget, and any expenditures from the TPA reserve account, to be first approved by the City Council. V. DISCUSSION: The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the state which, in turn, distributes it to the City in which it was collected. The City is obligated to pass the funds to the TPA, for use in accordance with the approved budget. Page 8 of 225 The TPA Commission has voted unanimously to request an additional $271,300 in special project expenditures for 2018 from the reserve account for the following: • Bid Fees - $60,000 • Trade Show Attendance Sponsorships - $23,600 • Print Advertising - $34,200 • Television Advertising - $20,000 • Sports Complexes Feasibility Study - $30,000 • Website - $50,000 • Marketing - $11,000 • Digital Advertising - $30,000 • Travel Writer Familiarization Tours - $12,500 Council should approve the additional allocations of the reserve account or indicate changes necessary to gain approval. Page 9 of 225 P.O. Box 2241 Tri-Cities, WA 99302-2241 509-735-8486 1-800-254-5824 www.VisitTRI-CITIES.com info@VisitTRI-CITIES.com March 19, 2018 Mr. Dave Zabell City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Zabell: Thank you for the opportunity to present the Visit TRI-CITIES 2017 Annual Report, 2018 Work Plan and to make a request to utilize Tourism Promotion Area reserve funds to the Pasco City Council on Monday, March 26, 2018. On behalf of the Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission, Visit TRI-CITIES would like to request the transfer of $271,300 from Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Account to be used for supplemental tourism related projects this year. We prepare the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) budget in July of each year for the following calendar year. As is the case with most every budget process, there are always more worthy projects to be considered than funds to support them. We manage our resources carefully to ensure our expenses never exceed our projected income and we budget conservatively. As a result, the TPA Commissioners have identified $361,416 in funds available for reinvestment in tourism related projects over the next two years. The funds available for project investment are in addition to the minimum reserve requirement of $500,000, the amount set based on the recommendation of the City Managers who participate in at Commission meetings as Ex- Officios. It is the Commission’s position that once the reserve account reaches this level, that any additional funds should actively be used to promote the Tri-Cities as a destination; creating increased visitor spending in the community. The projects under consideration accomplishes that goal. Given that the balance of the Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Account exceeds the acceptable level of $500,000; the Commissioners of the Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission have voted in favor of re-investing the surplus revenues, in the amount of $271,300 that will help tourism related projects including digital, print and television advertising and promotions to increase leisure travel stays and secure new conventions and sports tournaments. A summary of the projects and the associated expenditures is attached for your review. Again, thank you for your consideration and support of the tourism industry. I am available for any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, Kris Watkins President and CEO Enclosure Page 10 of 225 P.O. Box 2241 Tri-Cities, WA 99302-2241 509-735-8486 1-800-254-5824 www.VisitTRI-CITIES.com info@VisitTRI-CITIES.com Tri-City Hotel-Motel Commission Tourism Reserve Balance Request The TPA Commissioners have unanimously voted to request $271,300 from the reserve account for the following future projects. Bid Fees $60,000 Visit TRI-CITIES staff continues to identify regional and national tournaments and conventions that request bid fees to host events. Increasing our bid fee fund will enable and enhance event acquisition. Fees are only incurred if the event is awarded to the destination. The following events have been identified to utilize such funds: Sports: $35,000 • WIAA 2018-2020 State 3A & 4A Volleyball Championships – $12,000 ($4,000 per year) • National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, Softball Opening Rounds – $6,000 • USA Track & Field Junior Cross Country Championships – $7,000 • USA Crits Series – $10,000 Conventions: $25,000 • Washington Society of Association Executive (WSAE) – $15,000 • Meeting Professionals International (MPI) – $10,000 Bidding Fees Included in the 2018 Marketing Plan: - Senior Softball USA Regional Championship: $10,000 - US Lacrosse National Team Development Regional Camp: $5,000 Trade Show Attendance Sponsorships $23,600 Sports: $15,000 • National Association of Sports Commissions – Sports Event Symposium – Sponsorship of breakfast and promo item $15,000 Conventions: $8,600 • Northwest Event Show (Registration and Travel) – $4,000 The event, held in October, attracts 1,700 meeting professionals and is attended by competitors such as the Wenatchee Convention Center, Lynnwood Convention Center, Visit Seattle, Cave B Estate Winery & Resort, Campbell’s Resort and Alderbrook Resort. Page 11 of 225 2 Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission Tourism Reserve Balance Requests • Meetings Today Live! West - $4,600 The event is held in Las Vegas in late-April/early-May. It is attended by 30 pre-qualified meeting professionals who plan events in western U.S. and 30 suppliers including Snohomish County Tourism Bureau and Southside Seattle Tourism. Suppliers will have 20 pre-scheduled sales appointments with planners. Print Advertising $34,200 Sports: $25,600 • Sports Destination Management Magazine: Destination Spotlight – High Impact Advertorial – $7,000 Mar./Apr. Issue – Back cover: $4,500 • Sports Events Magazine: Mar. Issue – full page ad – $3,000 Dec. Issue – two-page spread – $7,100 • Sports Planning Guide: Annual Edition – full page ad / 2-page print– $4,000 Conventions: $8,600 • Meeting News Northwest – ½ page ad 4 x in 2018; Includes e-newsletter blast with photo & editorial in May/June: $8,600 Television Advertising $20,000 Additional funding to increase prime time television advertising in the Puget Sound market by $10,000 (from $30,000 to $40,000) in both the spring and fall campaigns. Sports Complexes Feasibility Study $30,000 Visit TRI-CITIES staff will work with our city partners to conduct a feasibility study for sports complex development needs within each jurisdiction. Sports Complex plans are existing in each city, and a feasibility study will assist with moving those venues towards development. Total Cost of Study: $60,000 Cities’ Total Contribution: $30,000 ($7,500 per city) TPA Contribution: $30,000 Website $50,000 Funding to be added to the $50,000 previously set aside to fund a next website re-design, which should occur in 2-3 years. Page 12 of 225 3 Tri-City Regional Hotel-Motel Commission Tourism Reserve Balance Requests Marketing $11,000 Public Relations: $11,000 • Visit TRI-CITIES currently contracts with GreenRubino to support our efforts to pitch stories to travel writers. Visit TRI-CITIES is preparing an RFP to solicit for either increased coverage from GreenRubino or to select a new provider. The current investment is $24,000 per year. We would like to increase the budget to $35,000. Digital Advertising $30,000 Marketing: • Seattle Times Digital Advertising: $30,000 The Seattle Times offers an opportunity to increase the visibility of Tri-Cities, Washington as a premier destination in the Puget Sound, Portland, Spokane and Boise regions using a multimedia strategy, including target online campaign strategy, lead story and display ad in the NW Traveler section of the Sunday Edition, and Native Content, two stories about the destination that will be displayed on the site indefinitely. Travel Writer Familiarization (FAM) Tours $12,500 • Travel with Words FAM Tour: $2,500 The Travel & Words Conference allows Visit TRI-CITIES to connect with nearly 100 food, travel and wine writers from throughout the Pacific Northwest. Visit Tri-Cities will host 6 qualified writers of our choosing for a familiarization tour of the Tri-Cities region including wine country, outdoor exploration and culinary experiences. This an opportunity to generate press in publications, creating thousand positive impressions and attracting visitors to the Tri-Cities region. • Wine Bloggers Post Conference FAM Tour: $10,000 The 2018 conference will take place in Walla Walla, and offers a unique opportunity to connect with approximately 100 bloggers and social influencers from throughout the county who write about wine and the wine industry. A key component of Visit Tri-Cities’ marketing strategy includes promoting the region as a premier wine region, and exposure of the Tri-Cities to this group will generate online press, positive impressions and attracting visitors to the Tri-Cities region. TOTAL TPA Reserve Request = $271,300 Page 13 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 22, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Bob Gear, Fire Chief Fire Department SUBJECT: 2017 Fire Department Performance Report I. REFERENCE(S): 2017 Fire Department Performance Report II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On February 21, 2006 the Pasco City Council adopted performance standards and objectives for the Fire Department as outlined in the Performance Standards Resolution No. 2938 and as required by RCW 35.103.010. The aforementioned resolution and statute require annual reporting by the Department to the City Council. V. DISCUSSION: Highlights of the 2017 Performance Report are as follows: During the spring of 2017, the Pasco Fire Department contracted with Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) to facilitate and construct a three- to five-year strategic plan. Key elements of the strategic plan were established as follows: Cost, Response Time, Training, Infrastructure and Equipment Reliability, Community Services. Priorities were established by a community forum through a forced ranking process, in which each element was weighted against another. Generally, fo rum participants preferred a significant level of emergency response readiness (technical competence); reliable infrastructure (equipment and facilities); and improved response Page 14 of 225 times. Dimensions of lesser importance were; cost containment and expansion of services. Bi-annually, the Pasco City Council establishes specific goals designed to guide the work of the City. Following three community forums, community surveys, and ongoing formal and informal input from public and governmental partners, the Council held a goal-setting retreat in March of 2016. The goals established during the retreat were adopted by the Council on May 2, 2016. In the area of Community Safety, the following Fire Department-specific goals were developed: Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by: · Working to maintain/achieve target response times (as defined by Council Resolution #2938) · Focus on a long-term goal of improving the Washington State Ratings Bureau Community Rating to Class 4 · Efforts to realize full implementation of a consolidated PSAP/Dispatch Center Throughout 2017, the Fire Department developed and monitored 63 Key Performance Indicators based upon the subject areas as determined by the Strategic Planning Process and City of Pasco Goals. The Pasco Fire Department has, as a function of this report, embarked on a process to examine and analyze relevant data key to the success of the organization, as defined by the City Council, external and internal stakeholders, and collaborative agencies. Certainly, such an in-depth analysis often creates more questions than answers, but as a result this effort has yielded a more refined and intentional decision-making process. Operational Readiness: The Pasco Fire Department is considered to be within the target range of operational readiness. Recent increases in staffing, the acquisition of additional fire engines, the addition of Station 84, and upward trending in total training hours, will all positively contribute to response times and service quality and availability. There is a direct, inverse relationship between population growth and operational readiness, assuming preparation and resources remain static. Concurrent with recent development and expansion in Pasco, increased population drives service boundary distances, traffic congestion and consequently total response time. A regular periodic and consistent review of population densities and movement patterns to maintain service provision is necessary. Community Wellness: The Department has conducted a Community Risk Assessment and, as a result, formed a Community Risk Reduction Program to better serve and support community wellness Page 15 of 225 and safety. The metrics and analysis performed in this report will enable, and more accurately target, opportunities for program growth to maximize value and return. As a relatively new program within the organization, the Community Risk Reduction Program has yet to produce identifiably meaningful statistics. The development of a consistent method to identify trends that ultimately lead to intervention strategies will be necessary. Cost Containment: There is opportunity to refine the operational budget through more accurate identification and exploitation of one-time funding opportunities such as grants, etc., and the application of support-funding programs, such as GEMT. Discretionary leave (overtime, sick, holiday, etc.) use is being monitored in an objective manner that allows for more educated legacy hiring practices and effective management decisions. Performance: Response times are anticipated to improve in 2018, with the establishment of Station 84 and additional support staff. Further, the transition to a new dispatch center is expected to significantly reduce total response times through the reduction of call processing times. The City of Pasco is in the process of identifying and installing intersection control (signal pre-emption) devices. These devices will “manage” traffic flow through an intersection during emergency responses and will potentially positively affect response “travel times.” Call volume continues trending upward year over year. 2017 experienced a minor reduction in overlapping call volume, attributable to the introduction of Station 84 in the third quarter of the year. The addition of Station 84 allowed primary response units to maintain availability within their initial response areas. It is anticipated overlapping call volume will decline further throughout 2018. The Fire Department is heavily reliant on auto/mutual aid, primarily from Franklin County Fire District #3 and the cities of Richland and Kennewick. Quality: Employee and customer satisfaction is perhaps the most difficult to measure, but undoubtedly important. Community and staff satisfaction are within more than acceptable range with regard to emergency medical and fire services. Efforts to continue to monitor public and employee satisfaction are recommended. Conclusion: Page 16 of 225 The City's population and commercial/industrial enterprises have increased robustly over the past decade or more. This growth has steadily increased calls for service. In response to these factors, the City Council approved, in the 2018 Annual Budget, full staffing of a fourth fire station in order to reduce emergency response times in the Riverview area and reduce the probability of overlapping calls throughout the City. Further, Council has authorized, and the Fire Department has been active in the pursuit of, a PSAP [Public Safety Answering Point (Dispatch)] consolidation throughout the FY2017 year. The practice of continually monitoring performance against changing variables will allow effective and responsive service delivery and ultimately the achievement of a Washington State Ratings Bureau Protection Class 4 rating. Page 17 of 225 Pasco Fire Department Performance Report 2017 Authors: Troy A. Phillips, Sr. Management Analyst David Hare, Deputy Chief Pasco Fire Department Page 18 of 225 2 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER 3 PURPOSE 4 STRATEGIC PLAN AND PRIORITIES 6 COUNCIL GOALS 7 BACKGROUND 13 OPERATIONAL READINESS 27 COMMUNITY WELLNESS 41 COST CONTAINMENT 47 PERFORMANCE 55 QUALITY 59 RESULTS SUMMARY 61 RECOMMENDATIONS Page 19 of 225 3 | P a g e PURPOSE The Firefighting industry is undergoing a significant overhaul. Certainly, the past 50 years have brought immense improvement with regard to innovation on the subjects of safety, process, and equipment – but how do we navigate the crossroads when effectiveness and efficiency of operational execution meet fiscal stewardship? The recent history of fire service has led to the avocation of the “Al l Hazards” Fire Department. All Hazards departments provide initial action response to a variety of emergent events including: emergency medical services, technical rescue (high/low angle rope, trench and confined space, water, machinery, wilderness and urban search and rescue, hostile environment (active shooter), collapse), hazardous materials and hostile fire environments, including; wildland, urban-interface, vehicle, and structural. These specialty events often require additional costs for equipment and training, and ultimately increase personal and corporate liabilities to the authority having jurisdicti on. Each agency must identify and address its own unique set of challenges, and adapt its resources to meet and fulfil the greatest needs of the community it serves. How then do we identify acceptable levels of risk and empower our leadership to make the best decisions regarding policy and service? More than ever, Fire Department Administration is as much about numbers, statistics and trends as it is personnel management and emergency services delivery. The future success or failure of a fire department will depend entirely on its ability to collect, monitor, and analyze relevant information in an accurate and meaningful manner. Page 20 of 225 4 | P a g e STRATEGIC PLAN AND PRIORITIES During the spring of 2017, the Pasco Fire Department contracted with Emergency Services C onsulting International (ESCI) to facilitate and construct a three to five-year strategic plan. The planning process included comments and elements from three distinct internal an d external constituent groups: 1) Internal: Composed of 13 members of the Fire Department, these members represented a broad cross-section of the department and included membership from all ranks and service lengths. 2) Allied Agency: This group included 10 members from agencies in which the fire department works closely and included representatives from regional utility companies, P olice and Sheriff’s Department, Public Health, Emergency Management, and the Pasco School District. 3) Community: The third group, consisting of 14 members, represented various interest organizations from within the community including Homeowners Associations (HOA’s), the Downtown Pasco Development Association, and interested independents representing a broad range of social and economic status. Key elements of the strategic plan (Dimensions) were established as follows: Cost, Response Time, Training, Infrastructure and Equipment Reliability, Community Services. Dimension priorities were established through panel forced ranking, weighing each dimension against one another. Generally, citizen forum participants preferred a significant level of emergency response readiness (technical competence); reliable infrastructure (equipment and facilities); and improved response times. Dimensions of lesser importance were; cost containment and expansion of services. The bottom ranked dimensions may reflect a high degree of current satisfaction (cost of service) with regard to the types of services provided by the fire department. The planning process was completed and a final draft of the plan was presented to the Pasco Fire Department in September of 2017. The plan is intended to be a living document, and as such continues to be reviewed and analyzed to ensure its validity. The figure on the following page represents the desires of our community partners. This document (2017 PFD Performance Report) and the metrics contained herein are the reaffirmation of our commitment to the achievement of excellence as defined by the community we serve. Page 21 of 225 5 | P a g e 13 15 28 45 48 61 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Expand Services Contain Costs Maintain Response Time Improve Response Time Reliable Equip./Facilities Ensure Technical Competence Strategic Planning Team Priorities Page 22 of 225 6 | P a g e 2016-2017 CITY OF PASCO COUNCIL GOALS Bi-annually, the Pasco City Council establishes specific goals designed to guide the work of the City. Following three community forums, community surveys, and ongoing fo rmal and informal input from public and governmental partners, the Council held a goal-setting retreat in March of 2016. The goals established during the retreat were adopted by the Council on May 2, 2016. In the area of Community Safety, the following fire department-specific goals were developed. Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by: Working to maintain/achieve target response times (as defined by Council Resolution #2938) Focus on a long-term goal of improving the Washington State Ratings Bureau community rating to Class 4 Efforts to realize full implementation of a consolidated PSAP/Dispatch Center Page 23 of 225 7 | P a g e BACKGROUND Page 8 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW Page 8 PERSONNEL OVERVIEW Page 10 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Page 11 APPARATUS Page 12 PILLARS OF EXCELLENCE Page 24 of 225 8 | P a g e Organizational Overview The Pasco Fire Department (PFD) was established by Council action on July 16, 1908 after a series of fires destroyed portions of the town. The current service area incorporates approximately 37 square miles. The department is led by the Fire Chief, serving in an at will capacity appointed through a competitive process by the City Manager. The Pasco Fire Department is an all-hazards career response force that provides Fire suppression (urban structural, wildland and vehicle), Advanced Life Support Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Hazardous Materials Response, Technical Rescue (high and low angle rope, confined space, trench, swift-water, structural collapse and vehicle/machinery), and Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting services. The department responds to an average of 5300 calls for service, per year (2015-2017). Most uniformed members of the department are cross qualified in other disciplines such as; incident command, technical rescue, aircraft rescue and firefighting, hazardous materials, public education, fire investigation and hostile incident response. The City of Pasco earned a Public Protection Class - 5 rating from the Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau (WSRB) in 2016. The rating serves as a benchmark for many insurance companies in determining insurance premiums for privately insured properties. WSRB class ratings are comprised of four major categories: Fire Department (40% of total score), Water Supply (35% of total score), Fire Safety Control (16% of total score) and Emergency Communications (9% of total score). Each major category contains several subcategories. The total poin ts issued in these areas are combined to provide a rating on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 representing minimal fire protection and 1 representing the best fire protection available. The fire department staffs four fire stations (since Nov. 2017) on a 24 hr./7 day per week basis. The city is divided into four primary station response areas. Each response area is further sub-divided into fire management zones. Personnel Overview The Pasco Fire Department is staffed with 75 qualified all-hazards line personnel, 6 of which are funded by the Port of Pasco specifically for the provision of Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting service, at the Tri-Cities regional airport. The department is structured in two distinct divisions; Administrative and Operations. The operations division is subdivided into three equally staffed shifts, each working a 48 hour on-duty, 96 hour off-duty rotation (48/96). The members are provided 13 (1 per pay cycle) annual Kelly Days in order to average a 50 hour work week and comply with the FLSA 7K standard. The shifts are managed by an on-duty Battalion Chief who is supported by the administrative staff. All operational employees are covered in a collective bargaining agreement. The Administrative staff typically work a Monday through Friday schedule from 0800-1700. The Fire Chief (Chief) is accountable to the City Manager for the overall operations of the Fire Department and implementation of policy. As the department director, the Chief serves and maintains working relationships with other City departments. The Chief is responsible for the development and support of collaborative relationships with other fire and emergency services agencies, and the public. The Deputy Chief is responsible for day to day program management within the fire department. This position may be delegated the authority and responsibilities of the Fire Chief in the event of the Chief’s absence. The Training Officer (Captain) is responsible for the scope, schedule, and budget of the department’s training program. Page 25 of 225 9 | P a g e The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Officer (Captain) is responsible for the management, inventory, record-keeping and HIPPA compliance of the EMS program. The Community Risk Reduction Officer (CRR) (Captain) is responsible for the management and development of overall community risk assessment, risk mitigation programs, and public information efforts. The Battalion Chief (1 per shift, 3 total) is accountable to the Deputy Chief. This position provides the management and supervision of day-to-day and combat operations of the shift. The Battalion Chief serves as the initial action incident commander for all-hazards incidents within the City. Each Battalion Chief has direct program management responsibilities for one of the following department programs; Apparatus Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance, or Equipment Maintenance. Battalion Chiefs may also manage programs such as fire investigation, technical rescue, PPE procurement and maintenance. Station Officers (4 per shift) are ranked as Captains within the organization. The station officer may be delegated the responsibilities of the Battalion Chief in their absence dependent upon qualifications. The station officer is responsible for the day-to-day operations of a station crew. The station officer may have program responsibilities and/or project responsibilities. Company Officers (2 per shift) are ranked as Lieutenant within the organization. The Company Officer may be delegated the responsibilities of the Captain in their absence dependent upon qualifications. The company officer is responsible for project management, including scope, schedule and budget. NOTE: 1 company officer per shift is usually assigned as the ARFF LT. Firefighter/Paramedics are responsible for the delivery of advanced life support pre -hospital emergent care, fire suppression and routine maintenance of the facilities, apparatus and equipment to which they are assigned. Firefighters are responsible for the delivery of basic life support EMS, fire suppression activities and routine maintenance of the facilities, apparatus, and equipment to which they are assigned. The fire department functions strictly in the scalar command structure for emergency operations while leveraging a dynamic approach to ongoing routine program and project administration. Programs are defined within the organization as integral components of service delivery, typically championed by Battalion Chiefs under the direction of the Deputy Chief. Projects are considered a subset of programs, managed by Captains, Lieutenants, or Fire Fighters. This approach promotes an empowered and engaged workforce. Page 26 of 225 10 | P a g e Organization Chart Page 27 of 225 11 | P a g e Apparatus The PFD operates two NFPA 1001 Type 1 engines, 1 Type 1 Ladder Truck, 2 Type 6 engines, 3 Type 2 advanced life support ambulances, 1 Type 2 water tender, 1 Type 4 light rescue vehicle, and 1 Type 4 rescue boat out of four fire stations. The fire department also operates 2 Type 1 aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles under contract with the Port of Pasco at the Tri-Cities airport. Equipment and staffing distribution is outlined below: Station 81 310 N. Oregon Ave. 1 Command vehicle BC281 1 Type 1 Engine E2811 1 Type 2 ALS Ambulance M2821 1 Type 6 Engine E2861 1 Type 4 Rescue Boat B2841 1 Battalion Chief 1 Captain 1 Firefighter 1 EMT 1 Paramedic Unstaffed Unstaffed Minimum Staffing 5 Maximum Staffing 7 Station 82 3502 Varney Ln. 1 Type 1 Ladder L2811 1 Type 2 ALS Ambulance M2822 2 Type 1 ARFF ARFF281 & 282 1 Type 2 Tender W2822 1 Type 4 Light Rescue R2841 1 Captain 1 EMT 1 Paramedic 1 Lieutenant 2 Firefighter Unstaffed Unstaffed Minimum Staffing 6 Maximum Staffing 7 Station 83 3203 Rd. 68 1 Type 1 Engine E2813 1 Type 2 ALS Ambulance M2823 1 Type 6 Engine E2863 1 Captain 1 Firefighter 1 EMT 1 Paramedic Unstaffed Minimum Staffing 4 Maximum Staffing 5 Station 84 1208 Rd. 48 1 Type 2 ALS Ambulance M2824 1 EMT 1 Paramedic Minimum Staffing 2 Maximum Staffing 3 The fire department also maintains a type 1 engine and type 2 ALS ambulances in reserve at Station 83. The administrative staff, which includes the Chief, Assistant Chief, and Training Officer, EMS Officer, Community Risk Reduction Specialist and secretarial staff are located at 1011 E. Ainsworth at the fire department headquarters. Page 28 of 225 12 | P a g e Pillars of Excellence The department utilizes a framework referred to as “Pillars of Excellence”, for the creation and monitoring of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s), that when combined, the Pillars provide a holistic and multi-dimensional overview of the health, performance, and effectiveness of the organization. In short, the Pillars are the key subject areas as defined by the strategic plan and Council goals. For example, this might include; cost containment, operational readiness, and customer satisfaction or quality. By identifying and establishing these pillars, and acknowledging their interrelationships and dependencies amongst one another, we are able to compile a meaningful list of metrics as sociated with each pillar that gauge not only the quantity of work performed in a given category, but also the overall value and quality of that work to the organization and community. These metrics and pillars, when combined, present opportunities for the organization to examine its direction and momentum; they enable decisions and policies to be exercised with confidence, with the sole goal of consistently working toward organizational excellence. The Pasco Fire Department has identified the following Pillars of Excellence: The Pasco Fire Department has worked diligently to establish and monitor metrics proven to directly impact the service level and value provided by each respective pillar. This process is viewed as an ever evolving and adapting, dynamic effort; by no means are the current metrics deemed as comprehensive or representative of department service, health, or value in totality. The following chapters of this report review in detail the current approach to metric collection, inclusive of the respective results and analysis for the 2017 year, set forth by the five primary pillars of excellence as identified specific to the City of Pasco. In many cases, the charts and statistics of this report affirm anecdotal assumptions, while other cases lead to more questions than answers. Perhaps the most important outcome of this study is a healthy recognition of information and data collection inadequacies, which will ultimately fuel the formation of process and reporting design to develop lasting and meaningful metrics Page 29 of 225 13 | P a g e OPERATIONAL READINESS Page 14 TECHNICAL COMPETENCE Core Purpose: Ensure staff is properly trained, healthy, and capable of peak performance at all times (Strategic Plan Priority). Measure and monitor personnel qualifications to Washington State Rating Bureau (WSRB) standards for the achievement of 2016-2017 Council Goals. Metrics Measured: International Fire Services Accreditation Committee (IFSAC) Qualifications, Training hours, Length of Employment, Retirement Eligibility Page 17 APPARATUS RELIABILITY Core Purpose: Ensure fleet and equipment is capable of meeting performance demand. Monitor the availability and condition of assets, anticipate and plan for future needs (Strategic Plan Priority). Metrics Measured: Fleet Age, Maintenance Costs, Out of Service Time, Unit Utilization Costs Page 20 CALL VOLUME/TEMPORAL TRENDING Core Purpose: Monitor event type trends, recurrence, and location, to improve resource allocation and training needs. Metrics Measured: Call Types, Geo-Spatial Concentrations, Temporal Statistics Page 30 of 225 14 | P a g e TECHNICAL COMPETENCE Member Qualifications The Pasco Fire Department utilizes standards set forth by the International Fire Services Accreditation Committee (IFSAC), recognized by the Washington State Rating Bureau and the Washington State Fire Marshall’s Office, as a benchmark for measuring individual professional qualifications. The completion of the IFSAC process, from basic firefighter through fire officer 2, represents over 700 hours of instructed training. Annual Training Hours Completed by Shift Page 31 of 225 15 | P a g e Average Training Hours Per Staff Member 2017 was the first-year of monitoring training hours as a performance metric. Accordingly, the department will monitor 2018 performance against both 2017 figures and a tentative baseline target of 200 hours per employee. Pasco Fire Department Length of Employment Department length of service emphasized at <5 yr. mark. Contributing factors include new-hire staff increases associated with the opening and staffing of Station 84. Page 32 of 225 16 | P a g e Department Age by 5 Year Group The above graph represents a healthy normal curve, indicating a good blend of staffing with regard to age and experience, department wide. Eligibility for 2018 Retirement Replacement timeline for the backfilling of retirees is a leading cause of rising overtime rates. Review of potential for pre-retirement hiring/training to minimize transition strain recommended. Further analysis highlights the level of leadership and staff eligible for retirement; 1 Fire Chief, 1 Deputy Chief, 2 Battalion Chiefs, 3 Captains, and 1 Lieutenant (Statistically stated, 100% of the Uniformed Administrative Chiefs, 66% of the Operational Chiefs, 25% of the Station Commanders, and 17% of the Company Officers are currently eligible for retirement). Consideration of the establishment and maintenance of promotional lists recommended. Page 33 of 225 17 | P a g e APPARATUS RELIABILITY Cumulative Fleet Age versus Total Fleet Life Expectancy As anticipated, fire engine lifecycle is reaching maximum expectancy. Two replacement engines have been ordered. A closer review of rescue and grass vehicle truck replacement by both fire and fleet maintenance is recommended for 2019-2020 budget cycle. Maintenance and Fuel Cost by Vehicle Category and Type A review of internal shop maintenance rates for ambulance and fire engines as compared to 3rd party service for 2019-2020 budget cycle is recommended. Grass vehicle maintenance costs indicate replacement; however, most maintenance costs within this category are due to the refurbishment of a tank and pump. It is expected this completed replacement will extend the life expectancy of the particular unit by approximately 5 years. Page 34 of 225 18 | P a g e Vehicle Utilization in Miles versus Cost per Mile Change in mileage represents effective use of apparatus. The graph’s secondary axis – cost per mile – is calculated by material, labor, and fuel costs for a given year, per vehicle. A greater cost per mile and lesser change in mileage represents either inadequate use or a deteriorating effectiveness of a given apparatus. The costs projected on this cost/usage ratio indicate and recommend vehicle replacement consideration be given to fire engine 2819, and rescue vehicle 2841. (See chart on pg. 11 for vehicle identification) Apparatus Out-of-Service (Maintenance) Time New tires and brakes were installed on a majority of ambulances in 2017. Radiator replacement, new vehicle setup (x2), and step assembly were additional labor and expense drivers for ambulance apparatus. Fire apparatus maintenance costs are anticipated to rise in 2018 for set up and delivery of new apparatus (x2). *Note this figure does not include 3rd party service hours. The department is investigating a system to more accurately collect meaningful third party billing statistics. Page 35 of 225 19 | P a g e Unit Hour Utilization Unit hour utilization measures the amount of time (by percentage of the day) of which a particular unit is committed to an emergent event. Historically, a Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) greater than 25% indicates a potential for employee exhaustion issues and negatively affects station and unit reliability. The Center for Public Safety Excellence/Commission on Fire Accreditation and the Pasco Fire Department Master Plan suggests a need for additional equipment and staffing support as UHU rates reach 25 percent. Monitoring this metric in combination with overall response times will lead to a refinement in the target replacement percentile range. Page 36 of 225 20 | P a g e CALL VOLUME/TEMPORAL TRENDING Call Volume by Call Type The Pasco Fire Department statistically aligns with national and regional ratios for departments that operate an Emergency Medical Service (EMS). Historically, responses to EMS calls (NFIRS {National Fire Incident Reports System} Codes 321 and 322) comprise 75-80% of Pasco’s total emergent call volume (an in-depth study of these event types is discussed later in this report). Fires and other emergencies represent between 20-25% of total call volume. EMS and Fire calls represent the highest cost risk of emergency service provisions within the City of Pasco. EMS drives cost by volume, while Fire by resource demand. Primary 2017 EMS cost centers by type are; trauma, cardiac event, and overdose. 2017 Fire response cost drivers are primarily singular structure fires. The fire department is monitoring these specific event types (and others) in an effort to identify trends, costs, and alternative strategies. Page 37 of 225 21 | P a g e Call Volume Concentration The 2017 Call Volume Concentration heat map above identifies call locations for all emergent event types. Utilization of this data allows the department to consistently monitor and plan for future expansion based upon calls for service. The map identifies call volume concentrations by three colors; red represents a high concentration call area, yellow represents medium concentration, and green represents low concentration. Population Density Population densities, as referenced in the visual map above, are represented by darker shading; the darker the shading, the higher the density. Geospatial analysis of both data sets indicate higher call volume occurring in areas experiencing increased population movement, and secondarily, areas of greater static population density. For future planning purposes, it is recommended consideration be given to resource positioning commensurate with population densities and movement. 2016 Census data reflects a City population of 70,560 with a density of 2075 people per square mile. Page 38 of 225 22 | P a g e Call Volume Temporal Trending Page 39 of 225 23 | P a g e Call volume is concentrated during times of significant population activity and movement, typically during daylight and evening hours and warmer months. The call volume chart above uses the military time stamp (0 equals midnight, 1 equals 1:00 am, etc.). The anomaly noted in January (pg. 22 “Call Volume by Month”) can be attributed to an unusually high snowfall accumulation during the winter of 2016-2017. Page 40 of 225 24 | P a g e Overlapping Call Volume V. Total Call Volume An overlapping call is defined as a call which occurs while primary response units (the units that are normally assigned) are engaged on a prior emergency. This metric includes simultaneous calls for different addresses. Overlapping call volume is displayed on the graph’s secondary axis, in combination with total calls represented on the primary axis. Call volume continues trending upward year over year. 2017 experienced a minor reduction in overlapping call volume, attributable to the introduction of Station 84 in the third quarter of the year. The addition of St84 allowed primary response units to maintain availability within their initial response areas. It is anticipated overlapping call volume will decline further throughout 2018. Page 41 of 225 25 | P a g e 2016 Response Time by Fire Management Zone 2017 Response Time by Fire Management Zone (Nov. & Dec. Only) The map above depicts the response time results with the addition of St84. The limited data set (November and December of 2017) clearly indicates a positive result in overall times, particularly in the Riverview Area. Gray FMZ’s indicate that there were no emergent calls during the data sampling. Page 42 of 225 26 | P a g e 2017 Response Time by Fire Management Zone Response times in Central Pasco have been reduced with the opening of Station 84. It is expected that response times will continue to decline in remaining yellow zones (Central Pasco) as St 84 becomes fully staffed. Fire Management Zones with heavy call volume also saw a reduction in response times City-wide, however, West/Northwest Pasco continues to experience delayed response attributable to longer travel distances from existing stations. As expected, outer-perimeter zones continue to experience longer response times, with specific concentration in industrial areas. Page 43 of 225 27 | P a g e COMMUNITY WELLNESS Page 28 PATIENT DEMOGRAPHY (LIMITED) Core Purpose: Understand community demographics and inherent target risks to better plan and prepare effective prevention programs and emergency responses. Metrics Measured: Resident Age, Average Patient Age, Average Patient Gender and Age Page 30 MEDICAL EMERGENCY Core Purpose: Measure, analyze, and adapt operational processes to achieve and maintain optimal outcomes. The Healthcare Information Patient Privacy Act (HIPPA) has limited the availability of meaningful statistics. The Pasco Fire Department, in cooperation with the WaCARES program, report and annually develop survival statistics for Cardiac Events. Portions of the metrics shown in this section are excerpts from the 2017 WaCARES program. Metrics Measured: Cardiac Events and Outcomes, Opioid Overdose Costs, Primary Provider Impression, Mortality Page 36 FIRE EMERGENCY Core Purpose: Measure, analyze, and adapt operational processes to achieve and maintain optimal performance. The Pasco Fire Department reports all fire activities to the Washington State Fire Marshall’s Office using the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Metrics Measured: Structural Fire Occurrences, Structural Fire Cause, Natural Cover Fires, Vehicle Fires Page 38 COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION Core Purpose: Promote Community wellness, safety education, and transparency between Citizens and Department. Metrics Measured: Community Outreach Activities, Building Safety Inspections, and Code Enforcement Activities Page 44 of 225 28 | P a g e PATIENT DEMOGRAPHY The City of Pasco is home to approximately 70,579 residents, per 2016 Census data. Broken out by age group, we find Pasco is comprised of a significant youth population, but a relatively small retirement and older population. As suspected, call volume is directly correlated to patient age. As patient age increases, the calls per resident within the given age bin also increase. In other words, less than 2% of Pasco residents under the age of 18 will require emergen cy medical services per year; 7% of residents under the age of 64; however, over 26% of the population over the age of 65 will require EMS in a given year, on average. The fire department has reported a dependency of the 65+ population on 911 services for low risk incidents, often considered routine care. High cost of service to such a small demographic segment generally requiring non-emergent care indicates a significant opportunity for proactive community paramedicine programs. By conducting routine visits to high risk citizens (Target top 25% of 65+ population; estimated 1250 residents), the department stands to reduce EMS service costs and resource strain. Additionally, it is noted that 36% of the population is positioned in the easiest -to-reach demographic; school age youth. Accordingly, it is recommended that the community risk reduction program increase its outreach efforts to this readily available audience for the improvement of community wide emergency service knowledge and application. An informed and capable middle and high school-aged demographic serves to support the interest and efficacy of Pasco’s community safety efforts. Further, the most significant group requiring emergency medical services as a whole is the working age population. Efforts to partner with large employers within the City in safety, first aid and CPR training for their respective staff are recommended. Page 45 of 225 29 | P a g e Average Patient Age by Gender Females represent 48% of Pasco population, yet attribute to 52% of total EMS responses. The average age by gender for EMS patients is indicated in the chart above. The median age in the City of Pasco is 28.6 years, and the average age of patients served by the Pasco Fire Department is 50.75 years. Page 46 of 225 30 | P a g e MEDICAL EMERGENCY Cardiac Etiology Cardiac emergencies are on average the costliest emergency medical service provided in Pasco, with an average full-cardiac arrest scenario totaling over $1,943 (transport fees not included). The Pasco Fire Department continues to monitor the frequency, cost basis, and demographics of cardiac events. Page 47 of 225 31 | P a g e The Pasco Fire Department utilizes the Utstein Survival matrix to measure the success of medical interventions for cardiac events. The Utstein matrix uses the following criteria to measure cardiac outcomes: Witnessed by bystander and found in a shockable rhythm (ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia) Received some bystander intervention (CPR and/or AED application) Non-Traumatic Etiology Survival Rates (City of Pasco) Overall 13.5% Bystander Witnessed 35% Unwitnessed 0% Utstein 60% Utstein Bystander 33.3% The citizens of Pasco benefit from a fairly high survival rate for cardiac events, as compared to national average (reported by the American Heart Association). Consideration of a “Hands Only” CPR program for all City of Pasco Employees and general public is recommended in order to increase the likelihood of cardiac event diagnosis and survival. Page 48 of 225 32 | P a g e Opioid Overdose The national opioid epidemic is being carefully monitored by the Pasco Fire Department. Narcan (Naloxone) is the medication of choice for therapeutic intervention of opioid overdoses. The chart below shows significant trend in the use of Narcan (+306%) over the last seven years. Additionally, Narcan dosage costs have risen by 322% ($9 – $29.80 per dose) over the same time period. The significant increase of Narcan administration from 2012 through 2014 is indicative of the opioid epidemic. The cause(s) of slight downturn between 2014 and 2016 has not been determined ; however, the recent substantial spike between 2016 -2017 is cause for concern. Early assumptions of this cause point to an increase in the illegal distribution of opioids. In order to mitigate the opioid related overdose deaths, the Pasco Fire Department, in colla boration with the Pasco Police Department and in compliance with RCW 69.50.315 and RCW 18.130.345, have provided and trained Police Officers to administer Narcan. To date, the Pasco Police Department has administered doses of Narcan to five patients, prior to the arrival of EMS personnel. If the recent surge in Opioid overdose continues through 2018 and on ward, the department will likely face increased costs resultant of supply consumption , increased unit utilization, and increased out of service times for ambulance units. Medication by Cost/Dose (Top 5) Protocol Medication Cost/Dose # Doses FY2017 $ FY2017 Diabetic Glucogen $326.88 3 $980.64 Overdose Narcan $29.27 202 $5912.54 Cardiac Levophed $19.03 13 $247.39 Intubation Succinylcholine $18.40 75 $1380.00 Overdose Thiamine $11.93 18 $214.74 Page 49 of 225 33 | P a g e Cost of Medication by Dosage Administered (Top 5) Protocol Medication Cost/Dose # Doses FY2017 $ FY2017 Cardiac Sodium Chloride $5.00 504 $2520.00 Diabetic Fentanyl $1.20 437 $524.40 Nausea Zofran $.18 389 $70.02 Cardiac Epi 1:10,1000 $5.61 205 $1150.05 Overdose Narcan $29.27 202 $5912.54 EMS Call Purpose by Provider Primary Impression 67% of total calls are attributed to 5 primary impressions: Trauma, Altered Consciousness, Abdominal Pain, Chest Pain, and Respiratory Distress. Analysis leads to the recommendation of cross referencing these impressions with average cost, by type, to highlight cost drivers and the potential for refinement of inventory control, financial recovery and reduction of emergent calls. Page 50 of 225 34 | P a g e Mortality: Death Due to Drug Overdose: Figures obtained from the Franklin County Coroner’s Annual Report support evidence of an increasing Opioid problem. Death Due to Natural Causes: Cardiac Events continue to lead natural death causes in the region. Page 51 of 225 35 | P a g e Death Due to Accident: Page 52 of 225 36 | P a g e FIRE EMERGENCY Residential Structural Fire Event Type Analysis indicates a significant portion of fire call volume is resultant of false alarms. Cooking fires and false alarms appear more prevalent in Multi-family residences (MFR) than Single-Family residences (SFR), calculated by the ratio of fires or alarms per structure. Actual structure fire ratios between MFR and SFR align with total structure count, and are considered proportionately representative. Temporal statistical data indicates that cooking fires tend to occur during the expected time frames based upon activity schedules of the populations. There was no significant statistical evidence that supported specific days of the week for cooking fires. Page 53 of 225 37 | P a g e Natural Cover Fires The fire department responded to a total of 221 grass/natural cover fires during the fire season of 2017. The fire season usually occurs between May 1st through October 31st (dependent upon weather, fuel moistures, etc.) of each year. It is notable that members of the Pasco Fire Department supported 21 large fire assignments in both Washington and Oregon States during the 2017 fire season. Natural cover fires require the response of specialized Type 6 engines (located at St ation 81 and 83), in addition to specialized personnel training. Vehicle Fires PFD responded to 193 vehicle fires throughout 2017. As noted in the chart above, a large majority of vehicle fires were passenger vehicles. Vehicle fires require the response of a Type 1 engine and an ambulance. Page 54 of 225 38 | P a g e COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION Community Risk Reduction Outreach Tasks In an effort to achieve a Washington State Rating Bureau Class 4 rating, the community risk reduction program tracks events and program contacts. The chart above identifies the number outreach events, smoke alarm installations and service inspections completed each year. The chart below indicates the number of outreach programs, public service announcements, and/or community safety classes completed each month of 2017. As the program is relatively new and under ongoing development, consideration of secondary level metrics to measure outcomes of outreach success is recommended; by way of example; “How has the smoke alarm program reduced the occurrences of large structure fires?” Number of outreach sessions conducted by Month Visual representation of outreach events points to an inconsistency of outreach sessions, seasonally. Increased outreach during winter months is recommended. Page 55 of 225 39 | P a g e Additional Community Risk Reduction Commentary: During 2017, the Community Risk Reduction Program completed a comprehensive Community Risk Analysis. This analysis identified slip, trip, and fall hazards (traumatic injury) as a preventable incident. As a result, the Community Risk Reduction program has identified key community par tners, such as Meals on Wheels and the Fall Prevention Coalition of Benton and Franklin Counties in order to provide “on-scene” preventative education to reduce the instances of falls. It is hoped that through this networking a reduction of traumatic injuries will be realized. Buildings Inspected Pasco’s building Inspection program formed in 2015, and reflects consistent decrease in facilities visited year over year. Pasco’s Fire Marshall indicates this is likely attributable to ongoing efficiency gains consistent with program development - in other words, less repeat or follow up inspections required. State mandated changes to municipal business licensing may result in a marked increase in overall inspections throughout 2018 and 2019, and should be considered a risk area for planning purposes. Page 56 of 225 40 | P a g e Inspections by Classification The City of Pasco Inspection Services department provides annual inspections to high hazard classified buildings and bi-annual inspections to moderate hazard classified buildings. Page 57 of 225 41 | P a g e Cost Containment Page 42 BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS Core Purpose: Ensure fiscal responsibility as a department by monitoring expense and budget, monthly. Encourage application for and use of relevant Grant opportunities, subsidies, and other expense reimbursement programs. Metrics Measured: Funding, Ambulance Utility Rate History, Revenue and Expense Forecasting Accuracy Page 45 OVERTIME & SICK LEAVE Core Purpose: Monitor liability, appropriate staffing levels, and leave consumption to gauge workload balance. Metrics Measured: Overtime Cost by Year Trend, Overtime by Shift, Sick Leave Utilization Page 58 of 225 42 | P a g e BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS PFD Funding Sources: General Fund – Primarily derived from property and sales tax monies . The General Fund pays for availability and demand costs for fire service provision. Ambulance Utility – The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 35.21.766 provides all cities and towns the authority to establish an ambulance service to be operated as a public utility. The Ambulance Utility supports the availability cost of the ambulance service; demand costs are recuperated through fees for services provided. Contracts – Contracts provide cost reimbursement for services. Contracts may be held in partnership with private, local, or state entities such as the Department of Natur al Resources. Alternative – includes one-time funding such as grants Page 59 of 225 43 | P a g e Ambulance Utility Rate History: An Ambulance Cost of Service Study was completed in 2015. The study recommended the Ambulance Utility Fee for full cost recovery to be $21.13/month. Staff recommended at the time, and Council adopted, a more modest rate of recovery and adopted a rate of $12.65/month. The cost of service study and adopted rate anticipated the Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (GEMT) funding to be realized in the third quarter of 2017 to supplement increasing costs of the service. The supplemental payments (GEMT) cover the funding gap between a provider’s actual costs as defined by the GEMT and the allowable amount received from Washington Apple Health (Medicaid) and any other sources of reimbursement. The 2017 budget anticipated $0.8 million of GEMT revenue that did not come to fruition due to delays in finalization of the policy at the state level. The City is on track to complete application for GEMT supplemental funding in the first quarter of 2018. Current budget anticipates receiving $1.75 million in GEMT reimbursement for the period of June 2016 to December 2018. Additionally, the City Council has also approved changes to its Ambulance Utility fee billing structure to be based upon equivalent residential units (ERU), rather than a single standard fee. The City in on track to create an Ambulance service that is financially self -sufficient, and healthy with an equitable rate structure. Page 60 of 225 44 | P a g e Expense Budget Forecasting Accuracy – Year/Year Trending by Fund Budget Performance Discussion: The fire department manages over 302 budgetary accounts and has generally forecasted expenses within a 95% accuracy for the past two years in both the Ambulance Utility (AU) and General Funds. Variances noted in the AU forecasting accuracy can be attributed, in part, to the recent volatile nature and fluctuation of medication costs. Page 61 of 225 45 | P a g e OVERTIME & SICK LEAVE One of the challenges to the success of fire service administration primarily stems from scheduling, staffing, and environmental implications. Multiple work schedules, time off usage and sick leave utilization driven by consistent exposure to sick patients, often leave departments spread thin. Minimal staffing results in a greater instance of overtime. Overtime, if not contained, can result in an increased risk of injury. Further, the very nature of emergency service provision inherently requires an increased degree of risk acceptability. Opportunities to mitigate this risk and subsequently improve overtime and sick leave utilization are considered minimal beyond training and safety protocols. Overtime Cost by Year - Trend Increase in total staff levels between 2015 and 2017 directly impact total overtime by an average of 11% per year. During the same period, staffing increased by an average of 5 employees per year. In practice, this has resulted in average reduction of 25 OT hours per employee, or a savings of $1,963.5 in OT spend per employee. Page 62 of 225 46 | P a g e Overtime % by Shift 12,224 total overtime hours were clocked during FY 2017. This figure equates to an average of 178 OT hours per employee. The subsequent total cost of overtime was $657,612.78. Scheduled Overtime (backfill) is the primary cost driver. This may be due to a number of issues such as ; shift staffing levels, earned leave time, hiring practices, injuries. Consideration should be given to the development of a more refined method of capturing the reason for overtime. Sick Leave Utilization 2017 department sick leave usage total 4,967 of 12,012 available hours (41.35% utilization). Average sick leave used per employee equals 75.25 hrs. (3.13 shifts per year). Annual allotment per employee is 182 hours. Page 63 of 225 47 | P a g e PERFORMANCE Page 48 RESPONSE TIMES Core Purpose: Measure against response time goals established in Council Resolution #2938. Metrics Measured: Total response times for all event types 2017 Page 53 INJURIES & CLAIMS Core Purpose: Monitor injury events to refine necessary training emphasis, identify process or procedural failures, encourage department safety. Metrics Measured: Injuries Resulting in Claim – Trend, Scenario of Injury, Cost and Recurrence of Injury Page 64 of 225 48 | P a g e RESPONSE TIMES Response Efficiency Ratio (RER) The Response Efficiency Ratio (RER) evaluates the efficiency of a shift’s on-scene committed time with consideration to total call volume (the closer to 0, the more effective the shift). To understand why certain shifts maintain lower ratios, we perform a regression analysis against independent variables. Regression analysis measures a figure that identifies, on a scale of 0-100%, how much of an outcome can be predicted by a variable- the closer to 100, the more likely an outcome is entirely dependent on that variable. In this metric, our outcome is represented as the RER by shift, and our variables can be any measure tracked by shift. We find that overtime has negligible impact on efficiency, with a factor of .018, roughly 2%. Years of experience and shift age may both have a small effect on outcome, with scores of 33% and 38%, respectively. We found training hours (score 43%), to hold the most significance of all available (tracked) variables. We conclude a good mixture of age and experience on each shift is important, and that the training program is of meaningful value. Page 65 of 225 49 | P a g e Total Response Time (in seconds) *Note Response Time Sampling is compiled from a representative portion 2017 call data: 4078 Calls. (95% of total data set [sampling size due to a reduction of anomalous data]). Total response times are the sum of three time factors; - Call processing time: caller interrogation + unit notification - Turnout time: unit notification to “wheels rolling” - Travel time: “wheels rolling” to until arrival A fire department can typically maintain control of a single factor- turnout time; travel time is impacted by traffic, weather, overlapping call volume and roadway infrastructure. Call pr ocessing time is dependent on dispatch efficiency, currently managed by an external agency in the case of Pasco. Increasing response times generally increase incident complexities, which drive resource demands and negatively impact incident outcomes. EMS calls typically place a relatively low resource demand on the department as most EMS calls require the response of only one to two units, but place a high strain on resources due to volume. With increasing call volumes, the over-lapping of calls negatively impacts unit availabilities and may pull a primary apparatus out of its response zone, which affects next-call response times. In addition to increased response times, the greater risk to the community is the cascading resource drawdowns which occur with increased service demand and unit availability. Page 66 of 225 50 | P a g e Response Times by Station and Shift (in seconds) Station 84 was not included in this assessment due to limited data sample. Station 83 typically records shortest total response times, likely due to travel routes and general street configuration in the region. B Shift posts significantly more rapid response times when compared to A and C shifts. Further regression analysis comparing training hours, length of time on force, and age, are recommended to identify potential correlation of dependent to independent variables. Station design may be a contributing factor to turnout times. Consideration should be given to the relationship of living quarters to apparatus bays in future fire station designs. The City of Pasco is in the process of identifying and installing intersection control (signal pre- emption) devices. These devices will “manage” traffic flow through an inte rsection during emergency responses and potentially will positively affect response “travel times”. Page 67 of 225 51 | P a g e Auto/Mutual Aid Summary 2017 (measured in hours): Aid Received: Aid Given: As depicted in the graphs above, the City of Pasco Fire Department is heavily reliant on Auto/Mutual Aid primarily from: Franklin County Fire District #3, City of Richland and City of Kennewick. This reliance is attributable to daily staffing of less than a “full effective force” as defined by the Standards of Cover document and existing agreements between auto/mutual aid agencies. Further, the relatively high over-lapping call volume pulls primary units and responders out of position, thus increasing the reliance on auto/mutual aid. BC1 Benton County FD1 BC2 Benton County FD2 FC1 Franklin County FD1 BC4 Benton County FD4 FC3 Franklin County FD3 FC5 Franklin County FD5 KFD Kennewick Fire RFD Richland Fire USFWS US Fish & Wildlife WW5 Walla Walla FD5 BC1 Benton County FD1 FC1 Franklin County FD1 FC2 Franklin County FD2 FC3 Franklin County FD3 KFD Kennewick Fire RFD Richland Fire WW5 Walla Walla FD5 NFHD1 N. Franklin Hosp. WAFM Large Fire Mobe Page 68 of 225 52 | P a g e Water Rescue The Pasco Fire Department water rescue program was established in 2016. The goal of the program is to develop a focused preparedness and response program for water related safety and incidents. The City of Pasco services 13 river miles along the Columbia River. Since program inception, the water rescue program has responded to over 75 river emergencies. The program works collaboratively with Columbia Basin Dive Rescue, Benton, Franklin, and Walla Walla Sheriff’s Offices and the US Coast Guard – Kennewick. The Rescue Boat is located at the Pasco Marina and is crewed by Station 81 staff. Page 69 of 225 53 | P a g e INJURIES & CLAIMS Personnel “Lost Work” Claim Injuries - Annual Trending: Personnel Labor and Industries claims for injuries do not represent trending or control. Further analysis of injury recurrence and cause, is identified below. Scenario of Injury As expected, 52% of injuries result from EMS scenarios while 22% stem from Fire response, commensurate with overall call volume, incident time and risk allocation. Page 70 of 225 54 | P a g e Injuries Resulting in Claim by Scenario and Injury Classification, with Cost – 2017 Only Additional lift training and emphasis on lift assist to be prioritized in 2018. Administration to partner with the City of Pasco Safety department to re-write data collection and communication process with the intent to reduce unknown, other, or blank injury report submissions. Additional precaution to be taken in training tasks. Root cause analysis of trip/fall incidents in stations to be addressed. Page 71 of 225 55 | P a g e QUALITY Page 56 PUBLIC SATISFACTION Core Purpose: Evaluate community feedback mechanisms to improve service levels and improve department satisfaction. Metrics Measured: Approval Rating by Service Type, Annual Approval Rating – Trend, Cost/Response/Staffing evaluation Page 58 EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION Core Purpose: Monitor Staff satisfaction to identify opportunities to improve morale and department effectiveness. Metrics Measured: Internal Department Satisfaction Rating Page 72 of 225 56 | P a g e PUBLIC SATISFACTION Approval Rating by Service Type Annual Approval Rating - Trend Generally, the Pasco Fire Department experiences a high customer satisfaction rating, with 90% and 92% of the respondents rating emergency services responses (Fire and EMS respectively) as either good or excellent. Fire Prevention and Education scored 68% as either good or excellent. It is recommended the department develop a follow-up questionnaire in order to further explore customer response and provide timelier customer feedback. Page 73 of 225 57 | P a g e Cost, Response, and Staffing Survey During the Strategic Planning process, Emergency Services Consulting, International (ESCI) asked constituent groups to rate department cost (budget), response capabilities , and staffing levels. The citizen strategic planning group’s responses in the chart above indicate that Pasco Fire Department costs and responses (equipment) are appropriate. Nearly ½ of the survey group felt the department was understaffed. Page 74 of 225 58 | P a g e EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION During the strategic planning process, ESCI anonymously polled an internal group representing 83% of the department to identify and rate overall department morale. Survey questions centered on personal work environments, individual morale and the percepti on of organizational morale. The conclusion of ESCI with respect to this measure is as follows: “The members of the Pasco Fire Department are proud of their organization and proud to work for it…” Page 75 of 225 59 | P a g e RESULTS SUMMARY As stated previously, Fire Department Administration is as much about numbers, statistics and trends as it is personnel management and emergency services delivery. The future success or failure of a fire department will depend entirely on its ability to collect, monitor, and an alyze relevant information in an accurate and meaningful manner. The Pasco Fire Department has, as a function of this report, embarked on a process to examine and analyze relevant data key to the success of the organization, as defined by the City Council, external and internal stakeholders, and collaborative agencies. Certainly, such an in-depth analysis often creates more questions than answers, but as a result has yielded a more refined and intentional decision-making process. Recommendations for improvement and actionable items may be found in the following chapter, Recommendations. Operational Readiness The Pasco Fire Department is considered to be within the target range of operational readiness. Recent increases in staffing, the acquisition of additional fire engines, the addition of Station 84, and upward trending in total training hours, will all positively contribute to response times and service quality and availability. There is a direct, inverse relationship between population growth and operational readiness, assuming preparation and resources remain static. Concurrent with recent development and expansion in Pasco, increased population drives service boundary distances, traffic congestion and consequently total response time. A regular periodic and consistent review of population densities and movement patterns to maintain service provision is necessary. Community Wellness The department has formed a Community Risk Reduction program to better serve and support community wellness and safety. The metrics and analysis performed in this report will enable and more accurately target opportunities for programs such as Mobile Integrated Healthcare to maximize value and return. As a relatively new program within the organization, the Community Risk Reduction program has yet to identify meaningful statistics. The development of a consistent method to identify trends that ultimately lead to intervention strategies will be necessary. Additionally, it is expected that the advent of an empirical approach to such programs will positively impact the following pillar, Cost Containment. Cost Containment As discussed in the subchapter Budgetary Considerations, there is opportunity to refine the operational budget through more accurate identification and exploitation of one-time funding opportunities such as grants, etc. and application of support funding programs, such as GEMT. Discretionary leave (overtime, sick, holiday, etc.) use is being monitored in an objective manner that allows for more educated legacy hiring practices and effective management decisions. Page 76 of 225 60 | P a g e Performance Response times are anticipated to improve in 2018, with the establishment of Station 84 and additional support staff. Further, the transition to a new dispatch center is expected to significantly reduce total response times through the reduction of Call Processing times. A significant take away from conducting the research and analysis of this report is the recognition of an absence of appropriate “outcome” statistics. Traditionally, Fire and EMS performance has been measured by either dollars lost vs. dollars saved, or average response times. These metrics are subjective and often inaccurate representations of the true intent of Fire and EMS services; positive outcomes. The Pasco Fire Department, as a key action item stemming from this study, will explore and develop alternative metrics to more effectively gauge Fire and EMS services provided. Tentatively, the measure of arrival time to the time of stop-loss (Time of hostile fire activity cessation) for fire incidents, and the outcome ratio of positive/negative resolution for EMS events, will be explored. HIPPA legislation has limited useful data due to reticence of medical providers sharing important demographical information. A greater understanding and agreement between organizations (receiving medical facilities and EMS providers) of the need for and use of patient information is needed. The current state of reliance on regional data does not provide specific empirical metrics that will guide the decision-making processes of local authorities. Quality Perhaps most difficult to measure but undoubtedly important, community and staff satisfaction are within more than acceptable range with regard to emergency medical and fire s ervices. Efforts to continue to monitor public and employee satisfaction are recommended . Page 77 of 225 61 | P a g e RECOMMENDATIONS Technical Competence The department will monitor 2018 training performance against 2017 figures, with a tentative baseline target of 280 hours. Preliminary subject allocation of training hours recommended as follows: 180 or 240 hours - Fire specific training (FF1, and non-credentialed, respectively) 24-36 hours specialty training per qualification 36 hours EMS training 20 hours’ apparatus/operator training As noted in PFD length of employment figure, employment length is emphasized in the less than 5 - year category. To encourage department tenure and align with strategic planning objectives, the development of an individualized career mapping program is recom mended to encourage employee ownership and technical competence. Apparatus Reliability Administrative visibility to apparatus condition and efficiency is limited by current process, program, and reporting structure. Cross departmental coordination for the streamlining of fleet cost and condition communication is recommended. A centralized dashboard or readily available and accessible report containing cost per mile, out of service time, preventative maintenance schedule and programmed apparatus life expectancy is recommended. Continue to monitor unit hour utilization and mileage v. cost rates as a determinate for both optimal percent utilization range and apparatus replacement. Call Volume Metrics Call volume by type is expected to remain relational to population size and age, and density, however, monitoring density and population movement areas as a planning mechanism for forwar d response centers and stations with the intent to control and mitigate response time, is recommended. Temporal trending, specifically call volume by hour, indicates the presence of peak demand times between 8:00AM and 8:00PM. Modeling of unit hour utilization with call type, in combination with temporal trending during peak demand times may unveil staffing and response efficiency opportunities, such as mobile integrated healthcare or peak demand units. Response Times Technological improvements such as AVL (automatic vehicle location), traffic control technology (signal pre-emption devices), automated vehicle routing software and consistently updated and accurate mapping will improve response performance. Station design may be a contributing factor to turnout times. Consideration should be given to the relationship of living quarters to apparatus bays in future fire station designs. Page 78 of 225 62 | P a g e As indicated on page 43, travel response times are a primary cause for total response time overruns. Travel response is largely dependent on traffic and infrastructure. An emphasis on cross departmental planning efforts with regard to future expansion and infrastructural planning is of paramount importance as the City continues to grow at such a rapid pace. Community Wellness Current metrics within the Pillar of Community Wellness are intended to serve as a monitor of community needs that will ultimately act as a guiding tool for the focused delivery of specific programs and responses. By continually evaluating primary event types, patient demographics, and respective outcomes, the department stands to better refine and deliver operational value. The core intent of the community risk reduction program is to provide collaborative efforts with community social services to intervene and mitigate potential emergencies before reactionary emergency response becomes necessary. As the program is in its infancy, measuring outcome relation to myriad variables will guide the ultimate direction and development of program efforts. Cost Containment As evidenced in the report, the fire department manages the 302 individual accounting codes fairly accurately as projected expenses average 95% accuracy. Identification and solidification of alternative funding mechanisms must remain a high priority. Methodology for capturing leave use by r eason code is to be established in reporting and timekeeping practices. Quality A significant driver of overtime and department strain stems from the burden of working around unfilled positions. Developing and maintaining a hiring and promotional list will reduce turnaround time for replacement of unfilled positions, in turn reducing department strain and budgetary cost overruns. Public Satisfaction is impacted by cost, care and quality of service. Increased transparency and direct feedback from the community are of significant importance to the department. Accordingly, the development of an after service questionnaire serving as a feedback mechanism to the department, is highly recommended. Additionally, employee retention is a core component of department quality, directly impacting cost, technical competence, and cultural tone. Monitoring average length of service and department morale will serve as a guiding mechanism for determining internal department quality. Page 79 of 225 63 | P a g e Author’s note: Thank you for taking the time to read and review the Pa sco Fire Department’s 2017 Performance Report. You may have noticed the watermark on these pages: The image depicts the Pasco Fire Department responding to a commercial structure fire. Of particular interest, Pasco Fire Chief Gear is speaking with Deputy Chief Hare, providing guidance regarding the operational plan. The plan in this image consisted of keeping the fire between “here, and h ere” as noted by Chief Gear’s gesture in the image. How relevant, then, is this picture in relation to the efforts of this document and further, the direction of the industry? As with every emergency response, the administration of the modern fire department must identify and collect relevant information; establish target parameters; then formulate and execute the plan. As the organization and its respective programs develop, we must determine not only what we are trying to accomplish, but also how we are going to measure its success (or failure). The Pasco Fire Department’s what (or parameters) have been set forth by citizens, customers, employees, and the City Council. This document serves as the first step in addressing how the organization will refine and improve upon those objectives. The practice of continually monitoring performance against ever changing variables and expectations will serve us well in the pursuit of excellence. Page 80 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 20, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director Finance SUBJECT: Biennial Budget I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Biennial budgeting is the practice of preparing and adopting a budget for a two -year period. This style of budgeting has been permitted in Washington cities since 1985. Cities using the authority for a biennial budget are required to conduct a mid-biennium review that should include any proposed modifications. The mid-biennium review will need to be advertised and published in a manner similar to annual budget process. V. DISCUSSION: A biennial budget promotes and facilitates long-term financial and strategic planning - a best practice recommended by Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Creating a new budget each year consumes a large amount of organizational capacity. By reducing the total amount of time spent on preparing the budget over a two-year period, we in turn increase the amount of time that Council and Staff have available to review and manage other programs throughout the City. For example, the City would like to focus on reviewing the management and effectiveness of programs, performance metrics, capital planning, policies, etc. Additionally, the City's budget is heavily based upon the Council's goals, which also follow the biennial time frame. A budget cycle that complements the Council's goals will be beneficial for the organization as a whole. Page 81 of 225 Predictability in revenue forecasting is a concern with a biennial budget. Pasco is still the fastest growing city in the State. However, Pasco’s growth is more predictable than it was in the early 2000's, and it is more possible to accurately forecast revenue over the two-year period today than was the case during the first decade of the century. The perception of losing control over spending is stated as a disadvantage by some. However, all spending requires Council authorization, regardl ess of the style of budget used by the City - annual or biennial. As mentioned before, the City is legally required to conduct a mid-biennium review. Based on the advantages of a biennial budget and the fact that any perceived disadvantages can be mitigated through regular analysis and communication, Staff recommends that Council adopt a biennial budget process. Page 82 of 225 Ordinance – Biennial Budget - 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Creating a New Chapter 3.01 entitled "Biennial Budget”; and Amending PMC 3.84.010 “Expenditure Limitations” WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature has recognized that the development and adoption of a budget by the City is a lengthy and intense process designed to provide adequate opportunities for public input and sufficient time for deliberation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the legislature, likewise, recognizes the limited time available and that time committed for budgetary action reduces opportunities for deliberating on other issues; and WHEREAS, the City is empowered by RCW 35A.34 “The Municipal Biannually Budget Act” to adopt biennial budgets; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the adoption of a biennial will in addition to significant time savings, provide a longer perspective providing for a better overall strategic planning; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the best interest of the City to adopt biennial budgeting. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a new Chapter 3.01 entitled “Biennial Budget” of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: Chapter 3.01 BIENNIAL BUDGET Sections: 3.01.010 IMPLEMENTATION OF BIENNIAL BUDGET. 3.01.020 MID-BIENNIAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION. 3.01.030 FUNDS – QUARTERLY REPORT OF STATUS. 3.04.040 REFERENCES TO “BUDGET” OR “ANNUAL BUDGET.” 3.01.050 AMENDMENTS TO BUDGET. 3.01.060 BIENNIAL BUDGET – INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. 3.01.010 IMPLEMENTATION OF BIENNIAL BUDGET. The City of Pasco, as authorized by RCW 35A.34.040, does hereby establish a two-year biennial budget commencing January 1, 2019. The 2019-2020 biennial budget and all subsequent budges shall be prepared, considered, and adopted under the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 35A.34 RCW. The Page 83 of 225 Ordinance – Biennial Budget - 2 appropriations specifically made for the second year of the biennium shall only be expended in the second year of the biennium. 3.01.020 MID-BIENNIAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATION. Pursuant to RCW 35A.34.130, the City Council hereby provides for a mid-biennial review and modification of the biennial budget. No sooner than eight months after the start of the first year of the fiscal biennium, nor later than the second regularly scheduled City Council meeting in October of the first year of each biennial budget, the City Manager shall prepare proposed budget modifications to be effective as of January 1st of the following year. Such proposed modifications shall be sent to City Council members and shall be a public records and available to the public. A public hearing shall be held on the proposed modifications at a City Council meeting no later than the second regularly scheduled City Council meeting in November and may be continued from time to time. Notice of the hearing shall be published consistent with publication of notices for adoption of other City Ordinances. At such haring or thereafter, the City Council may consider a proposed Ordinance to adopt such modifications. A complete copy of any budget modification Ordinance will be transmitted to the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. 3.01.030 FUNDS – QUARTERLY REPORT OF STATUS. The City Manager and Finance Director shall submit quarterly to the City Council a report showing the expenditures against each separate budget appropriation incurred during the preceding reporting period and like information for the whole of the current fiscal biennium to the first day of the current reporting period, together with the unexpended balance of each appropriation. The report shall also show the receipts from all sources. 3.01.040 REFERENCE TO “BUDGET” OR “ANNUAL BUDGET”. All references to “budget” or “annual budget” contained in this Code or in the Ordinance of the City Pasco shall be interpreted as referring to the “biennial budget.” 3.01.050 AMENDMENTS TO BUDGET. The City Council reserves the right to amend the biennial budget to the full extent authorized by Chapter 35A.34 RCW. 3.01.060 BIENNIEL BUDGET – INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. Chapter 35A.34 RCW, as amended, is hereby incorporated by reference. The addition of any new section to, or amendment or repeal of any section in Chapter 35A.34 RCW is deemed to amend this section, and it shall not be necessary for the City Council to take any action with respect to such addition, amendment, or repeal. Section 2. That Section 3.3.84.010 entitled “Expenditure Limitations” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 3.84.010 EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS. The expenditures as classified and itemized in the final biennium budget shall constitute the City’s appropriations for the ensuing fiscal biennium year. Unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and subject to further limitations imposed by ordinance, the expenditure of City funds or the incurring of current liabilities on behalf of the City shall be limited to the following: Page 84 of 225 Ordinance – Biennial Budget - 3 A) The total amount appropriated for each fund in the budget for the current fiscal biennium year, without regard to the individual items contained therein, except that this limitation shall not apply to wage adjustments authorized by Section 3.84.025; and B) The unexpended appropriation balances of a preceding budget which may be carried forward from prior fiscal biennium years pursuant to RCW 35A.33.150; and C) Funds received from the sale of bonds which have been duly authorized according to law; and D) Funds received in excess of estimated revenues during the current biennium fiscal, when authorized by an ordinance amending the original budget; and E) Expenditures required for emergencies, as authorized in RCW 35A.33.080 and 35A.33.090. (Ord. 3557, Sec. 57, 2002; Ord. 3406 Sec. 1, 2000; Prior code Sect. 2-20.04.) Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect on January 1, 2019. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2018. _____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 85 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 19, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Proposed Charter for Inclusivity Commission I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution and Charter Resolution No. 3820 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Council approved Resolution No. 3820 creating the Inclusivity Commission in late January. The resolution directs the City Manager to prepare a Charter for the Commission and submit to Council for consideration of adoption within 60 days of adoption of the resolution. The attached proposed Charter incorporates the essentials of the Commission's mission and goals into the Charter. Some additional clarifying language is provided. V. DISCUSSION: Staff recommends Council discussion and direction concerning the final version of the Charter. Page 86 of 225 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, adopting a Charter for the City of Pasco Inclusivity Commission. WHEREAS, at the February 20, 2018 meeting, the City Council approved Resolution No. 3820, establishing an Inclusivity Commission to, “provide recommendations to the City Council for implementation of City-wide inclusivity improvements”; and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 3820, the City Manager is directed to prepare and submit for City Council for consideration, a Charter for the Inclusivity Commission within sixty days of the passage of the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the Charter and determined to adopt it for the guidance of the Inclusivity Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Charter for the Pasco Inclusivity Commission, attached as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted and approved. Section 2. The City Manager is directed to provide for publication and distribution of the Charter as needed. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this _______ day of ____________, 2018. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 87 of 225 CHARTER OF THE PASCO INCLUSIVITY COMMISSION ARTICLE I Establishment and Name Section 1.0 – Establishment. By Resolution No. 3820, the Pasco City Council has provided for the establishment of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission hereinafter referred to as the “Commission.” ARTICLE II Mission and Goals of Commission Section 2.1 – Mission. The primary mission of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission is to assist the Pasco City Council in promoting inclusivity in Pasco. The Commission shall conduct such activities, including public meetings, to identify means to promote and embrace diversity and inclusivity and to make such recommendations to the City Council for action, education, and guidance to foster an environment that includes, accepts, respects and appreciates all members of our community. The Commission will be an advisory board to the City Council. Section 2.2 – Goals and Work Plan. The goals and work plan of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission are as follows: 1. Develop a working plan and procedures in accordance with this Charter. 2. Examine the practices and procedures of the City of Pasco to identify strategies to create a greater feeling of inclusion and welcoming for all who live and work in Pasco. 3. Engage with Pasco residents, interest groups, and businesses, seeking feedback on their experiences that can improve life in Pasco. 4. Identify strategies that help the City to be more inclusive in engaging residents and businesses that will better promote unity, equality and understanding in Pasco; including the preparation of a report for the City Council on opportunities to recognize and celebrate Pasco’s diverse culture. 5. Identify funding strategies to implement these goals. 6. Present recommendations to the Pasco City Council on how to achieve the goals above. Reports to the Council may be made as progress occurs; however, not less than once per year. Page 88 of 225 Charter of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission Page 2 ARTICLE III Duration Section 3.0. The Commission shall continue in duration until February 20, 2020 unless continuation of the Commission is extended by a majority vote of the Pasco City Council no less than ninety (90) days prior to the date of expiration (November 20, 2019). If so extended, the term shall be extended by such period as determined by the City Council. ARTICLE IV Commission Members Section 4.1 – Selection, Vacancies and Voting. The Commission shall consist of seven (7) voting members. The Mayor shall appoint the members of the Commission with confirmation of the appointments by the Pasco City Council as follows: 1. The Commission Chairperson shall be selected by the City Council who shall conduct the meetings of the Commission and report to the Pasco City Council as requested or provided below. 2. A Vice-Chair selected by a majority of the Commission shall fulfill the duties of the Chairperson in absence of the Chairperson. 3. Commission members shall be appointed for terms of one (1) year, and may be subject to reappointment. 4. Vacancies on the Commission shall be filled for the unexpired term of the former member. In accordance with PMC 2.58.010, Commission members may be removed for incompetency, incompatibility, dereliction of duty, malfeasance in office, inefficiency, neglect of duty, or for other good cause, and membership shall be forfeited in the event the member has four (4) absences from regular meetings within a twelve (12) month period of time, or absences for three (3) consecutive regular meetings. 5. The majority rule shall control commission meetings with each member having a single vote. Commission members may not assign or grant proxies for their voting rights. Section 4.2 – Liaison and Staff. The City Council may appoint a City Councilmember to serve as a non-voting liaison to the Commission. The City Council may direct the City Manager to appoint a staff advisor who shall serve as a non-voting liaison to the Commission. Page 89 of 225 Charter of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission Page 3 ARTICLE V Meetings Section 5.1 – Commission Meetings. The Commission shall meet as necessary, but not less than once per month, at a date and time to be determined by the Commission. A quorum shall be required for meetings where votes are scheduled to make recommendations to the City Council. A quorum is not required to commence a workshop meeting of the Commission. A quorum shall be no fewer than four members. Section 5.2 – Open Public Meetings. All Commission Meetings shall be open to the public and notice of meetings shall be given to the extent required by law in a manner consistent with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW. At each meeting any citizen shall have a reasonable opportunity to address the Commission either orally or in writing. Section 5.3 – Parliamentary Authority. The rules of Robert’s Rules of Order (revised) shall govern the Commission in all cases to which they are applicable, where they are not inconsistent with the Charter or with the special rules of the Commission. Section 5.4 – Minutes. Copies of the minutes of all regular or special meetings of the Commission shall be available to any person or organization that requests them as required by state law. The minutes of all Commission meetings shall include a record of individual votes on all matters voted on by the Commission. ARTICLE VI Amendments to Charter Section 6.1 – Proposal to Amend Charter. Any Commission member may introduce a proposed amendment to the Charter at any meeting of which proper advance notice has been given to members of the Commission. The notice shall include the text of the proposed amendment and a statement to its purpose and effect. Section 6.2 – City Council Approval of Proposed Charter Amendments. Proposed Charter Amendments adopted by the Commission shall be submitted to the City Council for approval. The Commission Charter may be amended only by action of the City Council. CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Pasco, Washington (City) do hereby certify that this Charter of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission is a true and correct original of such Charter as authorized by action of the City Council on this ____ day of ____________, 2018. City Clerk of the City of Pasco, Washington Page 90 of 225 RESOLUTION NO . .3~z.D A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington establishing an Inclusivity Commission to provide recommendations to the City Council for implementation by staff for City-wide inclusivity improvements. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has historically been the home for diverse cultures within our region, creating its unique character and opportunities, as well as a source of pride for all who live here; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco desires to protect and encourage our diverse culture, as well as to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens, including the right to be free of discriminatory practices and the fair application of law and to demonstrate that Pasco is a welcoming and inclusive City, where laws apply equally to all who live here, and where individuals, families and businesses are welcome; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco is honored to serve the entire community, and seeks to provide equal protection to our residents and access to all of the City's services to those that live here; and WHEREAS, Article I, Section I of the Washington Constitution declares that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights"; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature has established the "Washington Law Against Discrimination" which declares the "right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right"; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council, by oath, declares to uphold and support the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and hereby reaffirms its support to· do so for equal benefit of all those who live here; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council, to advise it in meeting these goals and responsibilities, desires to create an ad hoc Inclusivity Commission; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Declaration of City Council. The City of Pasco is hereby declared to be an Inclusive City, committed to embracing diversity and promoting equality among our work force, residents, businesses, and visitors and, hereby establishes an ad hoc Inclusivity Commission to provide recommendations to the City Council for implementation by staff for City-wide inclusivity improvements. Section 2. Establishment of Pasco Inclusivity Commission. The City Council hereby establishes a citizen ad hoc commission to be known as the "Pasco Inclusivity Commission." The City Council further directs the City Manager to develop a charter for the Pasco Inclusivity Inclusivity Commission Resolution Page 1 Page 91 of 225 Commission to be submitted to the City Council for adoption within sixty (60) days of the date of the passage of this Resolution. Section 3. Mission of Inclusivity Commission. The primary mtsston of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission is to assist the Pasco City Council in promoting inclusivity in Pasco. The Commission shall conduct such activities, including public hearings, to identify means to promote and embrace diversity and inclusivity and to make such recommendations to the City Council for action, education, and guidance to foster an environment that includes, accepts, respects and appreciates all members of our community. Section 4. Selection of Inclusivity Commission. The Pasco Inclusivity Commission shall consist of seven (7) voting members. The Mayor shall appoint the members of the commission with confirmation of the appointments by the Pasco City Council as follows: 1. The Commission Chairperson shall be selected by the City Council who shall conduct the meetings of the Commission and report to the Pasco City Council as requested or provided below. 2. A Vice-Chair selected by a majority of the Commission shall fulfill the duties of the Chairperson in absence of the Chairperson. 3. In appointing members of the Commission, the City Council will strive to select such members to represent the general City population in age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and national origin. 4. The term for service shall be one (1) year, and may be subject to reappointment. 5. The commission members or vacancies shall be in accordance with PMC 2 .58.010. 6. The majority rule shall control commission meetings with each member having a single vote. 7. Commission members may not assign or grant proxies for their voting rights. 8. The City Council may appoint a City Councilmember to serve as a non-voting liaison to the commission. The City Council may direct the City Manager to appoint a staff advisor who shall serve as a non-voting liaison to the commission. Section 5. The Commission. The requirements of the commission will be as follows: 1. Meet one time per month at the date and time determined by the commission, or more often as may be necessary. 2. Develop a working plan and procedures in accordance with the Council adopted Charter. 3. Report to the City Council as progress occurs; however, not less than an annual report to the City Council. 4 . All Commission Meetings shall be open to the public. Inclusivity Commission Resolution Page 2 Page 92 of 225 5. All Commission members must be residents who have lived within the Pasco City limits for at least one (1) year, or have a currently licensed business, operating within the City. 6. The Commission will issue special reports at the request of the City Council at any time during its sitting. 7. The Commission will be an advisory board to the City Council. Section 6. Goals of Inclusivity Commission. The goals of the Pasco Inclusivity Commission are as follows: 1. Examine the practices and procedures of the City of Pasco to identify strategies to create a greater feeling of inclusion and welcoming for all who live and work in Pasco. 2. Engage with Pasco residents, interest groups, and businesses, seeking feedback on their experiences that can improve life in our community. 3. Identify strategies that help the City to be more inclusive in engaging our residents and businesses that will better promote unity, equality and understanding in Pasco. 4. Identify funding strategies to implement these goals. 5. Provide the City Council with a report on opportunities to recognize and celebrate Pasco's diverse culture. ' 6. Present recommendations to the Pasco City Council on how to achieve the goals above. Section 7. This Commission shall expire within twenty-four (24) months of the date of this Resolution unless extended by a majority vote of the Pasco City Council no less than ninety (90) days prior to the date of expiration. If so extended, the term shall be extended by such period as determined by the City Council. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon approval. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 20th day of February, 2018. CITY OF PASCO 4t77r~ Matt Watkins, Mayor ar eu L;/dli_,~r:b «} Daniela Enckson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~ t?and. rr, City Attorney Inclusivity Commission Resolution Page 3 Page 93 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 6, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick Terway, Interim Public Works Director Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer Public Works SUBJECT: Chapel Hill Boulevard LID Formation, No. 16030 I. REFERENCE(S): DRAFT Resolution with Exhibits II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated Project Cost $11.9M City Contribution $2.24M IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Project In 2016, DNR parceled and sold 230 acres bounded by Road 84, Road 68, Argent and the FCID canal, and I-182. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Chapel Hill Boulevard corridor through this area as a connection from Road 100 to Road 68. Preliminary design work has been prepared which proposes a section that accommodates all users from pedestrians and cyclists to passenger vehicles and delivery trucks. Proposed Process Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are a means of assisting benefiting properties in financing needed capital improvements through the formation of special assessment districts. Special assessment districts provide the opportunity for improvements to be financed and paid for over a period of time through assessments on the benefitin g properties. Page 94 of 225 V. DISCUSSION: This design and construction of this project at the estimated amount of $8.8 million is part of the City's 2018-2013 Capital Improvement Plan, 2018 Annual Budget. Upon further studies, the design and construction cost is currently estimated to be at $9.5 million, with $2.4 million for financial elements like escrow, guaranty fund, and financing cost. Staff has consulted with experts in the LID process and found that an LID is appropriate for use in this situation. A special benefit analysis was recently conducted which demonstrates the that the benefits of the project accrued to the parcels within the proposed LID boundary exceeds the cost of the project and the projected assessments, which indicates that the LID can therefore move forward. Staff has invited all property owners to meet to discuss the LID, and has met with all those who desired to discuss the LID in greater detail. Portions of the assessment area is under development or and much of it in the preliminary plat stage. Chapel Hill Boulevard will serve as the backbone of the transportation system supporting the properties within the LID assessment area and from a safety and operational standpoint, it is important that this critical improvement be in place prior to significant development of the area. The aforementioned benefit analysis demonstrates that the improvement will significantly improve property values within the assessment area. Staff recommends setting a public hearing date for the formation of a Local Improvement District for the completion of Chapel Hill Boulevard between Road 84 and Road 68. Page 95 of 225 CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE IMPROVEMENTS OF CHAPEL HILL BOULEVARD (FROM ROAD 68 TO ROAD 84, INCLUDING THE INTERSECTION WITH ROAD 76) AND TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO ASSESS THE COST AND EXPENSE OF CARRYING OUT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SPECIALLY BENEFITTED THEREBY; NOTIFYING ALL PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPROVEMENTS TO APPEAR AND PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS AT A HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON MAY 7, 2018; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER PROPERLY RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, as follows: Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, to order the improvement of the property within the area described in Exhibit A, by the improvement of Chapel Hill Boulevard (from Road 68 to Road 84, including the intersection with Road 76). The improvements are more fully described in Exhibit B, and consist of full roadway improvements, including road construction to three lane and five lane design, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain system, street lighting, and landscaping (collectively, the “Improvements”). The referenced Exhibits A and B are attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. All of the foregoing Improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the City Engineer of the City and may be modified by the City as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements. Section 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the Improvements is declared to be $10,700,000, of which an estimated $9,600,000 shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by the Improvements to be included in a local improvement district to be established and embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the Improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the Improvements add to the property. Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed herein for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local improvement district by mailing such notice at least fifteen days before the date fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the Franklin County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. Page 96 of 225 This resolution also shall be published in its entirety in at least two consecutive issues of the official newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date fixed herein for the public hearing. Section 4. All persons who may desire to object to the Improvements are notified to appear and present those objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on May 7, 2018, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the Improvements and all objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the Improvements. All persons who object thereto should appear and present their objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the Improvements in the event the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest should be delivered to the City Clerk. The City Engineer is directed to submit to the City Council on or prior to May 7, 2018, all data and information required by law to be submitted. The foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof this 2nd day of April, 2018. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Daniela Erickson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 97 of 225 CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Pasco, Washington (the “City”), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Resolution No. __________ (the “Resolution”) is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on April 2, 2018, as that resolution appears on the minute book of the City; and the Resolution will be in full force and effect immediately following its adoption; and 2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of the members voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of April, 2018. CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON _____________________________________ Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Page 98 of 225 Page 99 of 225 Chapel Hill Boulevard Three Lane Section Chapel Hill Boulevard Five Lane Section Exhibit B Page 100 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 20, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: 2017 Community Survey I. REFERENCE(S): Community Livability Report Dashboard Summary Trends Over Time Comparison by Geographic Subgroups Supplemental Online Survey Results Technical Appendices II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City has contracted with the National Research Center in Colorado every odd year since 2005 to conduct the “National Citizen Survey” (a trademarked, uniform survey methodology) in Pasco. The survey information has subsequently been part of the information used by Council in developing goals for the ensuing biennia. The National Research Center was again contracted in the latter part of 2017 to conduct the survey for the City. The survey results we compiled, formatted and analyzed in early 2018. The attached documents report the results of that survey. The 2017 survey reflects a decreased response rate (215 surveys returned in 2017 as opposed to 260 in 2015). That the number of surveys completed was significantly decreased (-17%), while the sample size of 1,500 represents an increase of 100 over 2015 (1,400), indicates that the net rate of response is down by 4%. Of the 215 surveys completed, 16 were completed online and three of the surveys were completed in Page 101 of 225 Spanish. The results are statistically valid with an error factor of +/-7%. V. DISCUSSION: Given the number of times that the survey has been used in the City, one would expect data to become more meaningful in terms of viewing and understanding trends over time. While the nature of surveying (using a similar size, but a different sample for each year of the survey) will naturally yield some variance in results, some significant trends may begin to be recognized, while survey results may establish that “things are pretty stable” in other areas. The overall presentation of survey results consists of six individual reports including: 1. The Community Livability Report. An overview of “Quality of Life in Pasco” based on ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. 2. The Dashboard Summary. Reports ratings for eight facets of Community Livability: a) Safety; b) Mobility; c) Natural Environment; d) Built Environment; e) Economy; f) Recreation and Wellness; g) Education and Enrichment, and h) Community Engagement. 3. Trends Over Time. Reports ratings for the eight facets listed above over Pasco’s 12-year (seven biennial surveys) history of having the survey conducted. 4. Comparison by Geographic Subgroups. Subgroups include the six City Council Districts. 5. Supplemental Online Survey Results. The online survey was open for participants from mid-December through January 31. Online results are kept separate from the random survey results. 6. Technical Appendices. Including: a) Complete Survey Responses; b) Benchmark Comparisons (including a list of benchmark cities); c) A discussion of Detailed Survey Methods; and d) Survey Materials. As noted above, the survey groups responses about the community into categories for focus and summary purposes. Responses in the area of “Governance” most closely relate to the services and programs that the City provides. “Community Characteristics” and “Participation” categories include broader considerations which may extend to the natural environment, schools, cultural opportunities or other factors which may be beyond the direct control or even outside the influence of the City government. Overall, the survey reflects an uptick in positive ratings for 2017. As in 2015, Safety and Economy continue to be rated as highest priorities by survey respondents (see Community Livability Report, page 2). For the eight facets of Community Livability (see 2, "Dashboard Summary" above) under Participation and Governance, Pasco was rated similar to other communities across the nation and, in six of the eight livability facets of Community Characteristics, residents rated the City similar to ratings in other communities (see Dashboard Summary, page 1). Areas rated lower than benchmarks include "general," "safety" and natural environment. Page 102 of 225 Across all questions, ratings in Pasco for 2017 remained generally stable. Of 133 items surveyed, 107 were rated similar to 2015; 15 items showed a decrease in positive rating while 21 items showed an increase in positive rating (see Trends Summary, page 1). Some noteworthy items on the positive side: positive ratings for the City as a place to retire, as a place to work and as a place of openness and acceptance are the highest that they have ever been since the City began participating in the survey. The same holds true for positive ratings for police, fire and ambulance services as well as for crime prevention. While the image of the City shows improved positive marks (34%) over the last two cycles (23%-2015; 28%-2013), the rating is still down from the City's high of 46% in 2005. Compared to benchmark communities, the rating has continually been "much lower" than other communities. Recreation programs, while rated positive by a slight majority, remain lower, by comparison to benchmarks. Not surprisingly given the weather pattern in early 2017, snow removal was only rated positive by 36%, compared to 51% in 2015. Resident participation in clubs and as volunteers dropped from 23% (2015) to 15% (2017) and from 37% (2015) to 22% (2017) respectively, which may be a contributing factor to a less favorable rating of “community image.” In addition to the standard survey questions, the City was able to include three policy questions, designed to gauge community opinion regarding current issues. The results for the policy questions are as follows: Code Enforcement: "Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g. trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.), the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same?" • 51% would like more or considerably more enforcement. • 40% would like enforcement to be about the same. • 8% would like less or considerably less enforcement. Property Tax Funding for Fire/EMS Facilities: "Two fire protection and emergency response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities?" • 75% strongly or somewhat support. • 25% strongly or somewhat oppose. Community Recreation Center Interests: "If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please Page 103 of 225 indicate your household's likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories." High or Very High Some Interest Little or No Interest Walking/Jogging 66% 19% 15% Fitness/Exercise 53% 27% 19% Recreational Aquatics Features 56% 17% 26% Gymnasium 38% 33% 30% Meeting/Activity Room 40% 27% 33% Competition Aquatic Features 35% 27% 39% For the second consecutive cycle, the City provided the option for the public to self - select online participation in the survey. There were a total of 131 surveys which were completed in this manner, a considerable decrease from 2015 when a total of 327 such surveys were completed. Results of the self-select survey are included in the documents under the title "Supplemental Online Survey Results." For comparison purposes, the following includes the online responses for the questions cited above, as compared to the random survey: Items ranked higher in positive response 2017 vs. 2015: Online Random Place to retire 57% 66% Place to work 61% 72% Place of openness and acceptance 64% 66% Police services 89% 78% Fire services 95% 90% Ambulance/EMS Services 91% 92% Crime Prevention 75% 62% Items ranking comparatively lower than benchmark communities (positive or affirmative): Online Random City Image 32% 34% Recreation Programs 50% 53% Snow Removal 37% 36% Page 104 of 225 Volunteered 27% 22% Participated in a Club 16% 15% Policy question responses for online survey compared to random survey are as follows (percent somewhat or strongly supportive): Online Random More Code Enforcement 60% 51% Supportive of Fire/EMS Facilities 81% 75% Interest in Community Recreation Center Facilities: Online Random Walking/Jogging 63% 66% Fitness/Exercise 44% 52% Recreational Aquatics 54% 56% Gymnasium 29% 38% Meeting/Activity Room 35% 40% Competitive Aquatics 35% 35% Council will note that, while there are variations, the online self-select survey results are generally in keeping with the results of the random survey. These results are consistent with 2015 online self-select survey results. New in 2017, the survey tracks results by City Council voting district. While there is no data from past survey cycles, Council may find some areas of interest/concern based on results from individual districts. As a caution, given the relatively small numbers of respondents in some districts, the numbers should be weighed accordingly. Of interest to Council, in closing, may be that in the random survey, 52% of respondents identified as not Hispanic, whereas in the self-select survey, those identifying as not-Hispanic were 84%. Page 105 of 225 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Pasco, WA Community Livability Report 2018 Page 106 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2018 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About .............................................................................................. 1 Quality of Life in Pasco ..................................................................... 2 Community Characteristics ............................................................... 3 Governance ..................................................................................... 5 Participation .................................................................................... 7 Special Topics .................................................................................. 9 Conclusions ................................................................................... 11 Page 107 of 225 1 About The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) report is about the “livability” of Pasco. The phrase “livable community” is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 215 residents of the City of Pasco. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 7% for all respondents. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Communities are partnerships among... Residents Community- based organizations Government Private sector Page 108 of 225 2 Quality of Life in Pasco A majority of residents rated the quality of life in Pasco as excellent or good. This rating was similar to the national benchmark (see Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover). Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety and Economy as priorities for the Pasco community in the coming two years. Ratings for all facets tended to similar to the benchmarks. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Pasco’s unique questions. Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Mobility Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Built Environment Safety Economy Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Excellent 13% Good 56% Fair 24% Poor 7% Overall Quality of Life Page 109 of 225 3 Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Pasco, 77% rated the City as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents’ ratings of Pasco as a place to live were lower than ratings in other communities across the nation. In addition to rating the City as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality including Pasco as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image or reputation of Pasco and its overall appearance. Pasco residents gave the highest ratings to their neighborhoods and to Pasco as a place to retire; these ratings were similar to the benchmark comparisons. Ratings for the overall image, the city as a place to raise children and the overall appearance were lower than ratings observed in comparison communities. Residents gave higher ratings to the overall quality of life, the city as a place to retire, as a place to live and to the overall image in 2017 compared to 2015 (see the Trends over Time report under separate cover). Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. Overall, ratings across the facets tended to be similar to or lower than the national average. While a majority of respondents positively rated each aspect of Safety, ratings for the overall feeling of safety and for safety downtown were lower than ratings in comparison communities. Mobility received solid ratings, almost all aspects were rated positively by at least half of the survey respondents and ratings for travel by public transportation were higher than the national benchmark. Within Economy, about 7 in 10 respondents rated the city as a place to work favorably, which was much higher than the 2015 rating. 73% 66% 34% 60% 45% Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmark Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 18% Good 59% Fair 17% Poor 6% Place to Live Page 110 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics 62% 60% 45% 66% 50% 48% 57% 66% 59% 50% 59% 60% 57% 49% 72% 45% 40% 48% 45% 50% 41% 52% 65% 49% 57% 66% 52% 56% 60% 77% 87% 44% 55% 33% 55% 48% 39% 42% 23% 46% 41% 47% 62% 61% 53% Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance Neighborliness Social events and activities COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Child care/preschool K-12 education Adult education Cultural/arts/music activities Religious or spiritual events and activities Education and enrichment opportunities EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Fitness opportunities Recreational opportunities Food Health care Preventive health services Mental health care Health and wellness RECREATION AND WELLNESS Place to work Place to visit Employment opportunities Shopping opportunities Cost of living Business and services Vibrant downtown/commercial area Overall economic health ECONOMY Public places Housing options Affordable quality housing New development in Pasco Overall built environment BUILT ENVIRONMENT Air quality Cleanliness Overall natural environment NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Traffic flow Public parking Travel by car Travel by public transportation Travel by bicycle Ease of walking Paths and walking trails Overall ease of travel MOBILITY Safe downtown/commercial area Safe in neighborhood Overall feeling of safety SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Comparison to national benchmark Page 111 of 225 5 Governance How well does the government of Pasco meet the needs and expectations of its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Pasco as well as the manner in which these services are provided is a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. About 6 in 10 respondents positively rated the overall quality of City services, while about half as many gave positive marks to the overall quality of services provided by the Federal Government. Both ratings were similar to national comparisons. Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Pasco’s leadership and governance. All aspects of Pasco’s leadership received ratings that were similar to ratings in other communities across the nation. Ratings for the overall confidence in City government and the job the City does at being honest increased in 2017 compared to 2015. Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Pasco. At least 6 in 10 respondents rated most aspects of Safety positively, resulting in evaluations similar to the national average. However, animal control and emergency preparedness received fewer positive ratings and were lower than the national benchmark. Aspects of Mobility received favorable ratings from about half of respondents on average; bus or transit services were a highlight of the Mobility facet. Ratings for snow removal declined between 2015 and 2017, resulting in ratings lower than the national average. Built Environment, Economy and Community Engagement received ratings similar to the national benchmarks; ratings for Natural Environment, Recreation and Wellness and Education and Enrichment were a mix of ratings similar to and lower than the benchmarks. While ratings for most services remained stable between 2015 and 2017, public information decreased and police services, crime prevention, animal control and recycling increased in 2017. 37% 46% 44% 44% 43% 52% 50% 61% 36% Value of services for taxes paid Overall direction Welcoming citizen involvement Confidence in City government Acting in the best interest of Pasco Being honest Treating all residents fairly Customer service Services provided by the Federal Government Higher Similar Lower Comparison to national benchmark Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Excellent 17% Good 46% Fair 29% Poor 9% Overall Quality of City Services Page 112 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Figure 2: Aspects of Governance 69% 53% 77% 55% 68% 40% 48% 37% 38% 62% 76% 73% 51% 71% 67% 82% 52% 42% 47% 56% 49% 56% 68% 62% 92% 90% 78% 39% 50% 53% 43% 46% 36% 44% 47% Public information COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Special events Public libraries EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Health services Recreation centers Recreation programs City parks RECREATION AND WELLNESS Economic development ECONOMY Cable television Code enforcement Land use, planning and zoning Utility billing Sewer services Storm drainage BUILT ENVIRONMENT Open space Natural areas preservation Drinking water Yard waste pick-up Recycling Garbage collection NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Bus or transit services Traffic signal timing Sidewalk maintenance Snow removal Street lighting Street cleaning Street repair Traffic enforcement MOBILITY Emergency preparedness Animal control Fire prevention Crime prevention Ambulance/EMS Fire Police SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark Page 113 of 225 7 Participation Are the residents of Pasco connected to the community and each other? An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. About one-third of survey respondents gave excellent or good ratings to the overall sense of community in Pasco, and this rating was lower than the national average. About 4 in 5 residents reported they were likely to remain in Pasco for the next five years and they would recommend living in Pasco. The survey included over 30 activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Pasco residents tended to report similar rates of Participation as r esidents in comparison communities. More Pasco residents reported that they had carpooled instead of driving alone, participated in religious or spiritual activities or watched a local public meeting in the last 12 months than residents elsewhere. However, fewer residents reported that they had recycled at home, attended a City -sponsored event, volunteered, participated in a club or voted in local elections. Rates of Participation changed from 2015 to 2017 for a few aspects: Fewer Pasco residents reported that they had recycled at home or volunteered, while more residents reported that they had carpooled, walked or biked instead of driving, participated in religious or spiritual activities or attended a City-sponsored event. 84% 83% 43% Recommend Pasco Remain in Pasco Contacted Pasco employees Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat likely, yes) Comparison to national benchmark Excellent 13% Good 21% Fair 49% Poor 18% Sense of Community Page 114 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Figure 3: Aspects of Participation 36% 58% 56% 86% 20% 84% 82% 14% 18% 66% 43% 76% 86% 88% 54% 45% 26% 92% 63% 48% 75% 83% 58% 20% 82% 70% 31% 72% 15% 22% 43% 62% Voted in local elections Read or watched local news Watched a local public meeting Attended a local public meeting Done a favor for a neighbor Talked to or visited with neighbors Participated in a club Volunteered Contacted Pasco elected officials Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attended a City-sponsored event Participated in religious or spiritual activities Used Pasco public libraries EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT In very good to excellent health Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Visited a City park Used Pasco recreation centers RECREATION AND WELLNESS Work in Pasco Economy will have positive impact on income Purchased goods or services in Pasco ECONOMY NOT under housing cost stress Did NOT observe a code violation BUILT ENVIRONMENT Recycled at home Made home more energy efficient Conserved water NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Walked or biked instead of driving Carpooled instead of driving alone Used public transportation instead of driving MOBILITY Was NOT the victim of a crime Did NOT report a crime Stocked supplies for an emergency SAFETY Higher Similar Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., yes, more than once a month, always/sometimes) Comparison to national benchmark Page 115 of 225 9 Special Topics The City of Pasco included three questions of special interest on The NCS. These special questions explored aspects of code enforcement, fire and EMS facilities and a new community recreation center. The first question asked residents if they would like to see more, less or about the same amount of code enforcement in the city. About half of respondents would like to see somewhat or considerable more code enforcement, while about 40% would like enforcement levels to remain the same. Figure 4: Code Enforcement Levels Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? Would like considerably more enforcement 20% Would like somewhat more enforcement 31% Would like about the same amount of enforcement 40% Would like somewhat less enforcement 2% Would like considerable less enforcement 6% Page 116 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 The second special question on the survey explored broadly residents’ sentiment toward the idea of a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities. Overall, about four in five residents supported the tax in crease. . Figure 5: Property Tax to Fund New Fire/EMS Facilities Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? The final question asked respondents to rate their level of interest in recreation categories for a potential new community recreation center. A majority of Pasco residents indicated they had at least some interest in each of the recreation categories. Half or more of respondents expressed high or very high interest in walking/jogging, recreational aquatic features and fitness/exercise. Figure 6: Community Recreation Center Interests If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: Strongly support 39% Somewhat support 36% Somewhat oppose 13% Strongly oppose 12% 21% 17% 20% 33% 28% 36% 14% 23% 18% 23% 25% 30% 27% 27% 33% 17% 27% 19% 16% 13% 14% 10% 8% 4% 23% 20% 16% 16% 11% 11% Competition aquatic features Meeting/activity rooms Gymnasium Recreational aquatic features Fitness/exercise Walking/jogging Very high interest High interest Some interest Very little interest No interest Page 117 of 225 11 Conclusions Quality of life in Pasco continues to improve. A majority of respondents gave high marks to the overall quality of life in Pasco, the city as a place to live, their neighborhoods and to the city as a place to retire. Ratings for the overall quality of life, the overall image of the city, the city as a place to live and as a place to retire all increased in 2017 compared to 2015. Resident perception of Pasco as a place to retire was at an all-time high in 2017 compared to all other past survey iterations. Ratings for the overall image of Pasco were higher in 2017 than in 2015 or in 2013, but still lower than the baseline established in 2005. At least four in five respondents reported they planned to remain in Pasco and would recommend living in the community to someone who asked. Residents embrace alternative modes of transportation. Overall, ratings of Mobility were strong in Pasco. Residents gave particularly strong ratings to the ease of travel by public transportation and to bus or transit services; both ratings were higher than ratings observed in c omparison communities. Further, more residents reported that they had carpooled instead of driving alone in Pasco than elsewhere. More survey respondents reported that they had carpooled or walked or biked instead of driving alone in 2017 compared to 2015. Almost all other Mobility ratings remained stable; however ratings for the amount of public parking and for snow removal were trending down. Recreation and Wellness has room for improvement. While most aspects of Recreation and Wellness received positive marks from a majority of respondents, residents were critical of the city’s current recreation programs and centers. About half of respondents held favorable opinions of these services, which resulted in ratings lower than the national average. When asked about their level of interest in recreation programming at a potential new community recreation center, a majority of respondents favored activities related to walking/jogging, recreational aquatics and fitness/exercise over competitive aquatics, a gymnasium and meeting rooms. While most residents reported eating healthy and staying physically active, they rated the overall opportunities for health and wellness in Pasco lower than the opportunities in other communities across the nation. Page 118 of 225 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Pasco, WA Dashboard Summary of Findings 2018 Page 119 of 225 1 Summary The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable res ults across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Pasco’s performance in the eight facets of community livability with the “General” rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The “Overall” represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Pasco’s community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it – Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. General aspects of Community Characteristics, along with aspects of Safety and Natural Environment tended to receive lower ratings in Pasco than in comparison communities. All aspects of Governance and Participation tended to be rated similarly to the benchmarks. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention. Figure 1: Dashboard Summary Community Characteristics Governance Participation Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Overall 1 33 18 1 36 8 3 27 6 General 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 3 0 Safety 0 1 2 0 5 2 0 3 0 Mobility 1 7 0 1 6 1 1 2 0 Natural Environment 0 1 2 0 4 2 0 2 1 Built Environment 0 3 2 0 6 0 0 2 0 Economy 0 5 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 Recreation and Wellness 0 6 1 0 2 2 0 5 0 Education and Enrichment 0 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 Community Engagement 0 4 1 0 8 0 1 6 4 National Benchmark Higher Similar Lower Page 120 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 2 Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent positive Governance Trend Benchmark Percent positive Participation Trend Benchmark Percent positive General Overall appearance ↔ ↓ 45% Customer service ↔ ↔ 61% Recommend Pasco ↔ ↔ 84% Overall quality of life ↑ ↔ 69% Services provided by Pasco ↔ ↔ 63% Remain in Pasco ↔ ↔ 83% Place to retire ↑ ↔ 66% Services provided by the Federal Government ↔ ↔ 36% Contacted Pasco employees ↔ ↔ 43% Place to raise children ↔ ↓ 60% Place to live ↑ ↓ 77% Neighborhood ↔ ↔ 73% Overall image ↑ ↓↓ 34% Safety Overall feeling of safety ↔ ↓ 53% Police ↑ ↔ 78% Was NOT the victim of a crime ↔ ↔ 82% Safe in neighborhood ↔ ↔ 87% Crime prevention ↑ ↔ 62% Did NOT report a crime ↔ ↔ 70% Safe downtown/ commercial area ↔ ↓↓ 61% Fire ↔ ↔ 90% Stocked supplies for an emergency ↔ ↔ 31% Fire prevention ↔ ↔ 68% Ambulance/EMS ↔ ↔ 92% Emergency preparedness ↔ ↓ 44% Animal control ↑ ↓ 47% Mobility Traffic flow ↔ ↔ 49% Traffic enforcement ↔ ↔ 56% Carpooled instead of driving alone ↑ ↑ 56% Travel by car ↔ ↔ 66% Street repair ↔ ↔ 49% Walked or biked instead of driving ↑ ↔ 58% Travel by bicycle ↔ ↔ 52% Street cleaning ↔ ↔ 56% Used public transportation instead of driving ↔ ↔ 20% Ease of walking ↔ ↔ 56% Street lighting ↔ ↔ 47% Travel by public transportation ↔ ↑ 62% Snow removal ↓ ↓ 36% Overall ease travel ↔ ↔ 77% Sidewalk maintenance ↔ ↔ 42% Public parking ↓ ↔ 57% Traffic signal timing ↔ ↔ 52% Paths and walking trails ↔ ↔ 60% Bus or transit services ↔ ↑ 69% Natural Environment Overall natural environment ↔ ↓ 62% Garbage collection ↔ ↔ 82% Recycled at home ↓ ↓↓ 62% Air quality ↔ ↔ 65% Recycling ↑ ↓↓ 46% Conserved water ↔ ↔ 83% Cleanliness ↔ ↓ 47% Yard waste pick-up ↔ ↔ 67% Made home more energy efficient ↔ ↔ 75% Drinking water ↔ ↔ 71% Open space ↔ ↓ 43% Natural areas preservation ↔ ↔ 51% Built Environment New development in Pasco ↔ ↔ 52% Sewer services ↔ ↔ 76% NOT experiencing housing cost stress ↔ ↔ 63% Affordable quality housing ↔ ↔ 41% Storm drainage ↔ ↔ 73% Did NOT observe a code violation ↔ ↔ 48% Housing options ↔ ↔ 50% Utility billing ↔ ↔ 62% Overall built environment ↔ ↓ 41% Land use, planning and zoning ↔ ↔ 38% Public places ↔ ↓ 46% Code enforcement ↔ ↔ 37% Cable television ↔ ↔ 48% Page 121 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ Legend ↑↑ Much higher ↑ Higher ↔ Similar ↓ Lower ↓↓ Much lower * Not available 3 Community Characteristics Trend Benchmark Percent positive Governance Trend Benchmark Percent positive Participation Trend Benchmark Percent positive Economy Overall economic health ↔ ↔ 45% Economic development ↔ ↔ 40% Economy will have positive impact on income ↔ ↔ 26% Shopping opportunities ↔ ↔ 40% Purchased goods or services in Pasco ↔ ↔ 92% Employment opportunities ↔ ↔ 45% Work in Pasco ↔ ↔ 45% Place to visit ↔ ↓ 39% Cost of living ↔ ↔ 48% Vibrant downtown/commercial area ↔ ↓ 23% Place to work ↑ ↔ 72% Business and services ↔ ↓ 42% Recreation and Wellness Fitness opportunities ↑ ↔ 59% City parks ↔ ↔ 68% In very good to excellent health ↔ ↔ 43% Recreational opportunities ↔ ↔ 50% Recreation centers ↔ ↓ 50% Used Pasco recreation centers ↔ ↔ 54% Health care ↑ ↔ 60% Recreation programs ↔ ↓ 53% Visited a City park ↔ ↔ 88% Food ↔ ↔ 59% Health services ↔ ↔ 55% Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables ↔ ↔ 86% Mental health care ↑ ↔ 49% Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity ↔ ↔ 76% Health and wellness ↔ ↓ 48% Preventive health services ↔ ↔ 57% Education and Enrichment K-12 education ↔ ↓ 55% Public libraries ↔ ↔ 77% Used Pasco public libraries ↔ ↔ 66% Cultural/arts/music activities ↔ ↓ 33% Special events ↔ ↓ 39% Participated in religious or spiritual activities ↑ ↑ 58% Child care/preschool ↔ ↔ 48% Attended a City-sponsored event ↑ ↓ 43% Religious or spiritual events and activities ↔ ↔ 66% Adult education ↔ ↔ 57% Overall education and enrichment ↑ ↓ 55% Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in community matters ↔ ↔ 45% Public information ↓ ↔ 53% Sense of community ↔ ↓ 34% Opportunities to volunteer ↔ ↔ 60% Overall direction ↔ ↔ 46% Voted in local elections ↔ ↓ 72% Openness and acceptance ↑ ↔ 66% Value of services for taxes paid ↔ ↔ 37% Talked to or visited with neighbors ↔ ↔ 82% Social events and activities ↔ ↓ 44% Welcoming citizen involvement ↔ ↔ 44% Attended a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 20% Neighborliness ↑ ↔ 50% Confidence in City government ↑ ↔ 44% Watched a local public meeting ↔ ↑ 36% Acting in the best interest of Pasco ↔ ↔ 43% Volunteered ↓ ↓ 22% Being honest ↑ ↔ 52% Participated in a club ↔ ↓ 15% Treating all residents fairly ↔ ↔ 50% Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate ↔ ↔ 18% Contacted Pasco elected officials ↔ ↔ 14% Read or watched local news ↔ ↔ 86% Done a favor for a neighbor ↔ ↔ 84% Page 122 of 225 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Pasco, WA Trends over Time 2018 Page 123 of 225 1 Summary The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents’ opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2017 ratings for the City of Pasco to its previous survey results in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015. Additional reports and technical appendices are available under separate cover. Trend data for Pasco represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents’ opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being “higher” or “lower” if the differences are greater than nine percentage points between the 2015 and 2017 surveys, otherwise the comparisons between 2015 and 2017 are noted as being “similar.” Additionally, benchmark comparisons for all survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark comparison over time can be impacted by various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual communities that comprise the benchmarks , regional and national economic or other events, as well as emerging survey methodologies. Overall, ratings in Pasco for 2017 generally remained stable. Of the 133 items for which comparisons were available, 107 items were rated similarly in 2015 and 2017; five items showed a decrease in ratings and 21 showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following: Several aspects of Community Characteristics received higher marks in 2017 compared to 2015, and one decreased during that same time period. Ratings for the overall quality of life in Pasco, Pasco as a place to retire, Pasco as a place to live and the overall image of the City all improved in 2017. The rating for Pasco as a place to retire was at an all-time high in 2017. Pasco residents also gave more positive ratings to Pasco as a place to work, fitness opportunities, health care, mental health care, education and enrichment opportunities, openness and acceptance of the community and neighborliness in 2017 compared to 2015. Ratings for public parking decreased in 2017. Ratings for most aspects of Governance remained stable from 2015 to 2017, however some changes were observed. Survey respondents gave lower marks to snow removal and public information services and gave higher marks to police services, crime prevention and animal control. While the rating for recycling services had been declining since 2005, 2017 showed improvement over 2015. Pasco residents also gave higher ratings to their overall confidence in City government and the job the City government does at being honest. These were the highest ratings observed since the questions were first asked in 2013. While rates of reported Participation generally remained stable from 2015 to 2017, there were a few significant changes. Fewer Pasco residents reported that they had recycled at home or volunteered in the last 12 months. More residents had carpooled instead of driving alone, walked or biked instead of driving alone, participated in religious or spiritual events or activities and attended a City-sponsored event. Reported rates of volunteerism were at an all-time low in 2017, while attendance at City-sponsored events were the highest yet observed. Page 124 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Table 1: Community Characteristics General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Overall quality of life 64% 52% 76% 64% 69% 59% 69% Higher Lower Much lower Similar Much lower Similar Lower Similar Overall image 46% 35% 37% 32% 28% 23% 34% Higher Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Place to live 75% 59% 78% 73% 69% 66% 77% Higher Similar Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower Neighborhood 68% 63% 77% 71% 77% 74% 73% Similar Similar Much lower Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Place to raise children 66% 49% 62% 63% 63% 61% 60% Similar Similar Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower Place to retire 54% 45% 60% 59% 59% 45% 66% Higher Similar Much lower Similar Lower Similar Lower Similar Overall appearance 48% 33% 46% 37% 33% 44% 45% Similar Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Table 2: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Safety Overall feeling of safety NA NA NA NA 48% 53% 53% Similar NA NA NA NA Much lower Lower Lower Safe in neighborhood 85% 80% 92% 91% 92% 85% 87% Similar Lower Lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Safe downtown/commercial area 69% 64% 60% 61% 60% 59% 61% Similar Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Mobility Overall ease of travel NA NA NA NA 67% 72% 77% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Paths and walking trails NA NA 62% 59% 47% 61% 60% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Ease of walking 67% 57% 61% 55% 47% 57% 56% Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Travel by bicycle 63% 55% 67% 53% 35% 57% 52% Similar Higher Higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Travel by public transportation NA NA NA NA 55% 59% 62% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Higher Higher Travel by car 73% 64% 72% 72% 67% 72% 66% Similar Much higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Public parking NA NA NA NA 63% 66% 57% Lower NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Traffic flow 65% 53% 54% 55% 47% 47% 49% Similar NA NA Higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Natural Environment Overall natural environment NA NA 56% 55% 57% 58% 62% Similar NA NA Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower Page 125 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Cleanliness NA NA 45% 38% 32% 52% 47% Similar NA NA Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Air quality 64% 59% 62% 56% 56% 64% 65% Similar Similar Lower Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Built Environment Overall built environment NA NA NA NA 45% 42% 41% Similar NA NA NA NA Lower Lower Lower New development in Pasco 73% 65% 73% 66% 54% 44% 52% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Affordable quality housing 55% 52% 66% 52% 54% 48% 41% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Housing options NA NA 70% 57% 57% 52% 50% Similar NA NA Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Public places NA NA NA NA 31% 41% 46% Similar NA NA NA NA Much lower Lower Lower Economy Overall economic health NA NA NA NA 44% 40% 45% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Lower Similar Vibrant downtown/commercial area NA NA NA NA 18% 14% 23% Similar NA NA NA NA Much lower Much lower Lower Business and services NA NA 58% 54% 38% 43% 42% Similar NA NA Similar Lower Lower Lower Lower Cost of living NA NA NA NA 48% 49% 48% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Shopping opportunities 35% 38% 38% 35% 31% 35% 40% Similar Much lower Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Lower Similar Employment opportunities 39% 33% 48% 40% 28% 37% 45% Similar Similar Higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Place to visit NA NA NA NA 43% 34% 39% Similar NA NA NA NA Lower Lower Lower Place to work 65% 57% 64% 63% 56% 47% 72% Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Recreation and Wellness Health and wellness NA NA NA NA 49% 40% 48% Similar NA NA NA NA Lower Lower Lower Mental health care NA NA NA NA 30% 38% 49% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Preventive health services NA NA 53% 49% 43% 53% 57% Similar NA NA Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Health care 42% 45% 54% 43% 51% 47% 60% Higher Lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Food 58% 59% NA NA NA NA 59% Similar NA Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Recreational opportunities 47% 48% 47% 45% 42% 42% 50% Similar Lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Similar Fitness opportunities NA NA NA NA 53% 49% 59% Higher NA NA NA NA Lower Lower Similar Education and Enrichment Education and enrichment opportunities NA NA NA NA 52% 40% 55% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Lower Lower Religious or spiritual events and activities NA NA NA NA NA 63% 66% Similar NA NA NA NA NA Lower Similar Cultural/arts/music activities 49% 51% 47% 45% 27% 36% 33% Similar Lower Similar Similar Lower Lower Lower Lower Adult education NA NA NA NA 54% 59% 57% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Page 126 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 K-12 education 62% 50% 63% 53% 54% 53% 55% Similar Higher Lower Similar Lower Lower Lower Lower Child care/preschool 41% 40% 54% 47% 38% 46% 48% Similar Similar Similar Much higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Community Engagement Social events and activities NA NA 57% 50% 29% 41% 44% Similar NA NA Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Neighborliness NA NA NA NA 40% 41% 50% Higher NA NA NA NA Lower Lower Similar Openness and acceptance 54% 56% 63% 57% 45% 48% 66% Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Similar Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters NA NA 58% 51% 37% 47% 45% Similar NA NA Similar Lower Lower Lower Similar Opportunities to volunteer NA NA 72% 58% 45% 53% 60% Similar NA NA Similar Much lower Lower Lower Similar Table 3: Governance General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Services provided by Pasco 69% 58% 69% 61% 64% 60% 63% Similar Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Customer service 58% 60% 68% 71% 55% 57% 61% Similar Lower Much lower Lower Similar Lower Lower Similar Value of services for taxes paid 52% 51% 53% 49% 34% 45% 37% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Overall direction 61% 54% 60% 45% 51% 42% 46% Similar Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Welcoming citizen involvement 56% 48% 47% 40% 34% 38% 44% Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Lower Similar Similar Confidence in City government NA NA NA NA 39% 34% 44% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Acting in the best interest of Pasco NA NA NA NA 40% 43% 43% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Being honest NA NA NA NA 40% 39% 52% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Lower Similar Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA 46% 42% 50% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 50% 41% 50% 42% 36% 44% 36% Similar Higher Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Table 4: Governance by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Safety Police 70% 63% 71% 74% 67% 63% 78% Higher Similar Similar Lower Similar Similar Lower Similar Fire 89% 87% 88% 88% 78% 87% 90% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Similar Similar Ambulance/EMS 87% 73% 87% 84% 73% 85% 92% Similar Similar Similar Lower Similar Lower Similar Similar Page 127 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Crime prevention 56% 43% 57% 56% 50% 45% 62% Higher Lower Much lower Similar Lower Lower Lower Similar Fire prevention NA NA 68% 70% 62% 65% 68% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Lower Similar Similar Animal control 53% 45% 43% 37% 46% 36% 47% Higher Similar Much lower Much lower Much lower Similar Lower Lower Emergency preparedness NA NA 53% 47% 32% 40% 44% Similar NA NA Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Lower Mobility Traffic enforcement 63% 59% 63% 57% 61% 50% 56% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Similar Street repair 54% 57% 53% 53% 39% 46% 49% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Street cleaning 62% 59% 62% 60% 49% 59% 56% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Street lighting 57% 54% 57% 51% 46% 50% 47% Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Lower Similar Similar Snow removal 45% 46% 51% 47% 45% 51% 36% Lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Similar Lower Sidewalk maintenance 53% 51% 47% 50% 49% 48% 42% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Traffic signal timing 57% 44% 49% 57% 41% 48% 52% Similar Higher Higher Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar Bus or transit services NA 77% 68% 73% 69% 64% 69% Similar NA Much higher Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Higher Natural Environment Garbage collection 85% 84% 83% 84% 76% 84% 82% Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Recycling 65% 52% 51% 43% 34% 32% 46% Higher Lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Yard waste pick-up 61% 56% 65% 66% 65% 66% 67% Similar Similar Much lower Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Drinking water 56% 54% 62% 65% 63% 64% 71% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Natural areas preservation NA NA 57% 51% 42% 46% 51% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Lower Similar Similar Open space NA NA NA NA 37% 47% 43% Similar NA NA NA NA Lower Similar Lower Built Environment Storm drainage 66% 63% 65% 68% 60% 69% 73% Similar Higher Much higher Much higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Sewer services 69% 71% 73% 76% 65% 77% 76% Similar Similar Higher Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar Utility billing NA NA NA NA 56% 66% 62% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Land use, planning and zoning 53% 46% 45% 46% 36% 33% 38% Similar Higher Higher Higher Similar Similar Lower Similar Code enforcement 38% 39% 30% 27% 33% 31% 37% Similar Lower Lower Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Similar Cable television 40% 49% 53% 54% 50% 51% 48% Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Page 128 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Economy Economic development 49% 53% 47% 46% 43% 41% 40% Similar Similar Much higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Recreation and Wellness City parks 70% 68% 65% 65% 56% 66% 68% Similar Similar Lower Lower Lower Lower Similar Similar Recreation programs 69% 59% 56% 53% 45% 50% 53% Similar Similar Lower Lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower Recreation centers 59% 53% 51% 53% 38% 56% 50% Similar Similar Lower Much lower Much lower Lower Similar Lower Health services NA NA 54% 58% 57% 48% 55% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Education and Enrichment Special events NA NA NA NA 37% 39% 39% Similar NA NA NA NA Much lower Lower Lower Public libraries 68% 74% 76% 61% 69% 79% 77% Similar Similar Similar Lower Much lower Lower Similar Similar Community Engagement Public information 55% 58% 65% 57% 51% 63% 53% Lower Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Table 5: Participation General Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Sense of community 56% 46% 53% 48% 33% 38% 34% Similar Similar Lower Lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower Recommend Pasco NA NA 83% 79% 77% 76% 84% Similar NA NA Similar Lower Similar Similar Similar Remain in Pasco NA NA 85% 83% 85% 80% 83% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Contacted Pasco employees 61% 71% 56% 46% 45% 44% 43% Similar NA NA Similar Much lower Similar Similar Similar Table 6: Participation by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Safety Stocked supplies for an emergency NA NA NA NA 40% 35% 31% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Did NOT report a crime NA NA NA NA 73% 76% 70% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Was NOT the victim of a crime 74% 83% 83% 88% 88% 87% 82% Similar NA NA Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Mobility Used public transportation instead of driving NA NA NA NA 26% 28% 20% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Page 129 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Carpooled instead of driving alone NA NA NA NA 47% 45% 56% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Higher Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA 52% 41% 58% Higher NA NA NA NA Similar Lower Similar Natural Environment Conserved water NA NA NA NA 76% 81% 83% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Made home more energy efficient NA NA NA NA 80% 83% 75% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Recycled at home 70% 57% 59% 62% 68% 72% 62% Lower NA NA Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Much lower Built Environment Did NOT observe a code violation NA NA NA NA 45% 56% 48% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar NOT under housing cost stress NA NA 68% 65% 61% 68% 63% Similar NA NA Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Economy Purchased goods or services in Pasco NA NA NA NA 97% 94% 92% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 32% 23% 25% 25% 25% 30% 26% Similar NA NA Much higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Work in Pasco NA NA NA NA 51% 40% 45% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Recreation and Wellness Used Pasco recreation centers 62% 45% 48% 47% 40% 46% 54% Similar NA NA Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Similar Visited a City park 88% 87% 78% 79% 78% 83% 88% Similar NA NA Lower Lower Similar Similar Similar Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables NA NA NA NA 81% 85% 86% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity NA NA NA NA 80% 79% 76% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar In very good to excellent health NA NA NA NA 55% 47% 43% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Education and Enrichment Used Pasco public libraries 74% 66% 60% 67% 66% 58% 66% Similar NA NA Much lower Lower Similar Similar Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities NA NA 52% 55% 47% 42% 58% Higher NA NA Similar Higher Similar Similar Higher Attended a City- sponsored event NA NA NA NA 31% 31% 43% Higher NA NA NA NA Much lower Much lower Lower Community Engagement Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate NA NA NA NA 20% 27% 18% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Contacted Pasco elected officials NA NA NA NA 15% 15% 14% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Page 130 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2017 rating compared to 2015 Comparison to benchmark 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Volunteered 41% 43% 40% 38% 35% 37% 22% Lower NA NA Similar Lower Similar Similar Lower Participated in a club NA NA 31% 22% 14% 23% 15% Similar NA NA Similar Much lower Lower Similar Lower Talked to or visited with neighbors NA NA NA NA 82% 87% 82% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Done a favor for a neighbor NA NA NA NA 75% 85% 84% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Attended a local public meeting 31% 19% 19% 22% 14% 21% 20% Similar NA NA Much lower Lower Lower Similar Similar Watched a local public meeting 45% 41% 39% 47% 30% 29% 36% Similar NA NA Lower Higher Similar Similar Higher Read or watched local news NA NA NA NA 87% 89% 86% Similar NA NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Voted in local elections 58% 51% 63% 57% 77% 76% 72% Similar NA NA Much lower Much lower Similar Similar Lower Page 131 of 225 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Pasco, WA Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups 2018 Page 132 of 225 1 Summary The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by Pasco’s six City Council Districts. Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as “excellent” or “good,” or the percent of re spondents who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between Council District are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are “real.” Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The margin of error for all respondents (215) is generally no greater than plus or minus seven percentage points around any given percent. The margin of error for subgroups is less precise. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. Six Council Districts were tracked for comparison and the number of completed surveys for each are in the figure below. Figure 1: Geographic Areas Council District Number of Completed Surveys District 1 21 District 2 21 District 3 50 District 4 35 District 5 71 District 6 17 Notable differences between Council Districts included the following: While differences were observed among Council Districts across all facets of Community Livability, no clear pattern emerged. Further, differences should be interpreted with caution due to the high margin of error between Districts. Residents of Council District 6 gave lower ratings to all aspects of General Governance than residents in other Council Districts. When asked about their level of support for a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities, residents of District 6 displayed the lowest levels of support. Page 133 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Table 1: Community Characteristics - General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 The overall quality of life in Pasco 55% 54% 88% 87% 66% 51% 69% Overall image or reputation of Pasco 47% 45% 28% 37% 28% 27% 34% Pasco as a place to live 83% 75% 80% 81% 74% 66% 77% Your neighborhood as a place to live 55% 48% 84% 84% 92% 46% 73% Pasco as a place to raise children 55% 48% 77% 54% 62% 58% 60% Pasco as a place to retire 82% 49% 78% 70% 56% 57% 66% Overall appearance of Pasco 50% 58% 30% 62% 43% 34% 45% Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 51% 49% 45% 64% 60% 43% 53% In your neighborhood during the day 63% 99% 99% 96% 84% 78% 87% In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 71% 57% 69% 61% 56% 44% 61% Table 3: Community Characteristics - Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 84% 95% 58% 88% 74% 73% 77% Traffic flow on major streets 66% 77% 37% 68% 23% 53% 49% Ease of public parking 63% 66% 51% 59% 47% 72% 57% Ease of travel by car in Pasco 92% 90% 49% 79% 51% 59% 66% Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 70% 68% 56% 53% 60% 53% 62% Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 51% 76% 51% 58% 38% 35% 52% Ease of walking in Pasco 63% 71% 53% 61% 45% 53% 56% Availability of paths and walking trails 69% 67% 47% 73% 58% 47% 60% Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 83% 68% 35% 77% 65% 48% 62% Air quality 61% 65% 51% 69% 78% 57% 65% Cleanliness of Pasco 51% 56% 34% 57% 51% 35% 47% Page 134 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Table 5: Community Characteristics - Built Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 75% 54% 29% 39% 27% 29% 41% Public places where people want to spend time 49% 68% 28% 76% 41% 26% 46% Variety of housing options 50% 34% 48% 75% 53% 30% 50% Availability of affordable quality housing 29% 33% 45% 57% 50% 16% 41% Overall quality of new development in Pasco 59% 83% 42% 60% 39% 41% 52% Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall economic health of Pasco 48% 54% 51% 46% 41% 25% 45% Pasco as a place to work 94% 57% 89% 86% 54% 53% 72% Pasco as a place to visit 62% 57% 37% 32% 27% 24% 39% Employment opportunities 63% 53% 40% 42% 41% 26% 45% Shopping opportunities 61% 63% 25% 38% 32% 33% 40% Cost of living in Pasco 46% 53% 46% 67% 47% 22% 48% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 58% 46% 32% 39% 41% 34% 42% Vibrant downtown/commercial area 51% 45% 5% 23% 13% 12% 23% Table 7: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 61% 56% 28% 61% 55% 25% 48% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 56% 76% 41% 76% 62% 45% 59% Recreational opportunities 49% 46% 39% 72% 60% 17% 50% Availability of affordable quality food 72% 55% 46% 74% 57% 57% 59% Availability of affordable quality health care 65% 70% 53% 74% 53% 49% 60% Availability of preventive health services 52% 68% 51% 72% 54% 49% 57% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 50% 66% 37% 60% 36% 44% 49% Page 135 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Table 8: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 57% 69% 63% 51% 54% 25% 55% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 74% 83% 28% 31% 37% 23% 48% K-12 education 74% 89% 37% 46% 45% 60% 55% Adult educational opportunities 75% 72% 57% 56% 39% 45% 57% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 34% 47% 32% 44% 32% 5% 33% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 68% 89% 65% 70% 67% 14% 66% Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 49% 78% 29% 52% 38% 28% 44% Opportunities to volunteer 80% 72% 49% 67% 54% 28% 60% Opportunities to participate in community matters 56% 49% 47% 68% 43% 14% 45% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 85% 66% 62% 59% 76% 36% 66% Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 52% 66% 44% 61% 52% 21% 50% Table 10: Governance - General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 The City of Pasco 75% 73% 60% 86% 55% 19% 63% The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 69% 36% 28% 61% 22% 12% 37% The overall direction that Pasco is taking 70% 52% 49% 62% 32% 8% 46% The job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement 69% 45% 41% 58% 39% 3% 44% Overall confidence in Pasco government 69% 52% 39% 60% 31% 2% 44% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 65% 50% 44% 64% 32% 1% 43% Being honest 66% 55% 47% 66% 49% 15% 52% Treating all residents fairly 66% 56% 48% 63% 51% 3% 50% Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 68% 71% 65% 82% 51% 22% 61% The Federal Government 73% 60% 21% 23% 28% 12% 36% Page 136 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Table 11: Governance - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Police/Sheriff services 78% 93% 86% 80% 71% 59% 78% Fire services 86% 100% 94% 99% 80% 82% 90% Ambulance or emergency medical services 95% 100% 93% 96% 79% 99% 92% Crime prevention 87% 57% 50% 57% 68% 46% 62% Fire prevention and education 86% 76% 62% 81% 66% 33% 68% Animal control 45% 70% 31% 66% 35% 38% 47% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 67% 57% 17% 78% 41% 1% 44% Table 12: Governance - Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Traffic enforcement 79% 87% 37% 57% 45% 41% 56% Street repair 56% 84% 29% 53% 38% 47% 49% Street cleaning 50% 84% 36% 80% 47% 58% 56% Street lighting 54% 66% 31% 77% 29% 44% 47% Snow removal 39% 73% 31% 39% 23% 18% 36% Sidewalk maintenance 58% 75% 25% 42% 24% 44% 42% Traffic signal timing 67% 55% 39% 76% 41% 44% 52% Bus or transit services 82% 89% 46% 56% 72% 57% 69% Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Garbage collection 71% 98% 93% 83% 75% 74% 82% Recycling 53% 69% 47% 36% 46% 24% 46% Yard waste pick-up 46% 86% 76% 79% 71% 54% 67% Drinking water 68% 67% 80% 77% 65% 66% 71% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 75% 94% 23% 72% 39% 18% 51% Pasco open space 67% 57% 28% 67% 29% 18% 43% Page 137 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Table 14: Governance - Built Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Storm drainage 74% 93% 77% 79% 65% 49% 73% Sewer services 65% 82% 88% 81% 73% 57% 76% Utility billing 59% 69% 85% 58% 53% 42% 62% Land use, planning and zoning 50% 54% 30% 54% 25% 26% 38% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 30% 81% 25% 47% 26% 24% 37% Cable television 58% 79% 47% 44% 38% 21% 48% Table 15: Governance - Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Economic development 47% 64% 33% 58% 34% 3% 40% Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 City parks 71% 67% 75% 77% 57% 68% 68% Recreation programs or classes 56% 64% 23% 77% 59% 33% 53% Recreation centers or facilities 67% 59% 19% 63% 47% 37% 50% Health services 45% 64% 65% 73% 62% 17% 55% Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Public library services 86% 72% 78% 92% 74% 57% 77% City-sponsored special events 52% 60% 19% 59% 30% 19% 39% Table 18: Governance - Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Public information services 58% 63% 41% 67% 60% 17% 53% Page 138 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Table 19: Participation General Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Sense of community 56% 51% 28% 24% 25% 27% 34% Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 93% 62% 95% 95% 76% 78% 84% Remain in Pasco for the next five years 89% 74% 87% 92% 81% 72% 83% Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 40% 40% 60% 22% 49% 34% 43% Table 20: Participation - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Was NOT the victim of a crime 62% 72% 91% 79% 93% 84% 82% Did NOT report a crime 54% 88% 60% 78% 74% 75% 70% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 21% 43% 34% 44% 29% 20% 31% Table 21: Participation - Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Walked or biked instead of driving 71% 68% 56% 40% 49% 82% 58% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 65% 37% 58% 54% 53% 68% 56% Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 38% 34% 15% 12% 8% 24% 20% Table 22: Participation - Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Recycle at home 49% 50% 69% 63% 65% 76% 62% Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 71% 95% 70% 80% 65% 87% 75% Made efforts to conserve water 84% 93% 84% 95% 67% 85% 83% Table 23: Participation - Built Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 NOT under housing cost stress 47% 51% 55% 78% 77% 63% 63% Did NOT observe a code violation 51% 47% 60% 42% 43% 47% 48% Page 139 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Table 24: Participation - Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco 70% 82% 100% 98% 97% 100% 92% Economy will have positive impact on income 18% 19% 29% 38% 27% 24% 26% Work in Pasco 45% 55% 47% 60% 31% 42% 45% Table 25: Participation - Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Used Pasco recreation centers or their services 68% 63% 51% 53% 49% 46% 54% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 93% 95% 93% 88% 79% 81% 88% Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 86% 85% 86% 89% 83% 93% 86% Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 60% 91% 75% 73% 87% 62% 76% Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health 22% 61% 31% 59% 52% 36% 43% Table 26: Participation - Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Used Pasco public libraries or their services 77% 56% 65% 81% 50% 88% 66% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco 91% 50% 48% 47% 52% 72% 58% Attended a City-sponsored event 51% 35% 40% 32% 50% 45% 43% Table 27: Participation - Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 13% 27% 25% 10% 20% 12% 18% Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 9% 13% 17% 9% 15% 23% 14% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 8% 13% 22% 26% 27% 37% 22% Participated in a club 18% 9% 23% 6% 15% 17% 15% Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 41% 93% 82% 97% 88% 93% 82% Done a favor for a neighbor 88% 93% 74% 91% 85% 70% 84% Attended a local public meeting 26% 8% 27% 15% 17% 25% 20% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 47% 61% 21% 23% 33% 41% 36% Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 80% 94% 84% 94% 87% 78% 86% Page 140 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Vote in local elections 23% 66% 81% 96% 79% 86% 72% Table 28: Community Focus Areas Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 100% 100% 74% 88% 83% 90% 87% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 93% 74% 75% 69% 80% 66% 77% Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 93% 60% 59% 88% 56% 76% 70% Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 97% 79% 67% 75% 66% 64% 74% Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 100% 99% 67% 64% 74% 66% 77% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 97% 80% 76% 63% 77% 75% 78% Overall economic health of Pasco 97% 99% 90% 96% 88% 71% 91% Sense of community 97% 62% 71% 72% 75% 86% 77% Table 29: Residential Code Enforcement Percent rating would like considerable or somewhat more enforcement Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? 77% 47% 43% 56% 47% 38% 51% Table 30: Property Tax to Fund New Fire/EMS Facilities Percent strongly or somewhat support Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? 84% 60% 82% 86% 77% 44% 75% Page 141 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Table 31: Interest in Recreation Categories If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: (Percent rating as very high or high interest). Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Recreational aquatic features 70% 82% 53% 69% 64% 79% 67% Competition aquatic features 54% 62% 21% 50% 41% 62% 45% Gymnasium 73% 58% 28% 27% 50% 32% 45% Fitness/exercise 86% 63% 29% 59% 71% 61% 60% Walking/jogging 93% 73% 52% 67% 76% 92% 74% Meeting/activity rooms 76% 65% 37% 37% 45% 43% 50% Page 142 of 225 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Pasco, WA Supplemental Online Survey Results 2018 Page 143 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2018 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents About this Report ............................................................................. 1 Complete Survey Responses ............................................................. 2 Page 144 of 225 1 About this Report As part of its participation in The National Citizen Survey™, the City of Pasco conducted a mailed survey of 1,500 residents. Surveys were mailed to randomly selected households in November 2017 and data were collected through January 31, 2018. After the official data collection period was underway (see the report, The National Citizen Survey: Community Livability Report, Pasco, WA, 2018), the City made available a web-based survey to its residents through a link on the City’s website. Visitors to the site were able to complete the survey during December 2017 and January 2018 and 131 surveys were received. Of the 131 completed surveys, 129 were completed in English and two were completed in Spanish. This report contains the results of this administration of the web-based survey that have not been weighted to current population estimates of Pasco. Page 145 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Complete Survey Responses The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Responses excluding “don’t know” Table 1: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Pasco as a place to live 21% N=27 52% N=66 22% N=28 4% N=5 100% N=126 Your neighborhood as a place to live 37% N=48 47% N=61 12% N=15 5% N=6 100% N=130 Pasco as a place to raise children 23% N=27 46% N=54 20% N=24 11% N=13 100% N=118 Pasco as a place to work 15% N=17 46% N=51 25% N=28 14% N=15 100% N=111 Pasco as a place to visit 9% N=12 25% N=32 33% N=42 33% N=43 100% N=129 Pasco as a place to retire 23% N=28 34% N=41 27% N=33 16% N=19 100% N=121 The overall quality of life in Pasco 18% N=24 50% N=65 26% N=34 5% N=7 100% N=130 Table 2: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 24% N=28 50% N=59 18% N=21 8% N=10 100% N=118 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 22% N=26 37% N=44 28% N=33 13% N=16 100% N=119 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 13% N=15 39% N=45 35% N=41 13% N=15 100% N=116 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 7% N=8 25% N=29 46% N=54 23% N=27 100% N=118 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 11% N=12 36% N=41 40% N=45 13% N=15 100% N=113 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 13% N=15 39% N=45 32% N=37 16% N=19 100% N=116 Overall economic health of Pasco 13% N=15 38% N=44 36% N=42 13% N=15 100% N=116 Sense of community 11% N=13 34% N=40 33% N=39 23% N=27 100% N=119 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 5% N=6 27% N=32 42% N=50 26% N=31 100% N=119 Table 3: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 39% N=44 38% N=43 12% N=14 11% N=13 100% N=114 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 60% N=70 21% N=24 7% N=8 12% N=14 100% N=116 Page 146 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Table 4: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 67% N=79 29% N=34 3% N=3 1% N=1 1% N=1 100% N=118 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 22% N=25 29% N=33 20% N=23 22% N=25 7% N=8 100% N=114 Table 5: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 5% N=6 34% N=40 29% N=34 32% N=37 100% N=117 Ease of public parking 18% N=21 45% N=51 26% N=30 11% N=12 100% N=114 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 19% N=22 47% N=55 23% N=27 11% N=13 100% N=117 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 16% N=7 26% N=11 35% N=15 23% N=10 100% N=43 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 11% N=7 26% N=16 33% N=20 30% N=18 100% N=61 Ease of walking in Pasco 12% N=11 36% N=34 31% N=29 22% N=21 100% N=95 Availability of paths and walking trails 12% N=12 39% N=39 30% N=30 19% N=19 100% N=100 Air quality 24% N=27 52% N=59 22% N=25 3% N=3 100% N=114 Cleanliness of Pasco 16% N=18 40% N=45 29% N=33 15% N=17 100% N=113 Overall appearance of Pasco 9% N=11 38% N=44 34% N=40 18% N=21 100% N=116 Public places where people want to spend time 6% N=7 31% N=36 33% N=39 30% N=35 100% N=117 Variety of housing options 10% N=11 44% N=48 33% N=36 12% N=13 100% N=108 Availability of affordable quality housing 13% N=13 38% N=39 30% N=31 19% N=19 100% N=102 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 15% N=16 42% N=45 26% N=28 18% N=19 100% N=108 Recreational opportunities 10% N=12 37% N=43 33% N=38 19% N=22 100% N=115 Availability of affordable quality food 19% N=22 47% N=54 24% N=28 10% N=12 100% N=116 Availability of affordable quality health care 11% N=12 50% N=54 27% N=29 11% N=12 100% N=107 Availability of preventive health services 11% N=11 48% N=50 33% N=34 9% N=9 100% N=104 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 8% N=6 20% N=15 29% N=22 43% N=33 100% N=76 Table 6: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 13% N=7 21% N=12 38% N=21 29% N=16 100% N=56 K-12 education 14% N=14 31% N=30 37% N=36 18% N=17 100% N=97 Adult educational opportunities 15% N=12 33% N=27 37% N=30 15% N=12 100% N=81 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 8% N=8 14% N=14 39% N=39 38% N=38 100% N=99 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 23% N=19 41% N=34 29% N=24 7% N=6 100% N=83 Employment opportunities 6% N=6 38% N=38 32% N=32 23% N=23 100% N=99 Shopping opportunities 6% N=7 22% N=25 38% N=43 34% N=38 100% N=113 Cost of living in Pasco 19% N=21 54% N=61 18% N=20 10% N=11 100% N=113 Page 147 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 6% N=7 44% N=51 33% N=38 17% N=19 100% N=115 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 4% N=4 11% N=12 35% N=39 51% N=57 100% N=112 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 8% N=9 36% N=40 36% N=40 20% N=22 100% N=111 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 7% N=7 24% N=25 44% N=45 25% N=26 100% N=103 Opportunities to volunteer 25% N=20 36% N=29 31% N=25 8% N=6 100% N=80 Opportunities to participate in community matters 21% N=19 34% N=31 33% N=30 11% N=10 100% N=90 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 24% N=27 40% N=44 23% N=25 14% N=15 100% N=111 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 14% N=16 45% N=50 25% N=28 15% N=17 100% N=111 Table 7: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 21% N=23 79% N=89 100% N=112 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 16% N=18 84% N=93 100% N=111 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Pasco (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 33% N=37 67% N=74 100% N=111 Household member was a victim of a crime in Pasco 88% N=99 12% N=13 100% N=112 Reported a crime to the police in Pasco 68% N=76 32% N=36 100% N=112 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 58% N=65 42% N=47 100% N=112 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 46% N=52 54% N=60 100% N=112 Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 41% N=45 59% N=66 100% N=111 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 66% N=74 34% N=38 100% N=112 Table 8: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Pasco? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Pasco recreation centers or their services 4% N=4 7% N=8 32% N=35 57% N=63 100% N=110 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 12% N=13 29% N=31 40% N=43 19% N=20 100% N=107 Used Pasco public libraries or their services 11% N=12 19% N=21 32% N=35 38% N=41 100% N=109 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco 19% N=21 12% N=13 15% N=16 54% N=59 100% N=109 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=1 3% N=3 49% N=53 47% N=51 100% N=108 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 2% N=2 3% N=3 6% N=6 90% N=98 100% N=109 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 18% N=19 15% N=16 18% N=19 50% N=54 100% N=108 Walked or biked instead of driving 7% N=8 12% N=13 27% N=29 54% N=59 100% N=109 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 14% N=15 13% N=14 22% N=24 51% N=56 100% N=109 Participated in a club 6% N=7 10% N=11 12% N=13 71% N=77 100% N=108 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 36% N=39 36% N=39 18% N=20 10% N=11 100% N=109 Done a favor for a neighbor 19% N=21 27% N=29 39% N=43 15% N=16 100% N=109 Page 148 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Table 9: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 3% N=3 7% N=7 19% N=20 72% N=76 100% N=106 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 4% N=4 13% N=14 33% N=36 50% N=55 100% N=109 Table 10: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police/Sheriff services 51% N=50 38% N=37 6% N=6 5% N=5 100% N=98 Fire services 53% N=47 42% N=37 2% N=2 2% N=2 100% N=88 Ambulance or emergency medical services 53% N=41 38% N=29 6% N=5 3% N=2 100% N=77 Crime prevention 36% N=32 39% N=35 18% N=16 8% N=7 100% N=90 Fire prevention and education 34% N=26 47% N=36 13% N=10 6% N=5 100% N=77 Traffic enforcement 24% N=24 30% N=30 31% N=31 14% N=14 100% N=99 Street repair 12% N=12 36% N=36 31% N=31 22% N=22 100% N=101 Street cleaning 19% N=19 39% N=39 27% N=27 14% N=14 100% N=99 Street lighting 15% N=16 41% N=43 28% N=29 16% N=17 100% N=105 Snow removal 12% N=12 25% N=26 37% N=38 26% N=27 100% N=103 Sidewalk maintenance 10% N=10 39% N=38 35% N=34 15% N=15 100% N=97 Traffic signal timing 12% N=13 40% N=42 28% N=30 20% N=21 100% N=106 Bus or transit services 16% N=7 31% N=14 38% N=17 16% N=7 100% N=45 Garbage collection 48% N=51 41% N=43 6% N=6 6% N=6 100% N=106 Recycling 6% N=5 20% N=18 14% N=13 60% N=54 100% N=90 Yard waste pick-up 33% N=28 33% N=28 14% N=12 21% N=18 100% N=86 Storm drainage 20% N=18 56% N=49 17% N=15 7% N=6 100% N=88 Drinking water 29% N=30 51% N=54 13% N=14 7% N=7 100% N=105 Sewer services 29% N=28 56% N=54 11% N=11 3% N=3 100% N=96 Utility billing 23% N=24 50% N=52 17% N=18 10% N=10 100% N=104 City parks 24% N=23 41% N=39 29% N=27 5% N=5 100% N=94 Recreation programs or classes 12% N=7 38% N=22 31% N=18 19% N=11 100% N=58 Recreation centers or facilities 11% N=7 32% N=20 40% N=25 17% N=11 100% N=63 Land use, planning and zoning 8% N=6 24% N=18 28% N=21 41% N=31 100% N=76 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 6% N=5 30% N=27 40% N=36 24% N=21 100% N=89 Page 149 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Animal control 15% N=13 31% N=26 29% N=24 25% N=21 100% N=84 Economic development 8% N=7 40% N=35 24% N=21 28% N=24 100% N=87 Health services 14% N=13 45% N=41 32% N=29 9% N=8 100% N=91 Public library services 35% N=29 46% N=39 17% N=14 2% N=2 100% N=84 Public information services 19% N=15 43% N=33 25% N=19 13% N=10 100% N=77 Cable television 13% N=10 32% N=24 32% N=24 23% N=17 100% N=75 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 12% N=8 39% N=26 26% N=17 23% N=15 100% N=66 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 7% N=6 26% N=22 38% N=33 29% N=25 100% N=86 Pasco open space 11% N=9 20% N=17 41% N=34 28% N=23 100% N=83 City-sponsored special events 4% N=3 33% N=25 40% N=30 23% N=17 100% N=75 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 25% N=24 45% N=44 23% N=22 7% N=7 100% N=97 Table 11: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Pasco 22% N=22 44% N=44 27% N=27 7% N=7 100% N=100 The Federal Government 4% N=4 29% N=28 42% N=41 25% N=24 100% N=97 Table 12: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 12% N=11 39% N=37 33% N=31 16% N=15 100% N=94 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 13% N=12 40% N=38 29% N=27 18% N=17 100% N=94 The job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement 11% N=9 30% N=24 35% N=28 24% N=19 100% N=80 Overall confidence in Pasco government 9% N=9 38% N=36 34% N=32 19% N=18 100% N=95 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 12% N=11 39% N=37 26% N=24 23% N=22 100% N=94 Being honest 15% N=13 35% N=31 32% N=28 18% N=16 100% N=88 Treating all residents fairly 11% N=10 40% N=35 26% N=23 23% N=20 100% N=88 Page 150 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Table 13: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Pasco community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 66% N=66 26% N=26 6% N=6 2% N=2 100% N=100 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 36% N=36 45% N=45 18% N=18 1% N=1 100% N=100 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 32% N=32 42% N=42 26% N=26 1% N=1 100% N=101 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 35% N=35 42% N=42 22% N=22 2% N=2 100% N=101 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 30% N=30 38% N=38 28% N=28 5% N=5 100% N=101 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 48% N=48 34% N=34 16% N=16 3% N=3 100% N=101 Overall economic health of Pasco 43% N=43 52% N=53 5% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=101 Sense of community 39% N=39 46% N=46 16% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=101 Table 14: Question 14 Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? Percent Number Would like considerable more enforcement 27% N=26 Would like somewhat more enforcement 33% N=32 Would like about the same amount of enforcement 34% N=33 Would like somewhat less enforcement 4% N=4 Would like considerable less enforcement 1% N=1 Total 100% N=96 Table 15: Question 15 Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? Percent Number Strongly support 40% N=40 Somewhat support 41% N=41 Somewhat oppose 14% N=14 Strongly oppose 5% N=5 Total 100% N=100 Page 151 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Table 16: Question 16 If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: Very high interest High interest Some interest Very little interest No interest Total Recreational aquatic features 35% N=35 19% N=19 21% N=21 25% N=25 0% N=0 100% N=100 Competition aquatic features 21% N=21 14% N=14 21% N=21 41% N=40 2% N=2 100% N=98 Gymnasium 14% N=14 15% N=15 35% N=35 34% N=34 1% N=1 100% N=99 Fitness/exercise 18% N=18 26% N=26 37% N=37 18% N=18 0% N=0 100% N=99 Walking/jogging 31% N=31 32% N=32 20% N=20 17% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=100 Meeting/activity rooms 11% N=11 24% N=24 27% N=27 36% N=36 2% N=2 100% N=100 Table 17: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 10% N=10 21% N=21 22% N=22 24% N=24 23% N=23 100% N=100 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco 0% N=0 2% N=2 23% N=23 60% N=60 15% N=15 100% N=100 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 4% N=4 13% N=13 35% N=35 33% N=33 15% N=15 100% N=100 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 2% N=2 11% N=11 37% N=37 31% N=31 19% N=19 100% N=100 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=4 5% N=5 18% N=18 34% N=34 39% N=39 100% N=100 Vote in local elections 7% N=7 2% N=2 6% N=6 13% N=13 72% N=72 100% N=100 Table 18: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 23% N=23 Very good 46% N=46 Good 28% N=28 Fair 4% N=4 Poor 0% N=0 Total 100% N=101 Page 152 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Table 19: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 14% N=14 Somewhat positive 34% N=34 Neutral 42% N=42 Somewhat negative 8% N=8 Very negative 3% N=3 Total 100% N=101 Table 20: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 73% N=74 Working part time for pay 6% N=6 Unemployed, looking for paid work 4% N=4 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=5 Fully retired 12% N=12 Total 100% N=101 Table 21: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Pasco? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 33% N=33 Yes, from home 6% N=6 No 61% N=62 Total 100% N=101 Table 22: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Pasco? Percent Number Less than 2 years 8% N=8 2 to 5 years 23% N=23 6 to 10 years 25% N=25 11 to 20 years 23% N=23 More than 20 years 22% N=22 Total 100% N=101 Page 153 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Table 23: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 94% N=95 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 3% N=3 Mobile home 2% N=2 Other 1% N=1 Total 100% N=101 Table 24: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 7% N=7 Owned 93% N=94 Total 100% N=101 Table 25: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 3% N=3 $300 to $599 per month 3% N=3 $600 to $999 per month 14% N=14 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 51% N=49 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 27% N=26 $2,500 or more per month 2% N=2 Total 100% N=97 Table 26: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 43% N=43 Yes 57% N=56 Total 100% N=99 Table 27: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 83% N=82 Yes 17% N=17 Total 100% N=99 Page 154 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Table 28: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your t otal income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 6% N=6 $25,000 to $49,999 14% N=13 $50,000 to $99,999 44% N=42 $100,000 to $149,999 23% N=22 $150,000 or more 14% N=13 Total 100% N=96 Table 29: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 84% N=82 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 16% N=16 Total 100% N=98 Table 30: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% N=2 Black or African American 1% N=1 White 86% N=81 Other 13% N=12 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 31: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=2 25 to 34 years 26% N=26 35 to 44 years 32% N=32 45 to 54 years 18% N=18 55 to 64 years 14% N=14 65 to 74 years 8% N=8 75 years or older 0% N=0 Total 100% N=100 Page 155 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Table 32: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 53% N=53 Male 47% N=47 Total 100% N=100 Table 33: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 81% N=81 Land line 6% N=6 Both 13% N=13 Total 100% N=100 Page 156 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Responses including “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=“). Table 34: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Pasco as a place to live 21% N=27 52% N=66 22% N=28 4% N=5 1% N=1 100% N=127 Your neighborhood as a place to live 37% N=48 47% N=61 12% N=15 5% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=130 Pasco as a place to raise children 21% N=27 42% N=54 18% N=24 10% N=13 9% N=12 100% N=130 Pasco as a place to work 13% N=17 40% N=51 22% N=28 12% N=15 14% N=18 100% N=129 Pasco as a place to visit 9% N=12 25% N=32 32% N=42 33% N=43 1% N=1 100% N=130 Pasco as a place to retire 22% N=28 32% N=41 26% N=33 15% N=19 6% N=8 100% N=129 The overall quality of life in Pasco 18% N=24 50% N=65 26% N=34 5% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=130 Table 35: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 24% N=28 50% N=59 18% N=21 8% N=10 0% N=0 100% N=118 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 22% N=26 37% N=44 28% N=33 13% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=119 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 13% N=15 38% N=45 35% N=41 13% N=15 1% N=1 100% N=117 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 7% N=8 24% N=29 45% N=54 23% N=27 1% N=1 100% N=119 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 10% N=12 34% N=41 38% N=45 13% N=15 5% N=6 100% N=119 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 13% N=15 38% N=45 31% N=37 16% N=19 3% N=3 100% N=119 Overall economic health of Pasco 13% N=15 37% N=44 35% N=42 13% N=15 3% N=3 100% N=119 Sense of community 11% N=13 34% N=40 33% N=39 23% N=27 0% N=0 100% N=119 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 5% N=6 27% N=32 42% N=50 26% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=119 Table 36: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 38% N=44 37% N=43 12% N=14 11% N=13 3% N=3 100% N=117 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 59% N=70 20% N=24 7% N=8 12% N=14 2% N=2 100% N=118 Page 157 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Table 37: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 67% N=79 29% N=34 3% N=3 1% N=1 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=118 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 21% N=25 28% N=33 20% N=23 21% N=25 7% N=8 3% N=3 100% N=117 Table 38: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 5% N=6 34% N=40 29% N=34 32% N=37 0% N=0 100% N=117 Ease of public parking 18% N=21 44% N=51 26% N=30 10% N=12 3% N=3 100% N=117 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 19% N=22 47% N=55 23% N=27 11% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=117 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 6% N=7 9% N=11 13% N=15 9% N=10 63% N=74 100% N=117 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 6% N=7 14% N=16 17% N=20 16% N=18 47% N=55 100% N=116 Ease of walking in Pasco 9% N=11 29% N=34 25% N=29 18% N=21 19% N=22 100% N=117 Availability of paths and walking trails 10% N=12 33% N=39 26% N=30 16% N=19 15% N=17 100% N=117 Air quality 23% N=27 50% N=59 21% N=25 3% N=3 3% N=3 100% N=117 Cleanliness of Pasco 16% N=18 40% N=45 29% N=33 15% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=113 Overall appearance of Pasco 9% N=11 38% N=44 34% N=40 18% N=21 0% N=0 100% N=116 Public places where people want to spend time 6% N=7 31% N=36 33% N=39 30% N=35 0% N=0 100% N=117 Variety of housing options 9% N=11 41% N=48 31% N=36 11% N=13 8% N=9 100% N=117 Availability of affordable quality housing 11% N=13 33% N=39 26% N=31 16% N=19 13% N=15 100% N=117 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 14% N=16 38% N=45 24% N=28 16% N=19 8% N=9 100% N=117 Recreational opportunities 10% N=12 37% N=43 32% N=38 19% N=22 2% N=2 100% N=117 Availability of affordable quality food 19% N=22 47% N=54 24% N=28 10% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=116 Availability of affordable quality health care 10% N=12 47% N=54 25% N=29 10% N=12 8% N=9 100% N=116 Availability of preventive health services 9% N=11 43% N=50 29% N=34 8% N=9 10% N=12 100% N=116 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 5% N=6 13% N=15 19% N=22 28% N=33 35% N=41 100% N=117 Table 39: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 6% N=7 10% N=12 18% N=21 14% N=16 52% N=60 100% N=116 K-12 education 12% N=14 26% N=30 31% N=36 15% N=17 16% N=19 100% N=116 Adult educational opportunities 11% N=12 24% N=27 27% N=30 11% N=12 28% N=32 100% N=113 Page 158 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 7% N=8 12% N=14 34% N=39 33% N=38 15% N=17 100% N=116 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 17% N=19 30% N=34 21% N=24 5% N=6 28% N=32 100% N=115 Employment opportunities 5% N=6 33% N=38 28% N=32 20% N=23 14% N=16 100% N=115 Shopping opportunities 6% N=7 22% N=25 37% N=43 33% N=38 2% N=2 100% N=115 Cost of living in Pasco 18% N=21 53% N=61 17% N=20 10% N=11 2% N=2 100% N=115 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 6% N=7 44% N=51 33% N=38 16% N=19 1% N=1 100% N=116 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 3% N=4 10% N=12 34% N=39 49% N=57 3% N=4 100% N=116 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 8% N=9 34% N=40 34% N=40 19% N=22 4% N=5 100% N=116 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 6% N=7 22% N=25 39% N=45 22% N=26 11% N=13 100% N=116 Opportunities to volunteer 17% N=20 25% N=29 22% N=25 5% N=6 31% N=36 100% N=116 Opportunities to participate in community matters 16% N=19 27% N=31 26% N=30 9% N=10 22% N=26 100% N=116 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 23% N=27 38% N=44 22% N=25 13% N=15 4% N=5 100% N=116 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 14% N=16 43% N=50 24% N=28 15% N=17 4% N=5 100% N=116 Table 40: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 21% N=23 79% N=89 100% N=112 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 16% N=18 84% N=93 100% N=111 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Pasco (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 33% N=37 67% N=74 100% N=111 Household member was a victim of a crime in Pasco 88% N=99 12% N=13 100% N=112 Reported a crime to the police in Pasco 68% N=76 32% N=36 100% N=112 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 58% N=65 42% N=47 100% N=112 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 46% N=52 54% N=60 100% N=112 Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 41% N=45 59% N=66 100% N=111 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 66% N=74 34% N=38 100% N=112 Table 41: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Pasco? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Pasco recreation centers or their services 4% N=4 7% N=8 32% N=35 57% N=63 100% N=110 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 12% N=13 29% N=31 40% N=43 19% N=20 100% N=107 Used Pasco public libraries or their services 11% N=12 19% N=21 32% N=35 38% N=41 100% N=109 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco 19% N=21 12% N=13 15% N=16 54% N=59 100% N=109 Attended a City-sponsored event 1% N=1 3% N=3 49% N=53 47% N=51 100% N=108 Page 159 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Pasco? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 2% N=2 3% N=3 6% N=6 90% N=98 100% N=109 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 18% N=19 15% N=16 18% N=19 50% N=54 100% N=108 Walked or biked instead of driving 7% N=8 12% N=13 27% N=29 54% N=59 100% N=109 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 14% N=15 13% N=14 22% N=24 51% N=56 100% N=109 Participated in a club 6% N=7 10% N=11 12% N=13 71% N=77 100% N=108 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 36% N=39 36% N=39 18% N=20 10% N=11 100% N=109 Done a favor for a neighbor 19% N=21 27% N=29 39% N=43 15% N=16 100% N=109 Table 42: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 3% N=3 7% N=7 19% N=20 72% N=76 100% N=106 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 4% N=4 13% N=14 33% N=36 50% N=55 100% N=109 Table 43: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police/Sheriff services 47% N=50 35% N=37 6% N=6 5% N=5 8% N=9 100% N=107 Fire services 44% N=47 35% N=37 2% N=2 2% N=2 18% N=19 100% N=107 Ambulance or emergency medical services 38% N=41 27% N=29 5% N=5 2% N=2 28% N=30 100% N=107 Crime prevention 30% N=32 33% N=35 15% N=16 7% N=7 16% N=17 100% N=107 Fire prevention and education 24% N=26 34% N=36 9% N=10 5% N=5 28% N=30 100% N=107 Traffic enforcement 22% N=24 28% N=30 29% N=31 13% N=14 7% N=8 100% N=107 Street repair 11% N=12 33% N=36 29% N=31 20% N=22 6% N=7 100% N=108 Street cleaning 18% N=19 36% N=39 25% N=27 13% N=14 7% N=8 100% N=107 Street lighting 15% N=16 40% N=43 27% N=29 16% N=17 2% N=2 100% N=107 Snow removal 11% N=12 24% N=26 36% N=38 25% N=27 4% N=4 100% N=107 Sidewalk maintenance 9% N=10 36% N=38 32% N=34 14% N=15 8% N=9 100% N=106 Traffic signal timing 12% N=13 39% N=42 28% N=30 20% N=21 1% N=1 100% N=107 Bus or transit services 7% N=7 13% N=14 16% N=17 7% N=7 58% N=62 100% N=107 Garbage collection 48% N=51 41% N=43 6% N=6 6% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=106 Recycling 5% N=5 17% N=18 12% N=13 50% N=54 16% N=17 100% N=107 Yard waste pick-up 26% N=28 26% N=28 11% N=12 17% N=18 20% N=21 100% N=107 Page 160 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Storm drainage 17% N=18 46% N=49 14% N=15 6% N=6 18% N=19 100% N=107 Drinking water 28% N=30 50% N=54 13% N=14 7% N=7 2% N=2 100% N=107 Sewer services 26% N=28 50% N=54 10% N=11 3% N=3 10% N=11 100% N=107 Utility billing 23% N=24 49% N=52 17% N=18 9% N=10 2% N=2 100% N=106 City parks 22% N=23 37% N=39 25% N=27 5% N=5 11% N=12 100% N=106 Recreation programs or classes 7% N=7 21% N=22 17% N=18 10% N=11 46% N=49 100% N=107 Recreation centers or facilities 7% N=7 19% N=20 24% N=25 10% N=11 41% N=43 100% N=106 Land use, planning and zoning 6% N=6 17% N=18 20% N=21 29% N=31 28% N=30 100% N=106 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 5% N=5 25% N=27 34% N=36 20% N=21 17% N=18 100% N=107 Animal control 12% N=13 24% N=26 22% N=24 20% N=21 21% N=23 100% N=107 Economic development 7% N=7 33% N=35 20% N=21 22% N=24 19% N=20 100% N=107 Health services 12% N=13 38% N=41 27% N=29 7% N=8 15% N=16 100% N=107 Public library services 27% N=29 36% N=39 13% N=14 2% N=2 21% N=23 100% N=107 Public information services 14% N=15 31% N=33 18% N=19 9% N=10 27% N=29 100% N=106 Cable television 9% N=10 22% N=24 22% N=24 16% N=17 30% N=32 100% N=107 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 8% N=8 25% N=26 16% N=17 14% N=15 37% N=39 100% N=105 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 6% N=6 21% N=22 31% N=33 23% N=25 20% N=21 100% N=107 Pasco open space 8% N=9 16% N=17 32% N=34 22% N=23 22% N=23 100% N=106 City-sponsored special events 3% N=3 23% N=25 28% N=30 16% N=17 30% N=32 100% N=107 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 23% N=24 42% N=44 21% N=22 7% N=7 8% N=9 100% N=106 Table 44: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Pasco 21% N=22 43% N=44 26% N=27 7% N=7 3% N=3 100% N=103 The Federal Government 4% N=4 26% N=28 38% N=41 22% N=24 9% N=10 100% N=107 Page 161 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Table 45: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 11% N=11 37% N=37 31% N=31 15% N=15 6% N=6 100% N=100 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 12% N=12 38% N=38 27% N=27 17% N=17 6% N=6 100% N=100 The job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement 9% N=9 24% N=24 28% N=28 19% N=19 20% N=20 100% N=100 Overall confidence in Pasco government 9% N=9 36% N=36 32% N=32 18% N=18 5% N=5 100% N=100 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 11% N=11 37% N=37 24% N=24 22% N=22 6% N=6 100% N=100 Being honest 13% N=13 31% N=31 28% N=28 16% N=16 12% N=12 100% N=100 Treating all residents fairly 10% N=10 35% N=35 23% N=23 20% N=20 12% N=12 100% N=100 Table 46: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Pasco community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 66% N=66 26% N=26 6% N=6 2% N=2 100% N=100 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 36% N=36 45% N=45 18% N=18 1% N=1 100% N=100 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 32% N=32 42% N=42 26% N=26 1% N=1 100% N=101 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 35% N=35 42% N=42 22% N=22 2% N=2 100% N=101 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 30% N=30 38% N=38 28% N=28 5% N=5 100% N=101 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 48% N=48 34% N=34 16% N=16 3% N=3 100% N=101 Overall economic health of Pasco 43% N=43 52% N=53 5% N=5 0% N=0 100% N=101 Sense of community 39% N=39 46% N=46 16% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=101 Table 47: Question 14 Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? Percent Number Would like considerably more enforcement 26% N=26 Would like somewhat more enforcement 32% N=32 Would like about the same amount of enforcement 33% N=33 Would like somewhat less enforcement 4% N=4 Would like considerable less enforcement 1% N=1 Don't know 4% N=4 Total 100% N=100 Page 162 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Table 48: Question 15 Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? Percent Number Strongly support 40% N=40 Somewhat support 41% N=41 Somewhat oppose 14% N=14 Strongly oppose 5% N=5 Don't know 0% N=0 Total 100% N=100 Table 49: Question 16 If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: Very high interest High interest Some interest Very little interest No interest Total Recreational aquatic features 35% N=35 19% N=19 21% N=21 25% N=25 0% N=0 100% N=100 Competition aquatic features 21% N=21 14% N=14 21% N=21 41% N=40 2% N=2 100% N=98 Gymnasium 14% N=14 15% N=15 35% N=35 34% N=34 1% N=1 100% N=99 Fitness/exercise 18% N=18 26% N=26 37% N=37 18% N=18 0% N=0 100% N=99 Walking/jogging 31% N=31 32% N=32 20% N=20 17% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=100 Meeting/activity rooms 11% N=11 24% N=24 27% N=27 36% N=36 2% N=2 100% N=100 Table 50: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 10% N=10 21% N=21 22% N=22 24% N=24 23% N=23 100% N=100 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco 0% N=0 2% N=2 23% N=23 60% N=60 15% N=15 100% N=100 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 4% N=4 13% N=13 35% N=35 33% N=33 15% N=15 100% N=100 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 2% N=2 11% N=11 37% N=37 31% N=31 19% N=19 100% N=100 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 4% N=4 5% N=5 18% N=18 34% N=34 39% N=39 100% N=100 Vote in local elections 7% N=7 2% N=2 6% N=6 13% N=13 72% N=72 100% N=100 Page 163 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 20 Table 51: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 23% N=23 Very good 46% N=46 Good 28% N=28 Fair 4% N=4 Poor 0% N=0 Total 100% N=101 Table 52: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 14% N=14 Somewhat positive 34% N=34 Neutral 42% N=42 Somewhat negative 8% N=8 Very negative 3% N=3 Total 100% N=101 Table 53: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 73% N=74 Working part time for pay 6% N=6 Unemployed, looking for paid work 4% N=4 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=5 Fully retired 12% N=12 Total 100% N=101 Table 54: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Pasco? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 33% N=33 Yes, from home 6% N=6 No 61% N=62 Total 100% N=101 Page 164 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 21 Table 55: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Pasco? Percent Number Less than 2 years 8% N=8 2 to 5 years 23% N=23 6 to 10 years 25% N=25 11 to 20 years 23% N=23 More than 20 years 22% N=22 Total 100% N=101 Table 56: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 94% N=95 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 3% N=3 Mobile home 2% N=2 Other 1% N=1 Total 100% N=101 Table 57: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 7% N=7 Owned 93% N=94 Total 100% N=101 Table 58: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 3% N=3 $300 to $599 per month 3% N=3 $600 to $999 per month 14% N=14 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 51% N=49 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 27% N=26 $2,500 or more per month 2% N=2 Total 100% N=97 Page 165 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Table 59: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 43% N=43 Yes 57% N=56 Total 100% N=99 Table 60: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 83% N=82 Yes 17% N=17 Total 100% N=99 Table 61: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 6% N=6 $25,000 to $49,999 14% N=13 $50,000 to $99,999 44% N=42 $100,000 to $149,999 23% N=22 $150,000 or more 14% N=13 Total 100% N=96 Table 62: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 84% N=82 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 16% N=16 Total 100% N=98 Table 63: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% N=1 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% N=2 Black or African American 1% N=1 White 86% N=81 Other 13% N=12 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Page 166 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 23 Table 64: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 2% N=2 25 to 34 years 26% N=26 35 to 44 years 32% N=32 45 to 54 years 18% N=18 55 to 64 years 14% N=14 65 to 74 years 8% N=8 75 years or older 0% N=0 Total 100% N=100 Table 65: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 53% N=53 Male 47% N=47 Total 100% N=100 Table 66: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 81% N=81 Land line 6% N=6 Both 13% N=13 Total 100% N=100 Page 167 of 225 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Washington, DC 20002 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Pasco, WA Technical Appendices 2018 Page 168 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ The National Citizen Survey™ © 2001-2018 National Research Center, Inc. The NCS™ is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Contents Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses .......................................... 1 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons ............................................. 19 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................. 29 Appendix D: Survey Materials ......................................................... 34 Page 169 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 1 Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses Responses excluding “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the “don’t know” responses. The percent of responden ts giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 1: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Pasco as a place to live 18% N=38 59% N=125 17% N=37 6% N=12 100% N=212 Your neighborhood as a place to live 27% N=57 46% N=97 17% N=35 10% N=22 100% N=212 Pasco as a place to raise children 16% N=32 44% N=87 32% N=64 7% N=14 100% N=198 Pasco as a place to work 22% N=40 50% N=93 16% N=29 12% N=22 100% N=184 Pasco as a place to visit 11% N=23 28% N=58 38% N=79 24% N=49 100% N=208 Pasco as a place to retire 19% N=36 47% N=91 26% N=51 8% N=15 100% N=193 The overall quality of life in Pasco 13% N=27 56% N=117 24% N=51 7% N=15 100% N=210 Table 2: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 14% N=30 39% N=82 38% N=80 10% N=20 100% N=212 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 21% N=44 56% N=117 14% N=31 9% N=19 100% N=211 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 12% N=24 50% N=104 29% N=60 10% N=20 100% N=208 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 12% N=25 29% N=60 45% N=94 14% N=30 100% N=209 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 14% N=29 34% N=70 41% N=83 11% N=23 100% N=206 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 16% N=32 39% N=77 29% N=57 17% N=33 100% N=198 Overall economic health of Pasco 12% N=23 33% N=67 47% N=94 8% N=17 100% N=202 Sense of community 13% N=26 21% N=43 49% N=99 18% N=36 100% N=204 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 11% N=23 23% N=49 40% N=86 26% N=54 100% N=212 Table 3: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 30% N=63 54% N=114 4% N=9 12% N=25 100% N=211 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 59% N=121 24% N=49 7% N=15 9% N=19 100% N=204 Table 4: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 59% N=124 28% N=59 4% N=9 7% N=15 2% N=4 100% N=210 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 23% N=48 38% N=78 15% N=31 19% N=40 5% N=10 100% N=207 Page 170 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 2 Table 5: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 11% N=24 37% N=79 29% N=61 22% N=47 100% N=211 Ease of public parking 13% N=26 44% N=90 37% N=75 6% N=12 100% N=204 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 22% N=46 44% N=90 28% N=58 6% N=12 100% N=205 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 23% N=27 39% N=46 24% N=29 14% N=17 100% N=118 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 15% N=22 37% N=56 31% N=47 17% N=26 100% N=152 Ease of walking in Pasco 14% N=27 42% N=84 31% N=61 13% N=27 100% N=199 Availability of paths and walking trails 19% N=38 41% N=80 28% N=55 12% N=24 100% N=198 Air quality 19% N=39 46% N=97 29% N=60 7% N=14 100% N=210 Cleanliness of Pasco 8% N=17 39% N=81 43% N=89 10% N=21 100% N=209 Overall appearance of Pasco 6% N=12 39% N=82 37% N=77 18% N=38 100% N=209 Public places where people want to spend time 10% N=21 36% N=73 36% N=73 18% N=36 100% N=203 Variety of housing options 11% N=23 38% N=77 31% N=62 19% N=39 100% N=201 Availability of affordable quality housing 8% N=16 33% N=65 32% N=64 27% N=54 100% N=199 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 17% N=33 42% N=82 30% N=57 11% N=22 100% N=193 Recreational opportunities 13% N=25 37% N=72 39% N=76 12% N=23 100% N=197 Availability of affordable quality food 18% N=38 41% N=86 35% N=74 5% N=12 100% N=210 Availability of affordable quality health care 12% N=23 48% N=92 32% N=60 8% N=16 100% N=191 Availability of preventive health services 14% N=25 43% N=75 34% N=61 9% N=15 100% N=177 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 11% N=15 38% N=52 25% N=34 26% N=36 100% N=137 Table 6: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 21% N=25 27% N=32 32% N=38 19% N=23 100% N=118 K-12 education 20% N=36 36% N=65 30% N=55 15% N=26 100% N=182 Adult educational opportunities 17% N=27 40% N=65 30% N=49 14% N=22 100% N=162 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 13% N=24 20% N=37 37% N=68 29% N=54 100% N=182 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 17% N=30 48% N=84 30% N=52 4% N=8 100% N=174 Employment opportunities 15% N=29 29% N=54 44% N=81 11% N=21 100% N=185 Shopping opportunities 10% N=21 30% N=63 38% N=80 21% N=45 100% N=209 Cost of living in Pasco 10% N=21 37% N=79 38% N=80 15% N=31 100% N=211 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 7% N=15 34% N=70 44% N=90 14% N=30 100% N=206 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 9% N=17 14% N=29 35% N=72 42% N=84 100% N=202 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 14% N=27 38% N=74 34% N=66 15% N=29 100% N=195 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 12% N=21 32% N=58 36% N=66 20% N=36 100% N=181 Opportunities to volunteer 17% N=28 43% N=71 35% N=58 6% N=9 100% N=167 Opportunities to participate in community matters 13% N=22 32% N=56 40% N=70 14% N=24 100% N=172 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 16% N=32 50% N=99 24% N=48 10% N=19 100% N=199 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 11% N=22 39% N=79 33% N=66 17% N=34 100% N=200 Page 171 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 3 Table 7: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 17% N=37 83% N=174 100% N=211 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 25% N=52 75% N=159 100% N=211 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Pasco (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 48% N=98 52% N=105 100% N=203 Household member was a victim of a crime in Pasco 82% N=169 18% N=38 100% N=207 Reported a crime to the police in Pasco 70% N=147 30% N=61 100% N=208 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 69% N=141 31% N=65 100% N=205 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 82% N=172 18% N=39 100% N=211 Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 57% N=120 43% N=91 100% N=210 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 86% N=181 14% N=30 100% N=211 Table 8: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Pasco? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Pasco recreation centers or their services 3% N=6 12% N=26 39% N=83 46% N=95 100% N=209 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 13% N=28 26% N=55 49% N=103 12% N=26 100% N=212 Used Pasco public libraries or their services 5% N=10 21% N=44 40% N=85 34% N=71 100% N=211 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco 10% N=22 24% N=52 24% N=50 42% N=88 100% N=211 Attended a City-sponsored event 2% N=4 1% N=2 40% N=84 57% N=119 100% N=209 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 7% N=14 3% N=7 10% N=21 80% N=170 100% N=211 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 15% N=33 16% N=33 25% N=52 44% N=94 100% N=212 Walked or biked instead of driving 13% N=27 16% N=32 30% N=61 42% N=86 100% N=206 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 3% N=7 6% N=13 13% N=27 78% N=165 100% N=212 Participated in a club 2% N=4 6% N=13 7% N=15 85% N=179 100% N=211 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 24% N=50 33% N=70 25% N=53 18% N=39 100% N=212 Done a favor for a neighbor 20% N=43 18% N=38 46% N=96 16% N=35 100% N=212 Table 9: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 1% N=2 2% N=4 17% N=35 80% N=169 100% N=211 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 8% N=16 7% N=15 21% N=45 64% N=136 100% N=212 Table 10: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police/Sheriff services 31% N=61 47% N=93 17% N=33 5% N=11 100% N=198 Fire services 40% N=75 50% N=92 9% N=17 1% N=2 100% N=186 Ambulance or emergency medical services 43% N=78 49% N=91 7% N=13 1% N=1 100% N=183 Crime prevention 14% N=25 48% N=86 29% N=51 10% N=17 100% N=179 Fire prevention and education 23% N=37 45% N=72 24% N=38 8% N=13 100% N=160 Traffic enforcement 17% N=32 39% N=76 31% N=60 13% N=24 100% N=193 Page 172 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 4 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Street repair 11% N=21 38% N=76 35% N=69 16% N=33 100% N=199 Street cleaning 11% N=22 45% N=90 31% N=61 13% N=25 100% N=198 Street lighting 12% N=26 34% N=71 37% N=77 16% N=33 100% N=207 Snow removal 11% N=21 25% N=49 32% N=63 32% N=63 100% N=196 Sidewalk maintenance 11% N=20 31% N=61 44% N=86 14% N=27 100% N=194 Traffic signal timing 14% N=27 39% N=78 31% N=64 16% N=33 100% N=203 Bus or transit services 22% N=27 47% N=59 27% N=34 5% N=6 100% N=125 Garbage collection 35% N=72 47% N=95 15% N=31 3% N=6 100% N=205 Recycling 13% N=23 33% N=61 19% N=35 35% N=63 100% N=182 Yard waste pick-up 27% N=44 40% N=66 19% N=32 14% N=23 100% N=165 Storm drainage 26% N=43 46% N=76 26% N=43 1% N=2 100% N=164 Drinking water 21% N=41 50% N=97 17% N=34 12% N=23 100% N=196 Sewer services 26% N=47 50% N=89 20% N=36 4% N=7 100% N=178 Utility billing 19% N=39 43% N=89 21% N=44 16% N=34 100% N=205 City parks 15% N=30 53% N=106 31% N=63 0% N=1 100% N=200 Recreation programs or classes 18% N=23 35% N=44 30% N=39 16% N=21 100% N=127 Recreation centers or facilities 13% N=16 37% N=46 32% N=39 19% N=23 100% N=124 Land use, planning and zoning 11% N=18 27% N=43 37% N=60 25% N=41 100% N=163 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 13% N=21 24% N=38 35% N=56 28% N=46 100% N=161 Animal control 11% N=19 36% N=62 28% N=49 25% N=42 100% N=172 Economic development 11% N=17 29% N=46 42% N=66 18% N=29 100% N=158 Health services 19% N=32 36% N=60 40% N=66 5% N=8 100% N=166 Public library services 33% N=55 45% N=76 17% N=29 5% N=9 100% N=170 Public information services 16% N=23 37% N=54 32% N=47 14% N=21 100% N=145 Cable television 14% N=19 34% N=47 30% N=41 22% N=31 100% N=138 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 18% N=24 26% N=34 32% N=43 24% N=31 100% N=132 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 15% N=22 37% N=54 32% N=48 16% N=24 100% N=147 Pasco open space 12% N=18 31% N=45 40% N=59 17% N=25 100% N=147 City-sponsored special events 15% N=21 24% N=33 43% N=60 18% N=24 100% N=138 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 17% N=34 44% N=84 26% N=50 13% N=26 100% N=193 Table 11: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Pasco 17% N=34 46% N=90 29% N=56 9% N=18 100% N=198 The Federal Government 12% N=21 24% N=41 46% N=79 17% N=29 100% N=170 Page 173 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 5 Table 12: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 9% N=16 28% N=53 36% N=67 27% N=50 100% N=185 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 12% N=24 33% N=64 27% N=52 27% N=51 100% N=191 The job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement 14% N=25 30% N=52 27% N=48 29% N=51 100% N=176 Overall confidence in Pasco government 10% N=18 34% N=65 32% N=61 25% N=47 100% N=191 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 11% N=22 32% N=62 30% N=58 27% N=51 100% N=192 Being honest 11% N=20 40% N=73 26% N=48 22% N=40 100% N=181 Treating all residents fairly 11% N=21 39% N=73 24% N=46 26% N=48 100% N=188 Table 13: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Pasco community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 44% N=93 43% N=92 12% N=25 1% N=1 100% N=211 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 30% N=63 48% N=100 22% N=46 1% N=2 100% N=211 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 23% N=48 47% N=99 25% N=54 5% N=10 100% N=211 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 28% N=58 46% N=97 21% N=43 6% N=12 100% N=211 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 29% N=60 49% N=101 21% N=45 1% N=2 100% N=208 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 36% N=76 42% N=88 20% N=43 2% N=3 100% N=210 Overall economic health of Pasco 43% N=91 47% N=99 9% N=18 1% N=2 100% N=210 Sense of community 23% N=49 53% N=112 21% N=43 3% N=6 100% N=210 Table 14: Question 14 Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? Percent Number Would like considerably more enforcement 20% N=38 Would like somewhat more enforcement 31% N=59 Would like about the same amount of enforcement 40% N=77 Would like somewhat less enforcement 2% N=5 Would like considerable less enforcement 6% N=12 Total 100% N=191 Table 15: Question 15 Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? Percent Number Strongly support 39% N=79 Somewhat support 36% N=72 Somewhat oppose 13% N=25 Strongly oppose 12% N=25 Total 100% N=201 Page 174 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 6 Table 16: Question 16 If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: Very high interest High interest Some interest Very little interest No interest Total Recreational aquatic features 33% N=70 23% N=49 17% N=37 10% N=22 16% N=33 100% N=210 Competition aquatic features 21% N=43 14% N=28 27% N=56 16% N=33 23% N=47 100% N=208 Gymnasium 20% N=41 18% N=37 33% N=68 14% N=28 16% N=32 100% N=207 Fitness/exercise 28% N=59 25% N=52 27% N=57 8% N=16 11% N=24 100% N=208 Walking/jogging 36% N=74 30% N=63 19% N=40 4% N=9 11% N=22 100% N=208 Meeting/activity rooms 17% N=35 23% N=48 27% N=57 13% N=28 20% N=42 100% N=210 Table 17: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 21% N=45 16% N=34 26% N=55 15% N=32 21% N=43 100% N=209 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco 0% N=1 8% N=16 21% N=44 50% N=104 22% N=46 100% N=211 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=2 13% N=26 47% N=97 25% N=51 15% N=31 100% N=208 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 4% N=9 20% N=42 42% N=88 24% N=50 10% N=22 100% N=210 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 3% N=7 11% N=22 20% N=43 32% N=68 34% N=71 100% N=210 Vote in local elections 19% N=39 10% N=20 8% N=17 20% N=42 44% N=92 100% N=211 Table 18: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 15% N=32 Very good 28% N=59 Good 46% N=95 Fair 6% N=13 Poor 5% N=11 Total 100% N=209 Table 19: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 8% N=16 Somewhat positive 19% N=39 Neutral 59% N=123 Somewhat negative 10% N=22 Very negative 5% N=9 Total 100% N=210 Page 175 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 7 Table 20: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 65% N=137 Working part time for pay 9% N=19 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=6 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=11 Fully retired 18% N=37 Total 100% N=210 Table 21: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Pasco? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 40% N=82 Yes, from home 5% N=11 No 55% N=114 Total 100% N=207 Table 22: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Pasco? Percent Number Less than 2 years 10% N=21 2 to 5 years 15% N=32 6 to 10 years 15% N=31 11 to 20 years 23% N=49 More than 20 years 37% N=78 Total 100% N=211 Table 23: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 77% N=162 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 21% N=44 Mobile home 2% N=3 Other 1% N=2 Total 100% N=211 Table 24: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 33% N=68 Owned 67% N=140 Total 100% N=208 Page 176 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 8 Table 25: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 7% N=14 $300 to $599 per month 11% N=23 $600 to $999 per month 27% N=54 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 32% N=63 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 19% N=38 $2,500 or more per month 4% N=8 Total 100% N=199 Table 26: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 50% N=105 Yes 50% N=106 Total 100% N=211 Table 27: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 83% N=175 Yes 17% N=35 Total 100% N=210 Table 28: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 25% N=50 $25,000 to $49,999 21% N=43 $50,000 to $99,999 32% N=65 $100,000 to $149,999 15% N=30 $150,000 or more 6% N=12 Total 100% N=200 Table 29: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 52% N=107 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 48% N=99 Total 100% N=206 Page 177 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 9 Table 30: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 3% N=7 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% N=5 Black or African American 2% N=4 White 63% N=129 Other 40% N=81 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 31: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 5% N=10 25 to 34 years 36% N=76 35 to 44 years 21% N=43 45 to 54 years 15% N=32 55 to 64 years 8% N=16 65 to 74 years 11% N=23 75 years or older 5% N=10 Total 100% N=210 Table 32: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 48% N=99 Male 52% N=108 Total 100% N=207 Table 33: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 71% N=149 Land line 13% N=26 Both 17% N=35 Total 100% N=210 Page 178 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 10 Responses including “don’t know” The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the “don’t know” responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 34: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Pasco as a place to live 18% N=38 59% N=125 17% N=37 6% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=212 Your neighborhood as a place to live 27% N=57 46% N=97 17% N=35 10% N=22 0% N=0 100% N=212 Pasco as a place to raise children 15% N=32 41% N=87 30% N=64 7% N=14 6% N=13 100% N=211 Pasco as a place to work 20% N=40 45% N=93 14% N=29 11% N=22 11% N=23 100% N=207 Pasco as a place to visit 11% N=23 27% N=58 37% N=79 23% N=49 1% N=3 100% N=211 Pasco as a place to retire 17% N=36 43% N=91 24% N=51 7% N=15 8% N=17 100% N=210 The overall quality of life in Pasco 13% N=27 55% N=117 24% N=51 7% N=15 1% N=2 100% N=212 Table 35: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 14% N=30 39% N=82 38% N=80 10% N=20 0% N=0 100% N=212 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 21% N=44 56% N=117 14% N=31 9% N=19 0% N=0 100% N=211 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 12% N=24 49% N=104 28% N=60 9% N=20 1% N=3 100% N=212 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 12% N=25 28% N=60 45% N=94 14% N=30 1% N=3 100% N=212 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 14% N=29 33% N=70 40% N=83 11% N=23 2% N=4 100% N=210 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 15% N=32 37% N=77 27% N=57 16% N=33 6% N=13 100% N=211 Overall economic health of Pasco 11% N=23 32% N=67 45% N=94 8% N=17 5% N=10 100% N=212 Sense of community 12% N=26 20% N=43 47% N=99 17% N=36 2% N=5 100% N=209 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 11% N=23 23% N=49 40% N=86 26% N=54 0% N=0 100% N=212 Table 36: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 30% N=63 54% N=114 4% N=9 12% N=25 0% N=1 100% N=211 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 58% N=121 23% N=49 7% N=15 9% N=19 3% N=6 100% N=210 Table 37: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 59% N=124 28% N=59 4% N=9 7% N=15 2% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=210 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 23% N=48 37% N=78 15% N=31 19% N=40 5% N=10 1% N=2 100% N=209 Page 179 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 11 Table 38: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 11% N=24 37% N=79 29% N=61 22% N=47 0% N=1 100% N=212 Ease of public parking 12% N=26 43% N=90 36% N=75 6% N=12 4% N=8 100% N=212 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 22% N=46 42% N=90 27% N=58 6% N=12 3% N=6 100% N=211 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 13% N=27 22% N=46 14% N=29 8% N=17 44% N=93 100% N=211 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 10% N=22 27% N=56 22% N=47 12% N=26 28% N=60 100% N=212 Ease of walking in Pasco 13% N=27 40% N=84 29% N=61 13% N=27 6% N=13 100% N=212 Availability of paths and walking trails 18% N=38 38% N=80 26% N=55 11% N=24 7% N=14 100% N=212 Air quality 18% N=39 46% N=97 28% N=60 6% N=14 1% N=2 100% N=212 Cleanliness of Pasco 8% N=17 38% N=81 42% N=89 10% N=21 1% N=3 100% N=212 Overall appearance of Pasco 6% N=12 39% N=82 37% N=77 18% N=38 1% N=2 100% N=211 Public places where people want to spend time 10% N=21 35% N=73 35% N=73 17% N=36 4% N=9 100% N=212 Variety of housing options 11% N=23 37% N=77 29% N=62 18% N=39 5% N=10 100% N=212 Availability of affordable quality housing 7% N=16 31% N=65 30% N=64 25% N=54 6% N=13 100% N=212 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 15% N=33 38% N=82 27% N=57 10% N=22 9% N=19 100% N=212 Recreational opportunities 12% N=25 34% N=72 36% N=76 11% N=23 7% N=15 100% N=212 Availability of affordable quality food 18% N=38 41% N=86 35% N=74 5% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=210 Availability of affordable quality health care 11% N=23 43% N=92 29% N=60 8% N=16 10% N=21 100% N=212 Availability of preventive health services 12% N=25 36% N=75 29% N=61 7% N=15 16% N=35 100% N=211 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 7% N=15 24% N=52 16% N=34 17% N=36 35% N=75 100% N=212 Table 39: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 12% N=25 15% N=32 18% N=38 11% N=23 44% N=94 100% N=212 K-12 education 17% N=36 31% N=65 26% N=55 12% N=26 14% N=30 100% N=212 Adult educational opportunities 13% N=27 31% N=65 23% N=49 10% N=22 23% N=49 100% N=212 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 11% N=24 18% N=37 33% N=68 26% N=54 13% N=27 100% N=209 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 14% N=30 40% N=84 25% N=52 4% N=8 18% N=38 100% N=212 Employment opportunities 13% N=29 26% N=54 39% N=81 10% N=21 12% N=26 100% N=211 Shopping opportunities 10% N=21 30% N=63 38% N=80 21% N=45 1% N=1 100% N=210 Cost of living in Pasco 10% N=21 37% N=79 38% N=80 15% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=211 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 7% N=15 33% N=70 43% N=90 14% N=30 3% N=5 100% N=211 Vibrant downtown/commercial area 8% N=17 14% N=29 34% N=72 40% N=84 5% N=10 100% N=212 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 13% N=27 36% N=74 32% N=66 14% N=29 6% N=12 100% N=207 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 10% N=21 27% N=58 31% N=66 17% N=36 14% N=30 100% N=211 Opportunities to volunteer 13% N=28 34% N=71 27% N=58 4% N=9 21% N=45 100% N=211 Opportunities to participate in community matters 11% N=22 27% N=56 33% N=70 12% N=24 18% N=37 100% N=210 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 15% N=32 47% N=99 23% N=48 9% N=19 6% N=13 100% N=212 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 10% N=22 37% N=79 31% N=66 16% N=34 5% N=11 100% N=211 Page 180 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 12 Table 40: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Made efforts to conserve water 17% N=37 83% N=174 100% N=211 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 25% N=52 75% N=159 100% N=211 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Pasco (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 48% N=98 52% N=105 100% N=203 Household member was a victim of a crime in Pasco 82% N=169 18% N=38 100% N=207 Reported a crime to the police in Pasco 70% N=147 30% N=61 100% N=208 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 69% N=141 31% N=65 100% N=205 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 82% N=172 18% N=39 100% N=211 Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 57% N=120 43% N=91 100% N=210 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 86% N=181 14% N=30 100% N=211 Table 41: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Pasco? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Pasco recreation centers or their services 3% N=6 12% N=26 39% N=83 46% N=95 100% N=209 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 13% N=28 26% N=55 49% N=103 12% N=26 100% N=212 Used Pasco public libraries or their services 5% N=10 21% N=44 40% N=85 34% N=71 100% N=211 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco 10% N=22 24% N=52 24% N=50 42% N=88 100% N=211 Attended a City-sponsored event 2% N=4 1% N=2 40% N=84 57% N=119 100% N=209 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 7% N=14 3% N=7 10% N=21 80% N=170 100% N=211 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 15% N=33 16% N=33 25% N=52 44% N=94 100% N=212 Walked or biked instead of driving 13% N=27 16% N=32 30% N=61 42% N=86 100% N=206 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 3% N=7 6% N=13 13% N=27 78% N=165 100% N=212 Participated in a club 2% N=4 6% N=13 7% N=15 85% N=179 100% N=211 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 24% N=50 33% N=70 25% N=53 18% N=39 100% N=212 Done a favor for a neighbor 20% N=43 18% N=38 46% N=96 16% N=35 100% N=212 Table 42: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Attended a local public meeting 1% N=2 2% N=4 17% N=35 80% N=169 100% N=211 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 8% N=16 7% N=15 21% N=45 64% N=136 100% N=212 Table 43: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police/Sheriff services 30% N=61 46% N=93 16% N=33 5% N=11 3% N=6 100% N=204 Fire services 36% N=75 45% N=92 8% N=17 1% N=2 10% N=21 100% N=207 Ambulance or emergency medical services 38% N=78 44% N=91 6% N=13 0% N=1 12% N=25 100% N=208 Crime prevention 12% N=25 42% N=86 25% N=51 8% N=17 13% N=27 100% N=206 Fire prevention and education 18% N=37 35% N=72 18% N=38 6% N=13 23% N=47 100% N=208 Traffic enforcement 16% N=32 37% N=76 29% N=60 12% N=24 7% N=14 100% N=208 Page 181 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 13 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Street repair 10% N=21 37% N=76 33% N=69 16% N=33 4% N=8 100% N=207 Street cleaning 10% N=22 43% N=90 29% N=61 12% N=25 5% N=10 100% N=208 Street lighting 12% N=26 34% N=71 37% N=77 16% N=33 0% N=1 100% N=208 Snow removal 10% N=21 23% N=49 30% N=63 30% N=63 6% N=12 100% N=208 Sidewalk maintenance 10% N=20 29% N=61 42% N=86 13% N=27 6% N=13 100% N=208 Traffic signal timing 13% N=27 38% N=78 31% N=64 16% N=33 2% N=4 100% N=207 Bus or transit services 14% N=27 29% N=59 17% N=34 3% N=6 38% N=77 100% N=203 Garbage collection 35% N=72 46% N=95 15% N=31 3% N=6 2% N=3 100% N=208 Recycling 11% N=23 29% N=61 17% N=35 30% N=63 12% N=26 100% N=208 Yard waste pick-up 21% N=44 32% N=66 15% N=32 11% N=23 20% N=42 100% N=207 Storm drainage 22% N=43 38% N=76 22% N=43 1% N=2 18% N=35 100% N=199 Drinking water 20% N=41 47% N=97 16% N=34 11% N=23 6% N=12 100% N=208 Sewer services 22% N=47 43% N=89 17% N=36 3% N=7 14% N=30 100% N=208 Utility billing 19% N=39 43% N=89 21% N=44 16% N=34 1% N=1 100% N=206 City parks 15% N=30 51% N=106 30% N=63 0% N=1 4% N=8 100% N=208 Recreation programs or classes 11% N=23 22% N=44 19% N=39 10% N=21 38% N=79 100% N=206 Recreation centers or facilities 8% N=16 22% N=46 19% N=39 11% N=23 39% N=81 100% N=206 Land use, planning and zoning 9% N=18 21% N=43 29% N=60 20% N=41 22% N=45 100% N=208 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 10% N=21 18% N=38 27% N=56 22% N=46 22% N=47 100% N=208 Animal control 9% N=19 30% N=62 23% N=49 20% N=42 17% N=36 100% N=208 Economic development 8% N=17 22% N=46 32% N=66 14% N=29 23% N=48 100% N=207 Health services 15% N=32 29% N=60 32% N=66 4% N=8 20% N=41 100% N=207 Public library services 27% N=55 37% N=76 14% N=29 4% N=9 18% N=38 100% N=208 Public information services 11% N=23 26% N=54 23% N=47 10% N=21 30% N=61 100% N=207 Cable television 9% N=19 23% N=47 20% N=41 15% N=31 33% N=68 100% N=206 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 12% N=24 16% N=34 21% N=43 15% N=31 36% N=73 100% N=205 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 11% N=22 27% N=54 23% N=48 12% N=24 28% N=56 100% N=203 Pasco open space 9% N=18 22% N=45 29% N=59 12% N=25 28% N=56 100% N=203 City-sponsored special events 10% N=21 16% N=33 29% N=60 12% N=24 33% N=67 100% N=205 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 16% N=34 41% N=84 24% N=50 12% N=26 7% N=14 100% N=208 Table 44: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The City of Pasco 16% N=34 44% N=90 28% N=56 9% N=18 3% N=7 100% N=205 The Federal Government 10% N=21 20% N=41 38% N=79 14% N=29 17% N=35 100% N=205 Page 182 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 14 Table 45: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 8% N=16 25% N=53 32% N=67 24% N=50 11% N=22 100% N=207 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 11% N=24 31% N=64 25% N=52 25% N=51 8% N=17 100% N=208 The job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement 12% N=25 25% N=52 23% N=48 25% N=51 15% N=32 100% N=208 Overall confidence in Pasco government 9% N=18 31% N=65 29% N=61 23% N=47 8% N=16 100% N=208 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 10% N=22 30% N=62 28% N=58 25% N=51 7% N=16 100% N=208 Being honest 10% N=20 35% N=73 23% N=48 19% N=40 13% N=27 100% N=208 Treating all residents fairly 10% N=21 35% N=73 22% N=46 23% N=48 10% N=20 100% N=208 Table 46: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Pasco community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 44% N=93 43% N=92 12% N=25 1% N=1 100% N=211 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 30% N=63 48% N=100 22% N=46 1% N=2 100% N=211 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 23% N=48 47% N=99 25% N=54 5% N=10 100% N=211 Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 28% N=58 46% N=97 21% N=43 6% N=12 100% N=211 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 29% N=60 49% N=101 21% N=45 1% N=2 100% N=208 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 36% N=76 42% N=88 20% N=43 2% N=3 100% N=210 Overall economic health of Pasco 43% N=91 47% N=99 9% N=18 1% N=2 100% N=210 Sense of community 23% N=49 53% N=112 21% N=43 3% N=6 100% N=210 Table 47: Question 14 Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? Percent Number Would like considerably more enforcement 18% N=38 Would like somewhat more enforcement 28% N=59 Would like about the same amount of enforcement 36% N=77 Would like somewhat less enforcement 2% N=5 Would like considerable less enforcement 6% N=12 Don't know 9% N=20 Total 100% N=211 Table 48: Question 15 Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? Percent Number Strongly support 37% N=79 Somewhat support 34% N=72 Somewhat oppose 12% N=25 Strongly oppose 12% N=25 Don't know 5% N=10 Total 100% N=211 Page 183 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 15 Table 49: Question 16 If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: Very high interest High interest Some interest Very little interest No interest Total Recreational aquatic features 33% N=70 23% N=49 17% N=37 10% N=22 16% N=33 100% N=210 Competition aquatic features 21% N=43 14% N=28 27% N=56 16% N=33 23% N=47 100% N=208 Gymnasium 20% N=41 18% N=37 33% N=68 14% N=28 16% N=32 100% N=207 Fitness/exercise 28% N=59 25% N=52 27% N=57 8% N=16 11% N=24 100% N=208 Walking/jogging 36% N=74 30% N=63 19% N=40 4% N=9 11% N=22 100% N=208 Meeting/activity rooms 17% N=35 23% N=48 27% N=57 13% N=28 20% N=42 100% N=210 Table 50: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Total Recycle at home 21% N=45 16% N=34 26% N=55 15% N=32 21% N=43 100% N=209 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco 0% N=1 8% N=16 21% N=44 50% N=104 22% N=46 100% N=211 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 1% N=2 13% N=26 47% N=97 25% N=51 15% N=31 100% N=208 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 4% N=9 20% N=42 42% N=88 24% N=50 10% N=22 100% N=210 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 3% N=7 11% N=22 20% N=43 32% N=68 34% N=71 100% N=210 Vote in local elections 19% N=39 10% N=20 8% N=17 20% N=42 44% N=92 100% N=211 Table 51: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 15% N=32 Very good 28% N=59 Good 46% N=95 Fair 6% N=13 Poor 5% N=11 Total 100% N=209 Table 52: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 8% N=16 Somewhat positive 19% N=39 Neutral 59% N=123 Somewhat negative 10% N=22 Very negative 5% N=9 Total 100% N=210 Page 184 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 16 Table 53: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 65% N=137 Working part time for pay 9% N=19 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=6 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 5% N=11 Fully retired 18% N=37 Total 100% N=210 Table 54: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Pasco? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 40% N=82 Yes, from home 5% N=11 No 55% N=114 Total 100% N=207 Table 55: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Pasco? Percent Number Less than 2 years 10% N=21 2 to 5 years 15% N=32 6 to 10 years 15% N=31 11 to 20 years 23% N=49 More than 20 years 37% N=78 Total 100% N=211 Table 56: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 77% N=162 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 21% N=44 Mobile home 2% N=3 Other 1% N=2 Total 100% N=211 Table 57: Question D8 Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Percent Number Rented 33% N=68 Owned 67% N=140 Total 100% N=208 Page 185 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 17 Table 58: Question D9 About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 7% N=14 $300 to $599 per month 11% N=23 $600 to $999 per month 27% N=54 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 32% N=63 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 19% N=38 $2,500 or more per month 4% N=8 Total 100% N=199 Table 59: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 50% N=105 Yes 50% N=106 Total 100% N=211 Table 60: Question D11 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 83% N=175 Yes 17% N=35 Total 100% N=210 Table 61: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 25% N=50 $25,000 to $49,999 21% N=43 $50,000 to $99,999 32% N=65 $100,000 to $149,999 15% N=30 $150,000 or more 6% N=12 Total 100% N=200 Table 62: Question D13 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 52% N=107 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 48% N=99 Total 100% N=206 Page 186 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 18 Table 63: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number American Indian or Alaskan Native 3% N=7 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% N=5 Black or African American 2% N=4 White 63% N=129 Other 40% N=81 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 64: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 5% N=10 25 to 34 years 36% N=76 35 to 44 years 21% N=43 45 to 54 years 15% N=32 55 to 64 years 8% N=16 65 to 74 years 11% N=23 75 years or older 5% N=10 Total 100% N=210 Table 65: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 48% N=99 Male 52% N=108 Total 100% N=207 Table 66: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 71% N=149 Land line 13% N=26 Both 17% N=35 Total 100% N=210 Page 187 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 19 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Citizen Survey™. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The City of Pasco chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Pasco’s “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Pasco’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Pasco’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Pasco’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Pasco residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as “much higher” or “much lower.” Benchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle Atlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South Atlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% Page 188 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 20 National Benchmark Comparisons Table 67: Community Characteristics General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark The overall quality of life in Pasco 69% 374 455 Similar Overall image or reputation of Pasco 34% 316 346 Much lower Pasco as a place to live 77% 330 391 Lower Your neighborhood as a place to live 73% 264 311 Similar Pasco as a place to raise children 60% 321 382 Lower Pasco as a place to retire 66% 193 357 Similar Overall appearance of Pasco 45% 328 358 Lower Table 68: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 53% 298 332 Lower In your neighborhood during the day 87% 286 354 Similar In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 61% 302 311 Much lower Mobility Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 77% 145 240 Similar Availability of paths and walking trails 60% 181 311 Similar Ease of walking in Pasco 56% 211 299 Similar Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 52% 163 302 Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 62% 21 203 Higher Ease of travel by car in Pasco 66% 118 302 Similar Ease of public parking 57% 83 200 Similar Traffic flow on major streets 49% 174 343 Similar Natural Environment Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 62% 246 275 Lower Cleanliness of Pasco 47% 240 282 Lower Air quality 65% 195 241 Similar Built Environment Overall "built environment" of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 41% 196 229 Lower Overall quality of new development in Pasco 52% 175 286 Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 41% 170 301 Similar Variety of housing options 50% 182 277 Similar Public places where people want to spend time 46% 187 221 Lower Economy Overall economic health of Pasco 45% 171 235 Similar Vibrant downtown/commercial area 23% 188 212 Lower Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 42% 240 269 Lower Cost of living in Pasco 48% 100 232 Similar Shopping opportunities 40% 209 292 Similar Employment opportunities 45% 78 310 Similar Pasco as a place to visit 39% 221 249 Lower Pasco as a place to work 72% 145 358 Similar Recreation and Wellness Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 48% 200 230 Lower Availability of affordable quality mental health care 49% 111 201 Similar Availability of preventive health services 57% 147 231 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 60% 152 257 Similar Availability of affordable quality food 59% 152 235 Similar Recreational opportunities 50% 243 297 Similar Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 59% 173 220 Similar Page 189 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 21 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Education and Enrichment Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 55% 181 231 Lower Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 66% 174 198 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 33% 261 296 Lower Adult educational opportunities 57% 116 207 Similar K-12 education 55% 204 267 Lower Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 48% 130 247 Similar Community Engagement Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 44% 226 258 Lower Neighborliness of Pasco 50% 194 224 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 66% 123 290 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 45% 236 270 Similar Opportunities to volunteer 60% 193 262 Similar Table 69: Governance General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Pasco 63% 319 432 Similar Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 61% 321 376 Similar Value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 37% 340 401 Similar Overall direction that Pasco is taking 46% 253 316 Similar Job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement 44% 252 316 Similar Overall confidence in Pasco government 44% 179 234 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 43% 182 233 Similar Being honest 52% 162 226 Similar Treating all residents fairly 50% 169 231 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 36% 84 246 Similar Table 70: Governance by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Police/Sheriff services 78% 259 459 Similar Fire services 90% 230 383 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 92% 164 352 Similar Crime prevention 62% 247 357 Similar Fire prevention and education 68% 227 283 Similar Animal control 47% 302 340 Lower Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 44% 241 274 Lower Mobility Traffic enforcement 56% 262 372 Similar Street repair 49% 199 395 Similar Street cleaning 56% 227 321 Similar Street lighting 47% 253 326 Similar Snow removal 36% 281 295 Lower Sidewalk maintenance 42% 213 321 Similar Traffic signal timing 52% 121 259 Similar Bus or transit services 69% 33 223 Higher Natural Garbage collection 82% 187 360 Similar Page 190 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 22 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Environment Recycling 46% 354 361 Much lower Yard waste pick-up 67% 206 275 Similar Drinking water 71% 193 322 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 51% 193 253 Similar Pasco open space 43% 179 210 Lower Built Environment Storm drainage 73% 51 352 Similar Sewer services 76% 157 324 Similar Utility billing 62% 159 203 Similar Land use, planning and zoning 38% 217 303 Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 37% 287 387 Similar Cable television 48% 127 200 Similar Economy Economic development 40% 193 283 Similar Recreation and Wellness City parks 68% 263 327 Similar Recreation programs or classes 53% 270 323 Lower Recreation centers or facilities 50% 247 273 Lower Health services 55% 135 211 Similar Education and Enrichment City-sponsored special events 39% 237 251 Lower Public library services 77% 256 342 Similar Community Engagement Public information services 53% 239 281 Similar Table 71: Participation General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 34% 282 311 Lower Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 84% 186 283 Similar Remain in Pasco for the next five years 83% 164 274 Similar Contacted Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 43% 185 315 Similar Table 72: Participation by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Safety Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 31% 117 202 Similar Did NOT report a crime to the police 70% 187 226 Similar Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 82% 236 271 Similar Mobility Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 20% 92 183 Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 56% 22 214 Higher Walked or biked instead of driving 58% 100 222 Similar Natural Environment Made efforts to conserve water 83% 92 209 Similar Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 75% 114 210 Similar Recycle at home 62% 244 255 Much lower Built Environment Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Pasco 48% 136 216 Similar NOT experiencing housing costs stress 63% 191 252 Similar Economy Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco 92% 203 220 Similar Page 191 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 23 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Economy will have positive impact on income 26% 171 253 Similar Work inside boundaries of Pasco 45% 84 221 Similar Recreation and Wellness Used Pasco recreation centers or their services 54% 147 231 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 88% 89 266 Similar Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 86% 58 212 Similar Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 76% 206 216 Similar In very good to excellent health 43% 202 216 Similar Education and Enrichment Used Pasco public libraries or their services 66% 98 241 Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco 58% 37 195 Higher Attended City-sponsored event 43% 181 222 Lower Community Engagement Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 18% 154 203 Similar Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 14% 151 219 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 22% 244 261 Lower Participated in a club 15% 222 235 Lower Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 82% 209 217 Similar Done a favor for a neighbor 84% 77 212 Similar Attended a local public meeting 20% 147 260 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 36% 35 223 Higher Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 86% 106 221 Similar Vote in local elections 72% 229 254 Lower Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Pasco’s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Adams County, CO .................................................. 441,603 Airway Heights city, WA ............................................. 6,114 Albany city, OR ........................................................ 50,158 Albemarle County, VA............................................... 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN ................................................... 18,016 Alexandria city, VA .................................................. 139,966 Algonquin village, IL ................................................. 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA ................................................... 47,823 Altoona city, IA ........................................................ 14,541 American Canyon city, CA ......................................... 19,454 Ames city, IA ........................................................... 58,965 Andover CDP, MA ....................................................... 8,762 Ankeny city, IA ........................................................ 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI ................................................... 113,934 Annapolis city, MD ................................................... 38,394 Apache Junction city, AZ........................................... 35,840 Arapahoe County, CO .............................................. 572,003 Arkansas City city, AR.................................................... 366 Arlington city, TX .................................................... 365,438 Arvada city, CO ....................................................... 106,433 Asheville city, NC ..................................................... 83,393 Ashland city, OR ...................................................... 20,078 Ashland town, MA .................................................... 16,593 Ashland town, VA ....................................................... 7,225 Aspen city, CO ........................................................... 6,658 Athens-Clarke County, GA ....................................... 115,452 Auburn city, AL ........................................................ 53,380 Augusta CCD, GA .................................................... 134,777 Aurora city, CO ....................................................... 325,078 Austin city, TX ........................................................ 790,390 Avon town, CO .......................................................... 6,447 Avon town, IN ......................................................... 12,446 Avondale city, AZ ..................................................... 76,238 Azusa city, CA .......................................................... 46,361 Bainbridge Island city, WA ........................................ 23,025 Baltimore city, MD ................................................... 620,961 Bartonville town, TX ................................................... 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI ................................................. 52,347 Bay City city, MI ....................................................... 34,932 Bay Village city, OH .................................................. 15,651 Baytown city, TX ...................................................... 71,802 Bedford city, TX ....................................................... 46,979 Bedford town, MA .................................................... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA .................................................... 122,363 Bellingham city, WA ................................................. 80,885 Benbrook city, TX ..................................................... 21,234 Page 192 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 24 Bend city, OR........................................................... 76,639 Bettendorf city, IA .................................................... 33,217 Billings city, MT ....................................................... 104,170 Blaine city, MN ......................................................... 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI .............................................. 3,869 Bloomington city, IN ................................................ 80,405 Bloomington city, MN ............................................... 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO ............................................... 52,575 Boise City city, ID ................................................... 205,671 Bonner Springs city, KS .............................................. 7,314 Boone County, KY ................................................... 118,811 Boulder city, CO ....................................................... 97,385 Bowling Green city, KY ............................................. 58,067 Bozeman city, MT .................................................... 37,280 Brentwood city, MO .................................................... 8,055 Brentwood city, TN .................................................. 37,060 Brighton city, CO ...................................................... 33,352 Brighton city, MI ........................................................ 7,444 Bristol city, TN ......................................................... 26,702 Broken Arrow city, OK .............................................. 98,850 Brookfield city, WI ................................................... 37,920 Brookline CDP, MA ................................................... 58,732 Brooklyn Center city, MN .......................................... 30,104 Brooklyn city, OH ..................................................... 11,169 Broomfield city, CO .................................................. 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN ............................................... 21,285 Buffalo Grove village, IL ........................................... 41,496 Burien city, WA ........................................................ 33,313 Burleson city, TX ...................................................... 36,690 Burlingame city, CA .................................................. 28,806 Cabarrus County, NC ............................................... 178,011 Cambridge city, MA ................................................. 105,162 Cannon Beach city, OR ............................................... 1,690 Cañon City city, CO .................................................. 16,400 Canton city, SD .......................................................... 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL .................................................. 154,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO ........................................... 37,941 Carlisle borough, PA ................................................. 18,682 Carlsbad city, CA ..................................................... 105,328 Carroll city, IA .......................................................... 10,103 Cartersville city, GA .................................................. 19,731 Cary town, NC ........................................................ 135,234 Castine town, ME ....................................................... 1,366 Castle Pines North city, CO ....................................... 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO ............................................... 48,231 Cedar Hill city, TX .................................................... 45,028 Cedar Rapids city, IA ............................................... 126,326 Celina city, TX ............................................................ 6,028 Centennial city, CO.................................................. 100,377 Chandler city, AZ .................................................... 236,123 Chandler city, TX ....................................................... 2,734 Chanhassen city, MN ................................................ 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC ................................................ 57,233 Chardon city, OH ....................................................... 5,148 Charles County, MD ................................................ 146,551 Charlotte city, NC .................................................... 731,424 Charlotte County, FL ............................................... 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA .............................................. 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN............................................... 167,674 Chautauqua town, NY ................................................ 4,464 Chesterfield County, VA ........................................... 316,236 Citrus Heights city, CA .............................................. 83,301 Clackamas County, OR ............................................ 375,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL ........................................... 8,427 Clayton city, MO ...................................................... 15,939 Clearwater city, FL .................................................. 107,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH ....................................... 46,121 Clinton city, SC .......................................................... 8,490 Clive city, IA ............................................................ 15,447 Clovis city, CA .......................................................... 95,631 College Park city, MD ............................................... 30,413 College Station city, TX ............................................ 93,857 Columbia city, MO ................................................... 108,500 Columbia city, SC .................................................... 129,272 Columbia Falls city, MT ............................................... 4,688 Commerce City city, CO ............................................ 45,913 Concord city, CA ..................................................... 122,067 Concord town, MA.................................................... 17,668 Conshohocken borough, PA ........................................ 7,833 Coon Rapids city, MN ............................................... 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX............................................. 32,032 Coral Springs city, FL............................................... 121,096 Coronado city, CA .................................................... 18,912 Corvallis city, OR ...................................................... 54,462 Cottonwood Heights city, UT .................................... 33,433 Creve Coeur city, MO ............................................... 17,833 Cross Roads town, TX ................................................ 1,563 Dacono city, CO ......................................................... 4,152 Dade City city, FL ....................................................... 6,437 Dakota County, MN ................................................. 398,552 Dallas city, OR ......................................................... 14,583 Dallas city, TX ...................................................... 1,197,816 Danville city, KY ....................................................... 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO ......................................... 11,494 Darien city, IL .......................................................... 22,086 Davenport city, FL ...................................................... 2,888 Davenport city, IA .................................................... 99,685 Davidson town, NC................................................... 10,944 Dayton city, OH ...................................................... 141,527 Dayton town, WY .......................................................... 757 Decatur city, GA ....................................................... 19,335 Del Mar city, CA ......................................................... 4,161 DeLand city, FL ........................................................ 27,031 Delaware city, OH .................................................... 34,753 Delray Beach city, FL ................................................ 60,522 Denison city, TX ....................................................... 22,682 Denton city, TX ....................................................... 113,383 Denver city, CO....................................................... 600,158 Derby city, KS .......................................................... 22,158 Des Moines city, IA ................................................. 203,433 Des Peres city, MO ..................................................... 8,373 Destin city, FL .......................................................... 12,305 Dothan city, AL ........................................................ 65,496 Douglas County, CO ................................................ 285,465 Dover city, NH ......................................................... 29,987 Dublin city, CA ......................................................... 46,036 Dublin city, OH ........................................................ 41,751 Duluth city, MN ........................................................ 86,265 Durham city, NC ..................................................... 228,330 Durham County, NC ................................................ 267,587 Dyer town, IN .......................................................... 16,390 Eagan city, MN ........................................................ 64,206 Eagle Mountain city, UT ............................................ 21,415 Eagle town, CO .......................................................... 6,508 East Grand Forks city, MN .......................................... 8,601 East Lansing city, MI ................................................ 48,579 Eau Claire city, WI ................................................... 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN ................................................ 60,797 Edgerton city, KS ....................................................... 1,671 Edgewater city, CO .................................................... 5,170 Edina city, MN ......................................................... 47,941 Edmond city, OK ...................................................... 81,405 Edmonds city, WA .................................................... 39,709 El Cerrito city, CA ..................................................... 23,549 El Dorado County, CA .............................................. 181,058 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA ................... 29,793 Elk Grove city, CA ................................................... 153,015 Elko New Market city, MN ........................................... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL....................................................... 44,121 Encinitas city, CA ..................................................... 59,518 Page 193 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 25 Englewood city, CO .................................................. 30,255 Erie town, CO .......................................................... 18,135 Escambia County, FL ............................................... 297,619 Estes Park town, CO ................................................... 5,858 Euclid city, OH ......................................................... 48,920 Fairview town, TX ...................................................... 7,248 Farmersville city, TX ................................................... 3,301 Farmington Hills city, MI ........................................... 79,740 Fayetteville city, NC................................................. 200,564 Fernandina Beach city, FL ......................................... 11,487 Fishers town, IN ...................................................... 76,794 Flagstaff city, AZ ...................................................... 65,870 Flower Mound town, TX ............................................ 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR ............................................... 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ................................................. 143,986 Fort Lauderdale city, FL ........................................... 165,521 Fort Smith city, AR ................................................... 86,209 Franklin city, TN ....................................................... 62,487 Fremont city, CA ..................................................... 214,089 Friendswood city, TX ................................................ 35,805 Fruita city, CO .......................................................... 12,646 Gahanna city, OH ..................................................... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD ............................................... 59,933 Galveston city, TX .................................................... 47,743 Gardner city, KS ....................................................... 19,123 Georgetown city, TX ................................................. 47,400 Germantown city, TN ............................................... 38,844 Gilbert town, AZ ...................................................... 208,453 Gillette city, WY ....................................................... 29,087 Glen Ellyn village, IL ................................................. 27,450 Glendora city, CA ..................................................... 50,073 Glenview village, IL .................................................. 44,692 Globe city, AZ ............................................................ 7,532 Golden city, CO ........................................................ 18,867 Golden Valley city, MN .............................................. 20,371 Goodyear city, AZ .................................................... 65,275 Grafton village, WI ................................................... 11,459 Grand Blanc city, MI ................................................... 8,276 Grants Pass city, OR ................................................. 34,533 Grass Valley city, CA ................................................ 12,860 Greeley city, CO ....................................................... 92,889 Greenville city, NC .................................................... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT ................................................. 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO ....................................... 13,925 Greer city, SC .......................................................... 25,515 Gunnison County, CO ............................................... 15,324 Hailey city, ID ............................................................ 7,960 Haines Borough, AK ................................................... 2,508 Haltom City city, TX ................................................. 42,409 Hamilton city, OH ..................................................... 62,477 Hamilton town, MA .................................................... 7,764 Hanover County, VA ................................................. 99,863 Harrisburg city, SD ..................................................... 4,089 Harrisonburg city, VA ............................................... 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO ............................................... 10,019 Hastings city, MN ..................................................... 22,172 Hayward city, CA .................................................... 144,186 Henderson city, NV ................................................. 257,729 Herndon town, VA .................................................... 23,292 High Point city, NC .................................................. 104,371 Highland Park city, IL ............................................... 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO ........................................ 96,713 Holland city, MI........................................................ 33,051 Homer Glen village, IL .............................................. 24,220 Honolulu County, HI ................................................ 953,207 Hooksett town, NH ................................................... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN ...................................................... 17,591 Hopkinton town, MA ................................................. 14,925 Hoquiam city, WA ...................................................... 8,726 Horry County, SC .................................................... 269,291 Howard village, WI ................................................... 17,399 Hudson city, OH ....................................................... 22,262 Hudson town, CO ....................................................... 2,356 Huntley village, IL .................................................... 24,291 Hurst city, TX ........................................................... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN ................................................. 14,178 Hutto city, TX .......................................................... 14,698 Independence city, MO............................................ 116,830 Indianola city, IA ..................................................... 14,782 Indio city, CA ........................................................... 76,036 Iowa City city, IA ..................................................... 67,862 Irving city, TX ......................................................... 216,290 Issaquah city, WA .................................................... 30,434 Jackson County, MI ................................................. 160,248 James City County, VA ............................................. 67,009 Jefferson County, NY ............................................... 116,229 Jefferson Parish, LA ................................................ 432,552 Johnson City city, TN................................................ 63,152 Johnston city, IA ...................................................... 17,278 Jupiter town, FL ....................................................... 55,156 Kalamazoo city, MI ................................................... 74,262 Kansas City city, KS ................................................. 145,786 Kansas City city, MO ................................................ 459,787 Keizer city, OR ......................................................... 36,478 Kenmore city, WA .................................................... 20,460 Kennedale city, TX ..................................................... 6,763 Kennett Square borough, PA ....................................... 6,072 Kent city, WA ........................................................... 92,411 Kerrville city, TX ....................................................... 22,347 Kettering city, OH .................................................... 56,163 Key West city, FL ..................................................... 24,649 King City city, CA ..................................................... 12,874 King County, WA .................................................. 1,931,249 Kirkland city, WA ...................................................... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO .................................................... 27,540 Knoxville city, IA ........................................................ 7,313 La Plata town, MD ...................................................... 8,753 La Porte city, TX ...................................................... 33,800 La Vista city, NE ....................................................... 15,758 Lafayette city, CO .................................................... 24,453 Laguna Beach city, CA .............................................. 22,723 Laguna Niguel city, CA ............................................. 62,979 Lake Forest city, IL .................................................. 19,375 Lake in the Hills village, IL ........................................ 28,965 Lake Stevens city, WA .............................................. 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL .................................................. 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL .............................................. 19,631 Lakeville city, MN ..................................................... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO .................................................. 142,980 Lakewood city, WA ................................................... 58,163 Lane County, OR ..................................................... 351,715 Lansing city, MI ...................................................... 114,297 Laramie city, WY ...................................................... 30,816 Larimer County, CO ................................................. 299,630 Las Cruces city, NM .................................................. 97,618 Las Vegas city, NM ................................................... 13,753 Las Vegas city, NV .................................................. 583,756 Lawrence city, KS..................................................... 87,643 Lawrenceville city, GA .............................................. 28,546 Lee's Summit city, MO .............................................. 91,364 Lehi city, UT ............................................................ 47,407 Lenexa city, KS ........................................................ 48,190 Lewis County, NY ..................................................... 27,087 Lewiston city, ID ...................................................... 31,894 Lewisville city, TX ..................................................... 95,290 Lewisville town, NC .................................................. 12,639 Libertyville village, IL................................................ 20,315 Lincoln city, NE ....................................................... 258,379 Lincolnwood village, IL ............................................. 12,590 Lindsborg city, KS ...................................................... 3,458 Page 194 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 26 Little Chute village, WI ............................................. 10,449 Littleton city, CO ...................................................... 41,737 Livermore city, CA .................................................... 80,968 Lombard village, IL .................................................. 43,165 Lone Tree city, CO ................................................... 10,218 Long Grove village, IL ................................................ 8,043 Longmont city, CO ................................................... 86,270 Longview city, TX ..................................................... 80,455 Lonsdale city, MN ....................................................... 3,674 Los Alamos County, NM ............................................ 17,950 Los Altos Hills town, CA .............................................. 7,922 Louisville city, CO ..................................................... 18,376 Lower Merion township, PA ...................................... 57,825 Lynchburg city, VA ................................................... 75,568 Lynnwood city, WA .................................................. 35,836 Macomb County, MI ................................................ 840,978 Manassas city, VA .................................................... 37,821 Manhattan Beach city, CA ......................................... 35,135 Manhattan city, KS ................................................... 52,281 Mankato city, MN ..................................................... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN ............................................... 61,567 Maricopa County, AZ ............................................ 3,817,117 Marion city, IA ......................................................... 34,768 Marshfield city, WI ................................................... 19,118 Martinez city, CA ...................................................... 35,824 Marysville city, WA ................................................... 60,020 Matthews town, NC .................................................. 27,198 McAllen city, TX ...................................................... 129,877 McKinney city, TX.................................................... 131,117 McMinnville city, OR ................................................. 32,187 Menlo Park city, CA .................................................. 32,026 Menomonee Falls village, WI .................................... 35,626 Mercer Island city, WA ............................................. 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI .................................. 39,688 Meridian city, ID ...................................................... 75,092 Merriam city, KS....................................................... 11,003 Mesa city, AZ .......................................................... 439,041 Mesa County, CO .................................................... 146,723 Miami Beach city, FL ................................................ 87,779 Miami city, FL ......................................................... 399,457 Middleton city, WI .................................................... 17,442 Midland city, MI ....................................................... 41,863 Milford city, DE .......................................................... 9,559 Milton city, GA ......................................................... 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ............................................... 382,578 Missouri City city, TX ............................................ 67,358H^ Modesto city, CA ..................................................... 201,165 Monterey city, CA ..................................................... 27,810 Montgomery city, MN ................................................. 2,956 Montgomery County, MD ......................................... 971,777 Monticello city, UT ..................................................... 1,972 Montrose city, CO .................................................... 19,132 Monument town, CO .................................................. 5,530 Mooresville town, NC ................................................ 32,711 Moraga town, CA ..................................................... 16,016 Morristown city, TN .................................................. 29,137 Morrisville town, NC ................................................. 18,576 Morro Bay city, CA ................................................... 10,234 Mountain Village town, CO .......................................... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ...................................... 19,909 Murphy city, TX ....................................................... 17,708 Naperville city, IL .................................................... 141,853 Napoleon city, OH ...................................................... 8,749 Needham CDP, MA ................................................... 28,886 Nevada City city, CA ................................................... 3,068 Nevada County, CA .................................................. 98,764 New Braunfels city, TX ............................................. 57,740 New Brighton city, MN .............................................. 21,456 New Hanover County, NC ........................................ 202,667 New Hope city, MN .................................................. 20,339 New Orleans city, LA ............................................... 343,829 New Port Richey city, FL ........................................... 14,911 New Smyrna Beach city, FL ...................................... 22,464 New Ulm city, MN .................................................... 13,522 Newberg city, OR ..................................................... 22,068 Newport city, RI ....................................................... 24,672 Newport News city, VA ............................................ 180,719 Newton city, IA ........................................................ 15,254 Noblesville city, IN ................................................... 51,969 Nogales city, AZ ....................................................... 20,837 Norcross city, GA ....................................................... 9,116 Norfolk city, VA ....................................................... 242,803 North Mankato city, MN ............................................ 13,394 North Port city, FL .................................................... 57,357 North Richland Hills city, TX ...................................... 63,343 North Yarmouth town, ME .......................................... 3,565 Novato city, CA ........................................................ 51,904 Novi city, MI ............................................................ 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL ........................................................ 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO ...................................................... 79,329 Oak Park village, IL .................................................. 51,878 Oakland city, CA ..................................................... 390,724 Oakley city, CA ........................................................ 35,432 Oklahoma City city, OK ............................................ 579,999 Olathe city, KS ........................................................ 125,872 Old Town city, ME ...................................................... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ............................................... 144,248 Olympia city, WA ..................................................... 46,478 Orange village, OH ..................................................... 3,323 Orland Park village, IL .............................................. 56,767 Orleans Parish, LA ................................................... 343,829 Oshkosh city, WI ...................................................... 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI .................................. 21,705 Oswego village, IL.................................................... 30,355 Otsego County, MI ................................................... 24,164 Ottawa County, MI .................................................. 263,801 Paducah city, KY ...................................................... 25,024 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ..................................... 48,452 Palm Coast city, FL ................................................... 75,180 Palo Alto city, CA ..................................................... 64,403 Palos Verdes Estates city, CA .................................... 13,438 Papillion city, NE ...................................................... 18,894 Paradise Valley town, AZ .......................................... 12,820 Park City city, UT ....................................................... 7,558 Parker town, CO ...................................................... 45,297 Parkland city, FL ...................................................... 23,962 Pasco city, WA ......................................................... 59,781 Pasco County, FL .................................................... 464,697 Payette city, ID .......................................................... 7,433 Pearland city, TX ...................................................... 91,252 Peoria city, AZ ........................................................ 154,065 Peoria city, IL ......................................................... 115,007 Pflugerville city, TX .................................................. 46,936 Phoenix city, AZ ................................................... 1,445,632 Pinehurst village, NC ................................................ 13,124 Piqua city, OH .......................................................... 20,522 Pitkin County, CO ..................................................... 17,148 Plano city, TX ......................................................... 259,841 Platte City city, MO..................................................... 4,691 Pleasant Hill city, IA ................................................... 8,785 Pleasanton city, CA .................................................. 70,285 Plymouth city, MN .................................................... 70,576 Polk County, IA ....................................................... 430,640 Pompano Beach city, FL ........................................... 99,845 Port Orange city, FL ................................................. 56,048 Portland city, OR ..................................................... 583,776 Post Falls city, ID ..................................................... 27,574 Powell city, OH ........................................................ 11,500 Prince William County, VA........................................ 402,002 Prior Lake city, MN ................................................... 22,796 Page 195 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 27 Pueblo city, CO ....................................................... 106,595 Purcellville town, VA ................................................... 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ ............................................. 26,361 Raleigh city, NC ...................................................... 403,892 Ramsey city, MN ...................................................... 23,668 Raymond town, ME .................................................... 4,436 Raymore city, MO .................................................... 19,206 Redmond city, OR .................................................... 26,215 Redmond city, WA ................................................... 54,144 Reno city, NV .......................................................... 225,221 Reston CDP, VA ....................................................... 58,404 Richland city, WA ..................................................... 48,058 Richmond city, CA ................................................... 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO ......................................... 8,603 Rio Rancho city, NM ................................................. 87,521 River Falls city, WI ................................................... 15,000 Riverside city, CA .................................................... 303,871 Riverside city, MO ...................................................... 2,937 Roanoke city, VA ...................................................... 97,032 Roanoke County, VA ................................................ 92,376 Rochester Hills city, MI ............................................. 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC ...................................................... 66,154 Rockville city, MD ..................................................... 61,209 Roeland Park city, KS ................................................. 6,731 Rogers city, MN ......................................................... 8,597 Rohnert Park city, CA ............................................... 40,971 Rolla city, MO .......................................................... 19,559 Roselle village, IL ..................................................... 22,763 Rosemount city, MN ................................................. 21,874 Rosenberg city, TX ................................................... 30,618 Roseville city, MN ..................................................... 33,660 Round Rock city, TX ................................................. 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI .................................................... 57,236 Saco city, ME ........................................................... 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ .................................................. 25,259 Salida city, CO ........................................................... 5,236 Sammamish city, WA ............................................... 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA ............................................. 12,336 San Diego city, CA ............................................... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA ............................................. 805,235 San Jose city, CA .................................................... 945,942 San Juan County, NM .............................................. 130,044 San Marcos city, CA ................................................. 83,781 San Marcos city, TX .................................................. 44,894 San Rafael city, CA ................................................... 57,713 Sanford city, FL ........................................................ 53,570 Sangamon County, IL .............................................. 197,465 Santa Clarita city, CA ............................................... 176,320 Santa Fe city, NM ..................................................... 67,947 Santa Fe County, NM .............................................. 144,170 Santa Monica city, CA ............................................... 89,736 Sarasota County, FL ................................................ 379,448 Savage city, MN ....................................................... 26,911 Schaumburg village, IL ............................................. 74,227 Schertz city, TX ........................................................ 31,465 Scott County, MN .................................................... 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ .................................................. 217,385 Seaside city, CA ....................................................... 33,025 Sedona city, AZ ........................................................ 10,031 Sevierville city, TN ................................................... 14,807 Shakopee city, MN ................................................... 37,076 Sharonville city, OH .................................................. 13,560 Shawnee city, KS ..................................................... 62,209 Shawnee city, OK ..................................................... 29,857 Sherborn town, MA .................................................... 4,119 Shoreview city, MN .................................................. 25,043 Shorewood village, IL ............................................... 15,615 Shorewood village, WI ............................................. 13,162 Sierra Vista city, AZ .................................................. 43,888 Silverton city, OR ....................................................... 9,222 Sioux Center city, IA .................................................. 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD .................................................. 153,888 Skokie village, IL ...................................................... 64,784 Snellville city, GA ..................................................... 18,242 Snoqualmie city, WA ................................................ 10,670 Somerset town, MA .................................................. 18,165 South Jordan city, UT ............................................... 50,418 South Lake Tahoe city, CA ........................................ 21,403 Southlake city, TX .................................................... 26,575 Spearfish city, SD ..................................................... 10,494 Spring Hill city, KS ...................................................... 5,437 Springboro city, OH .................................................. 17,409 Springfield city, MO ................................................. 159,498 Springville city, UT ................................................... 29,466 St. Augustine city, FL ............................................... 12,975 St. Charles city, IL .................................................... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL ...................................................... 35,183 St. Cloud city, MN .................................................... 65,842 St. Joseph city, MO .................................................. 76,780 St. Joseph town, WI ................................................... 3,842 St. Louis County, MN ............................................... 200,226 State College borough, PA ........................................ 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO ...................................... 12,088 Sterling Heights city, MI .......................................... 129,699 Sugar Grove village, IL ............................................... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX .................................................. 78,817 Suisun City city, CA .................................................. 28,111 Summit city, NJ ........................................................ 21,457 Summit County, UT .................................................. 36,324 Summit village, IL .................................................... 11,054 Sunnyvale city, CA .................................................. 140,081 Surprise city, AZ...................................................... 117,517 Suwanee city, GA ..................................................... 15,355 Tacoma city, WA ..................................................... 198,397 Takoma Park city, MD .............................................. 16,715 Tamarac city, FL ...................................................... 60,427 Temecula city, CA ................................................... 100,097 Tempe city, AZ ....................................................... 161,719 Temple city, TX ........................................................ 66,102 Texarkana city, TX ................................................... 36,411 The Woodlands CDP, TX ........................................... 93,847 Thousand Oaks city, CA ........................................... 126,683 Tigard city, OR ......................................................... 48,035 Tracy city, CA .......................................................... 82,922 Trinidad CCD, CO ..................................................... 12,017 Tualatin city, OR ...................................................... 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ......................................................... 391,906 Twin Falls city, ID .................................................... 44,125 Tyler city, TX ........................................................... 96,900 Unalaska city, AK ....................................................... 4,376 University Heights city, OH ....................................... 13,539 University Park city, TX............................................. 23,068 Upper Arlington city, OH ........................................... 33,771 Urbandale city, IA .................................................... 39,463 Vail town, CO ............................................................. 5,305 Vancouver city, WA ................................................. 161,791 Ventura CCD, CA ..................................................... 111,889 Vernon Hills village, IL .............................................. 25,113 Vestavia Hills city, AL ............................................... 34,033 Victoria city, MN ......................................................... 7,345 Vienna town, VA ...................................................... 15,687 Virginia Beach city, VA............................................. 437,994 Walnut Creek city, CA ............................................... 64,173 Washington County, MN .......................................... 238,136 Washington town, NH ................................................ 1,123 Washoe County, NV ................................................ 421,407 Washougal city, WA ................................................. 14,095 Wauwatosa city, WI ................................................. 46,396 Waverly city, IA ......................................................... 9,874 Weddington town, NC ................................................ 9,459 Page 196 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 28 Wentzville city, MO................................................... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH ........................................... 13,143 West Chester borough, PA ........................................ 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA .......................................... 56,609 Western Springs village, IL ....................................... 12,975 Westerville city, OH .................................................. 36,120 Westlake town, TX ........................................................ 992 Westminster city, CO ............................................... 106,114 Weston town, MA ..................................................... 11,261 White House city, TN ............................................... 10,255 Wichita city, KS ....................................................... 382,368 Williamsburg city, VA................................................ 14,068 Willowbrook village, IL ............................................... 8,540 Wilmington city, NC ................................................. 106,476 Wilsonville city, OR................................................... 19,509 Windsor town, CO .................................................... 18,644 Windsor town, CT .................................................... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL ................................................. 12,187 Winter Garden city, FL .............................................. 34,568 Woodbury city, MN................................................... 61,961 Woodinville city, WA ................................................. 10,938 Woodland city, CA .................................................... 55,468 Wrentham town, MA ................................................ 10,955 Wyandotte County, KS ............................................ 157,505 Yakima city, WA ....................................................... 91,067 York County, VA....................................................... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN ..................................................... 9,405 Yorkville city, IL ....................................................... 16,921 Yountville city, CA ...................................................... 2,933 Page 197 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 29 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Citizen Survey (The NCS™), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provid e the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budget ing, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The City of Pasco funded this research. Please contact Stan Strebel of the City of Pasco at strebels@pasco-wa.gov if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the “birthday method.” The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients’ sense of civic responsibility. Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community. Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents ’ expectations for service quality play a role as well as the “objective” quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record h is or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident ’s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward “oppressed groups,” likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about cu rrent community quality Page 198 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 30 with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents’ tendency to report what they think the “correct” response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and “objective” ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC’s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be “objectively” worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, “professional” status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, “If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem.” Selecting Survey Recipients “Sampling” refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. All households within the City of Pasco were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Pasco was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Pasco households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the City of Pasco boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being within one of the six Council Districts. To choose the 1,500 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single - family housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in pr actice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online “opt-in” survey was publicized and posted to the City of Pasco website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all City residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data. These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover.) Page 199 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 31 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on November 6, 2017. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage -paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Both cover letters contained paragraphs in Spanish instructing participants to complete the survey online in Spanish; respondents could opt to take the survey online in English or Spanish. Completed surveys were collected over the following 12 weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became available to all residents on December 12, 2017 and remained open for seven weeks. About 3% of the 1,500 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 1,456 households that received the survey, 215 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 15%. Of the 215 completed surveys, three were completed in Spanish and 16 were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by Council District; response rates by Council District ranged from 7% to 28%. The response rate(s) were using AAPOR’s response rate #21 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Additionally, 131 residents completed the online opt-in survey (2 of these responses were in Spanish); results of the opt-in survey can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results report provided under separate cover. 1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions here: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx for more information Page 200 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 32 Table 73: Survey Response Rates by Council District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 Overall Total sample used 247 260 246 235 262 250 1,500 I=Complete Interviews 21 21 50 35 71 17 215 P=Partial Interviews 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R=Refusal and break off 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC=Non Contact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UH=Unknown household 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UO=Unknown other 212 225 196 197 183 228 1,241 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 9% 9% 20% 15% 28% 7% 15% Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions.2 The margin of error for the City of Pasco survey is no greater than plus or minus seven percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (215 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the data set. All surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. NRC used Qualtrics, a web-based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into system so respondents are automatically “skipped” to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. A series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). Survey Data Weighting The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Pasco. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure, housing unit type, ethnicity and sex and age. No adjustments were made for design effects. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. 2 A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the “true” population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the “true” perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as “excellent” or “good,” then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. Page 201 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 33 Table 74: Pasco, WA 2017 Weighting Table Characteristic 2010 Census Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 35% 16% 33% Own home 65% 84% 67% Detached unit* 78% 86% 78% Attached unit* 22% 14% 22% Race and Ethnicity White 60% 73% 57% Not white 40% 27% 43% Not Hispanic 51% 75% 52% Hispanic 49% 25% 48% Sex and Age Female 50% 52% 48% Male 50% 48% 52% 18-34 years of age 43% 15% 41% 35-54 years of age 35% 31% 36% 55+ years of age 22% 54% 24% Females 18-34 21% 8% 20% Females 35-54 17% 15% 17% Females 55+ 11% 29% 11% Males 18-34 22% 7% 21% Males 35-54 18% 16% 18% Males 55+ 11% 25% 13% Council District District 1 15% 10% 16% District 2 16% 10% 13% District 3 19% 23% 21% District 4 15% 16% 14% District 5 20% 33% 26% District 6 14% 8% 10% * American Community Survey 2011 5-year estimates Survey Data Analysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The data for the opt-in survey are presented separately in the report titled Supplemental Online Survey Results. Page 202 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ 34 Appendix D: Survey Materials Page 203 of 225 Dear Pasco Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better city! Sincerely, Estimado Residente de Pasco, ¡No le tomará mucho de su tiempo para marcar una gran diferencia! Su hogar ha sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le llegará dentro de pocos días. ¡Gracias por ayudar a crear una Pasco mejor! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor Dear Pasco Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better city! Sincerely, Estimado Residente de Pasco, ¡No le tomará mucho de su tiempo para marcar una gran diferencia! Su hogar ha sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le llegará dentro de pocos días. ¡Gracias por ayudar a crear una Pasco mejor! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor Dear Pasco Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better city! Sincerely, Estimado Residente de Pasco, ¡No le tomará mucho de su tiempo para marcar una gran diferencia! Su hogar ha sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le llegará dentro de pocos días. ¡Gracias por ayudar a crear una Pasco mejor! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor Dear Pasco Resident, It won’t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better city! Sincerely, Estimado Residente de Pasco, ¡No le tomará mucho de su tiempo para marcar una gran diferencia! Su hogar ha sido elegido al azar para participar en una encuesta sobre su comunidad. Su encuesta le llegará dentro de pocos días. ¡Gracias por ayudar a crear una Pasco mejor! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor Page 204 of 225 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Page 205 of 225 MAYOR (509) 545-3404 / Fax (509) 545-3403 P.O. Box 293 (525 N. 3rd Avenue) Pasco, WA 99301 / www.pasco-wa.gov November 2017 Dear City of Pasco Resident: Please help us shape the future of Pasco! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2017 Pasco Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Pasco make decisions that affect our city. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: http://bit.ly/2gtBVns If you have any questions about the survey please call 509-545-3404. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Estimado Residente de la Cuidad de Pasco: ¡Por favor ayúdenos a moldear el futuro de Pasco! Usted ha sido seleccionado al azar para participar en la Encuesta de Ciudadanos de Pasco del 2017. Por favor tome unos minutos para completar la encuesta adjunta; si usted preferiría completar la encuesta en español, por favor siga las instrucciones abajo para acceder a la encuesta en español por medio de la red. Su participación en esta encuesta es muy importante – especialmente porque su hogar es uno de solamente un número pequeño de hogares que se están encuestando. Sus observaciones le ayudarán a Pasco tomar decisiones que afectarán a nuestra ciudad. Algunas cosas para recordar: Sus respuestas son completamente anónimas. Para poder escuchar a un grupo diverso de residentes, el adulto de 18 años o más en su hogar que haya celebrado su cumpleaños más recientemente debe completar esta encuesta. Puede devolver la encuesta por correo en el sobre pre-pagado adjunto, o puede completar la encuesta en línea en español en: http://bit.ly/2gtBVns Para la versión en español haga clic en “Español” en la esquina superior a mano derecha. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta por favor llame al 509-545-3404. ¡Gracias por su tiempo y participación! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor Page 206 of 225 MAYOR (509) 545-3404 / Fax (509) 545-3403 P.O. Box 293 (525 N. 3rd Avenue) Pasco, WA 99301 / www.pasco -wa.gov November 2017 Dear City of Pasco Resident: Here’s a second chance if you haven’t already responded to the 2017 Pasco Citizen Survey! (If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice.) Please help us shape the future of Pasco! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2017 Pasco Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important – especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Pasco make decisions that affect our city. A few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: http://bit.ly/2xSB5Z2 If you have any questions about the survey please call 509-545-3404. Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, Estimado Residente de la Ciudad de Pasco: ¡Aquí tiene una segunda oportunidad si usted aún no ha respondido a la Encuesta de Ciudadanos de Pasco del 2017! (Si usted la completó y la devolvió, le damos las gracias por su tiempo y le pedimos que recicle esta encuesta. Por favor no responda dos veces.) ¡Por favor ayúdenos a moldear el futuro de Pasco! Usted ha sido seleccionado al azar para participar en la Encuesta de Ciudadanos de Pasco del 2017. Por favor tome unos minutos para completar la encuesta adjunta; si usted preferiría completar la encuesta en español, por favor siga las instrucciones abajo para acceder a la encuesta en español por medio de la red. Su participación en esta encuesta es muy importante – especialmente porque su hogar es uno de solamente un número pequeño de hogares que se están encuestando. Sus observaciones le ayudarán a Pasco tomar decisiones que afectarán a nuestra ciudad. Algunas cosas para recordar: Sus respuestas son completamente anónimas. Para poder escuchar a un grupo diverso de residentes, el adulto de 18 años o más en su hogar que haya celebrado su cumpleaños más recientemente debe completar esta encuesta. Puede devolver la encuesta por correo en el sobre pre-pagado adjunto, o puede completar la encuesta en línea en español en: http://bit.ly/2xSB5Z2 Para la versión en español haga clic en “Español” en la esquina superior a mano derecha. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta por favor llame al 509-545-3404. ¡Gracias por su tiempo y participación! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor Page 207 of 225 The City of Pasco 2017 Citizen Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Pasco as a place to live ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Pasco as a place to raise children ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Pasco as a place to work ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Pasco as a place to visit ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Pasco as a place to retire .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Pasco ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall “built environment” of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of Pasco ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Pasco ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Pasco for the next five years .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Pasco’s downtown/commercial area during the day ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of public parking ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Pasco ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Pasco .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Pasco ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Pasco ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality mental health care ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Page 208 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ • © 2001-2017 National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Pasco ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial area ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Pasco .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community towar d people of diverse backgrounds ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Made efforts to conserve water ................................................................................................................................1 2 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient ..........................................................................................1 2 Observed a code violation or other hazard in Pasco (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ........................................1 2 Household member was a victim of a crime in Pasco ..............................................................................................1 2 Reported a crime to the police in Pasco ..................................................................................................................1 2 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency ..................................................................................................1 2 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ....................................................................................1 2 Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ..........................................1 2 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ...................................1 2 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Pasco? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used Pasco recreation centers or their services.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or City park ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used Pasco public libraries or their services ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Pasco ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 Attended a City-sponsored event ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving........................... 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco ................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in a club ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ................................................... 1 2 3 4 Page 209 of 225 The City of Pasco 2017 Citizen Survey Page 3 of 5 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Police/Sheriff services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health services ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ..... 1 2 3 4 5 Pasco open space ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 City-sponsored special events ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The City of Pasco............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Pasco is taking .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The job Pasco government does at welcoming citizen involvement .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in Pasco government ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Page 210 of 225 The National Citizen Survey™ • © 2001-2017 National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 5 13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Pasco community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................................ 1 2 3 4 Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall “built environment” of Pasco (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall economic health of Pasco ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sense of community ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 14. Responding to resident code enforcement complaints (e.g., trash, weeds, loud noise, barking dogs, etc.) the City handles approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Would you like to see code enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the same? Would like considerably more enforcement Would like somewhat more enforcement Would like about the same amount of enforcement Would like somewhat less enforcement Would like considerably less enforcement Don’t know 15. Two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities need to be replaced and relocated to better serve the community with improved response times and space for staffing and modern equipment. To what extent would you support or oppose a property tax to fund new fire/EMS facilities? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don’t know 16. If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories: Very High Some Very No high interest interest interest little interest interest Recreational aquatic features .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Competition aquatic features .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Gymnasium ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness/exercise ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Walking/jogging ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Meeting/activity rooms .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Page 211 of 225 The City of Pasco 2017 Citizen Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Recycle at home ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Pasco ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vote in local elections ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 D2. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do y ou think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative D4. What is your employment status? Working full time for pay Working part time for pay Unemployed, looking for paid work Unemployed, not looking for paid work Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Pasco? Yes, outside the home Yes, from home No D6. How many years have you lived in Pasco? Less than 2 years 11-20 years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) Mobile home Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Rented Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? Less than $300 per month $300 to $599 per month $600 to $999 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $1,500 to $2,499 per month $2,500 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D11. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D15. In which category is your age? 18-24 years 55-64 years 25-34 years 65-74 years 35-44 years 75 years or older 45-54 years D16. What is your sex? Female Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number? Cell Land line Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Page 212 of 225 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94 City of Pasco P. O. Box 293 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Page 213 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 20, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Rick Terway, Interim Director Public Works SUBJECT: Sole Source Services for SCADA and PLC System Upgrades I. REFERENCE(S): Sole Source Worksheet Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Irrigation Utility - 2018 Budget $80,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: City is authorized by RCW 39.04.280(1)(a) and RCW 39.04.280(1)(b) to waive competitive bidding of purchases from a sole source supplier and purchases involving special facilities. This work is for upgrades to the City of Pasco (referred to as City) supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and programmable logic controller (PLC) system; which allow the process systems to run autonomously with or without operator presence. Previously, the master irrigation automation controller was upgraded by Townsend Controls, which included six of the 13 automation controllers at pump sites. Staff has evaluated the current system and upgrade options and determined there are seven remaining Irrigation pump sites that need PLCs upgraded and programmed to function with the master automation controller to complete the project. This will be within the budgeted amount of $80,000. V. DISCUSSION: Page 214 of 225 Townsend Controls and Electric, LLC. (referred to as Townsend) has successfully completed PLC upgrades for the City in the areas of the PWRF, Water Treatment, Wastewater Treatment, and Irrigation. These previous projects were awarded to Townsend by using the City's competitive bid process. They were most recently awarded the Butterfield Water Treatment Plant PLC and Controls Upgrade Project in 2017 which is currently in its final stage of completion. Townsend has also worked with City staff to develop and integrate a standardized system which operates PLCs citywide. In doing so, they have gained in-depth knowledge of the City's overall PLC/SCADA architecture which allows them to more accurately understand the needs of the system and started the standardized PLC programming implimentated to create consistency across all irrigation PLC controllers. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing acquisition for services from Townsend Controls and Electric, LLC. for upgrades to the City's SCADA and PLC system. Page 215 of 225 Requisition Item:Seven Irrigation Pump SCADA/PLC Upgrades SOLE SOURCE WORKSHEET Sole source purchases are de?ned as clearly and legitimately limited to a single supplier.Sole source purchases are normally not allowed except when based upon strong technological grounds such as operational compatibility with existing equipment and related parts or upon a clearly unique and cost effective feature requirement. Requisition No. Prior Purchase Order Number (if item had been approved previously):N/A 1.Please describe the items and its ?mction: This work is for upgrades to the City of Pasco (referred to as City)supervisory control and data acguisition (SCADA)and programmable logic controller (PLC)system;which allow the process systems to run autonomously with or without operator presence.Previously the main Irrigation automation controller was upgraded which included six of the 13 automation controllers at pump sites by Townsend Controls and Electric,LLC.(referred to as Townsend).There are seven remaining Irrigation pump sites that need PLCS upgraded and programmed to function with the main automation controller to completed the project. T’1lSis a sole source because: Sole provider of a licensed or patented good or service ><Sole provider of items that are compatible with existing equipment,inventory,systems, programs or services ><Sole provider of goods and services for which the City has established a standard Sole provider of goods or services that will meet the specialized needs of the City or perform the intended function (please detail below or in an attachment) The vendor/distributor is a holder of a used item that would represent good value and is advantageous to the City (please attach information on market price survey,availability, etc.) What necessary features does this vendor provide which are not available from other vendors? Please be speci?c. Townsend Controls has successfully completed PLC upgrades for the City in the following areas: PWRF:l4 PLCs in circle pivots,IPS building,Screens building,and Foster Wells. Water Treatment:4 PLCs at the following_pump stations:Eastside,Riverview,Burden,and Road68 water tank. Wastewater Treatment:Maitland lift station. Irrigation:Irrigation Master PLC,USBR,RDlO8,15‘Place,I-182,Desert Sunset,and Village of Pasco Heights. These previous proiects were awarded to Townsend by using the city’s competitive bid process. Townsend was most recently awarded the Butter?eld Water Treatment Plant PLC Controls Upgrade Proiect in 2017 which is in the ?nal stage of completion. In previous proiects,Townsend worked with staff to develop and integrate a standardized, straight-forward programming logic which operates PLCs citywide.City staff has adapted to this standard and is capable of monitoring,operating,and troubleshooting PLCs using it. This standardized programming logic created for the city is theprimary factor desired for this sole source request.By eliminating multiple contractors,who will need to create their own Page 216 of 225 programing logic for each site,the city will gain consistency and overall efficient use of City resources. In addition to winning_previousbids,and developing the adopted standard programing,several other supporting sole source factors include; 0 Townsend also has gained in-depth knowledge of the Citv’soverall PLC /SCADA architecture which allows them to more accurately understandthe needs of the system. 0 They are a local business which permits the City to efficiently schedule for implementationneeds and provide emergency after hours’response in short notice. 0 They are also a Rockwell (Allen-Bradley)recognized integrator,which is the technology that the City has standardized on. 4.What steps were taken to verify that these features are not available elsewhere‘? X Other brands/manufacturers were examined (please list phone numbers and names,and explain why these were not suitable). Talos Engineering 509 893-5799,previously hired on 3 prior WWTP lift station PLC upgrades.Programming would not match needed standard. CREM 509 430-5993,contacted but did not provide quote due to having to outsource programmer. D Other vendors were contacted (please list phone numbers and names,and explain why these were not suitable). 5.The city has compared costs of previously awarded projects completed by Townsend to these sole source upgrade costs to ensure the lowest price is consistently offered for each PLC upgrade in this request. Certi?cation of Need This recommendationfor sole source is based upon on objective review of the product/service required and appears to be in the best interest of the City.I know of no conflict of interest on my part of personal involvement in any way with this request.No gratuities,favors or comprising actions have been taken. Neither has my personal familiarity with particular brands,types or equipment,materials or firm been a deciding in?uence on my request to sole source this purchase. By:wi Date:3/Z2//3? Page 217 of 225 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco,Washington,waiving the competitive bidding requirements and approving the acquisition of services for their supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)and programmable logic controller (PLC)system upgrades from Townsend Controls and Electric,LLC. WHEREAS,it is critical for the City of Pasco to have proper equipment to perform SCADA and PLC system functions;and WHEREAS,the City has need to acquire services to upgrade the SCADA and PLC system;and WHEREAS,the City has worked with Townsend Controls and Electric,LLC.to develop and integrate a standardized,straight-forward programming logic which operates PLCs citywide. City staff has adapted to this standard and is capable of monitoring,operating,and troubleshooting PLCs using it. WHEREAS,the use of Townsend Controls and Electric,LLC.services are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of services to support current operations standards this acquisition becomes subject to waiving competitive bidding requirements per RCW 39.04.280(l)(a)and RCW 39.04.280(l)(b)of purchases from a sole source supplier and purchases involving special facilities. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.That the City of Pasco acquire services to upgrade the SCADA and PLC system from Townsend Controls and Electric,LLC. Section 2.The above-described circumstances is justi?cation for the waiver of bidding requirements under the authority of RCW 39.04.280(l)(a)and RCW 39.0-4.280(l )(b)for purchases from a sole source supplier involving special facilities,and,therefore,the bidding requirement is hereby waived for the acquisition of services from Townsend Controls and Electric,LLC. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this day of ,2018. Matt Watkins,Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniela Erickson,City Clerk Leland B.Kerr,City Attorney Page 218 of 225 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 21, 2018 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 3/26/18 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Request to Sell City Properties I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Maps II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City has received inquiries from interested parties, regarding four properties in City ownership (see attached vicinity maps) as to whether it is willing to sell the parcels or part thereof. The first property is .16 acre and is located just down the street from City Hall at 120 W. Sylvester and is zoned I-1 (Industrial). The proposed purchaser, Socorro Lopez, is the owner of the adjacent shop and desires to purchase the property for a vehicle impound and storage yard. The City acquired the property in 2000 and has no identified plans for its use. The second property is located on Commercial Ave, not far and across the street from the parcel recently sold under purchase and sale agreement to Martinez Trucking. The 7.85 acre parcel is also zoned I-1 (Industrial). The proposed purchaser has indicated that he intends to construct an industrial warehouse and office buildings on the site. The City acquired the property in 1980 and has no identified use for the parcel. The third property is located on Broadway Blvd., just east of Oregon Ave. The City sold a portion of this property to adjacent owner, Bobby Gilbert, in 2016 for the expansion of a tractor equipment sales facility. Mr. Gilbert has asked if the City would be willing to sell an additional 20 ft. (X 340 ft. = 6800 sq. ft.) in order to better Page 219 of 225 accommodate equipment movement on and off the property. The final property is a 1.4 ac residential property located on Dradie Street. This property was originally acquired as part of the City’s acquisition of the West Pasco Water system. The property was the site of a water well and pump house. The well has been decommissioned and the pump house removed. The prior City Council indicated a willingness to sell the property. Since the property is owned by the City’s water utility, it is necessary to hold a public hearing to make a determination if the property is to be declared surplus prior to disposal. The City zoning, RS-20, would allow the property to be divided and staff has secured appraisals for the property as is and as if divided into two parcels. Staff suggests that a public hearing be set for May 14 on the possible disposal of the property. Staff has not procured appraisals on the other properties until it is determined if Council is willing to offer them for sale. If the City is willing to sell the real properties, the method of sale should be determined; either with sealed bids or by negotiated sale. Often, when an adjacent owner is interested, assuming the offered price is reasonable and the proposed use satisfactory, negotiated sales may be preferable, assuming disposal of the property is approved by Council. While sealed bids may be an alternative, typical experience suggests that unless a property is in unusually high demand and profile, it may be difficult to secure many bids for a property within the typically narrow (say 30 days) window that might be offered for a competitive process. While the law allows the Council to consider the price of real estate, considering different value-related factors, in executive session, the identification of the factors and the method of sale must be done in an open meeting. V. DISCUSSION: In the event that Council desires to consider factors of influence in the decision to sell and the price, if applicable, staff offers the following: 1. Does the City have an identified need for the property? 2. Is the timing right for sale of the property? 3. To what extent are the intended uses beneficial to the City as a whole? 4. How would the intended uses impact the surrounding neighborhoods, and the City's overall Comprehensive Plan? 5. Are there restrictions, beyond those encompassed by existing City land use codes, which the City may want to impose as a condition of sale for the parcel? 6. In light of all of the above and the price offered; is the total compensation for the property acceptable? As a starting point, staff suggests that Council determine if the property should be offered for sale and if so, under which method should sale proceed? Council should discuss the primary factors used to determine price. Assuming that sale is agreeable, Page 220 of 225 the following are suggested: proposed use and timetable for development. Council can later discuss the price in executive session, which would likely be most productive following the completion of an appraisal for all but the Dradie property as discussed above. If Council is agreeable to the scheduling of the public hearing fo r the Dradie property, staff will make the necessary arrangements. Page 221 of 225 1 STS H O S H O N E S Y L V E S T E R TACOMA.16 ac Parcel# 112031257120 W Sylvester St Zone: I-1 Page 222 of 225 COM MERCIAL 7.85 ac Parcel# 113520302 Zone I-1 Page 223 of 225 OREGONB R O A D W A Y CALI FORNI A.15 ac Parcel# 112102019 20' x 340' 6800 sq ft Page 224 of 225 :3?ho”mwmoOosgwmamos7&6-E<oaE=ho» _ >E.=om=.nQQowwmmoo<<> E5?rmxmoNoHq-oN_ :<!am«ozNDm_._.m_ _a_O1>_»_uwO2.?U|||I‘x_n:>aumozmu IIIIDrmcmza csamw.m>o$m .w84>08 A8.8>23 .883>93 O<mqem>o$m Page 225 of 225