Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020.07.13 Council Remote Workshop Packet
Remote Workshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:15 p.m. July 13, 2020 Page 1. REMOTE WORKSHOP INSTRUCTIONS: (a) The Pasco City Council Workshops are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/cityofPasco. Call-in information to GoToWebinar for "listen-only" mode is: (415) 655-0052 and use access code 942-626-986 2. CALL TO ORDER: 3. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 3 - 75 (a) Local Road Safety Plan 76 - 232 (b) 2019 Community Survey Highlights 233 - 244 (c) House Bill 1406 (MF# INFO 2020-001) 245 (d) Presentation - ACS Parks Project and Maintenance Update 246 - 252 (e) Renewal of Prosecutorial Services Agreement 6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 8. ADJOURNMENT: (a) Page 1 of 252 Remote Workshop Meeting July 13, 2020 REMINDERS: • Thursday, July 16, 3:30 PM: Franklin County Emergency Management Council Meeting – Virtual Meeting (COUNCILMEMBER CRAIG MALONEY, Rep.; MAYOR SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.) • Thursday, July 16, 4:00 PM: Tri-Cities National Park Committee Meeting – TBD (MAYOR SAUL MARTINEZ, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM BLANCHE BARAJAS, Alt.) • Friday, July 17, 10:00 AM: Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting – TBD (COUNCILMEMBER RUBEN ALVARADO, Rep., MAYOR PRO TEM BLANCHE BARAJAS, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad. (Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability.) Page 2 of 252 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 10, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 7/13/20 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Local Road Safety Plan I. REFERENCE(S): Local Road Safety Plan PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In early 2020, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) issued a call for projects for approximately $25 million of federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. These federal funds are used by WSDOT to assist with their City Safety Program. The stated purpose of the City Safety Program is to reduce fatal and engineering using streets and town on crashes injury serious city improvements/countermeasures. To be eligible to apply for this grant, local agencies are required to submit a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) that addresses fatal and serious injury crashes and systemic safety dataa is their A jurisdiction. within needs LRSP -and analysis driven prioritization of an agency's roadways for traffic safety. Using specific information about the factors present at specific crash locations, the City must identify other locations where those factors are present. They then must identify and prioritize improvements/countermeasures/projects to address the highest priority locations. This prioritized list of projects is included in the local road safety plan and a required part of any. Future HSIP funding application. DKS Associates was selected to prepare Pasco's first ever Local Road Safety Plan. DKS was to identify two qualifying projects from this plan, and prepare/submit two Page 3 of 252 grant applications for the call for project related to WSDOT's City Safety Program. V. DISCUSSION: Brian Chandler of DKS will provide a brief presentation on the Local Road Safety Plan and the two projects that were submitted for potential funding. Page 4 of 252 Local Road Safety Plan February 26, 2020 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PASCO Page 5 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 1 T ABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 STEP 1: ANALYZE SUMMARY DATA TO IDENTIFY FOCUS/PRIORITIES ................................................................... 2 DATA ANALYSIS OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................................2 COMMON COLLISION TYPES ........................................................................................................................................6 STEP 2: ANALYZE INDIVIDUAL FATAL/SERIOUS CRASHES TO IDENTIFY RISK FACTORS ....................................... 8 STEP 3: SELECT MOST COMMON RISK FACTORS ................................................................................................ 10 STEP 4: ANALYZE ROADWAY NETWORK FOR PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS ...................................................... 11 STEP 5: CREATE PRIORITIZED LIST OF ROADWAY LOCATIONS ........................................................................... 11 STEP 6 & 7: IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES TO ADDRESS PRIORITIZED LOCATIONS AND DEVELOP A PRIORITIZED LIST OF PROJECTS............................................................................................................................ 14 N ROAD 28 & W SYLVESTER STREET ........................................................................................................................... 15 S 10TH AVENUE & W LEWIS STREET ............................................................................................................................ 19 W SYLVESTER STREET (BETWEEN N ROAD 36 & N 10TH AVENUE) .................................................................................... 22 W SYLVESTER STREET EXTENDED CORRIDOR (BETWEEN N ROAD 54 & N 3RD AVENUE) .................................................... 26 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX A. COLLISION MAPS BY TYPE ............................................................................................................ 29 APPENDIX B. BENEFIT-COST RATIO CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX C. PRIORITY LOCATION COLLISION ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 41 LIMITATIONS ON USE Under 23 U.S. Code Sections 148 and 409, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, or lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. PREPARED BY DKS ASSOCIATES Brian Chandler, National Director for Transportation Safety Veronica Sullivan, Transportation Engineer and Planner Sam Garcia-Birginal, Transportation Engineer Caleb Trapp, Engineering Assistant Page 6 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 2 INTRODUCTION The City of Pasco is committed to reducing the number and severity of roadway collisions on its city streets. The City has developed this City Road Safety Plan using the framework established in Washington State’s Target Zero effort to provide data driven collision reduction strategies on the City’s roads. The purpose of the City Road Safety Plan is to analyze crash data in the City in order to effectively identify trends, contributing factors, associated risk factors, and deficiencies present in the City’s road network. Following this approach allows for the effective identification of appropriate, low cost countermeasures to be implemented for the purpose of crash reduction. The correlation of crash trends to the associated contributing factors, risk factors, and roadway deficiencies supports efficiency in identifying the need for crash reduction strategies as well as the implementation of specific infrastructure-based countermeasures to reduce the risk of crashes resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. The following plan includes a summary of existing safety conditions in Pasco, identification of safety needs, and recommended treatments to address high-priority collision types and locations. STEP 1: ANALYZE SUMMARY DATA TO IDENTIFY FOCUS/PRIORITIES To effectively prevent future collisions on the City’s roadways, the City must first understand the history of those collisions and other related sources of potential risk. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provided the following data sets. 1. WSDOT City Safety Summary, 2014-2018 (provided by Ed Spilker, WSDOT Local Programs) 2. WSDOT database of all crashes on City of Pasco Roads, 2014-2018 (provided by Julie Brown, WSDOT Transportation Data, GIS & Modeling) DATA ANALYSIS OVERVIEW As illustrated in Figure 1, over the past 10 years the number of fatal and serious injury collisions in the City has ranged from 4 to 12 crashes annually. After a peak of 12 crashes in 2015 and 2016, that number decreased the following years to 8 in 2018. The general trend since 2009 is a slight increase. The total number of reported crashes per year (regardless of severity) has steadily increased from 519 in 2009 to 860 in 2018 (with a high of 882 reported collisions in 2016). The 5-year average of 2009-2013 increased 46% to the 5-year average of 2014-2018. Page 7 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 3 FIGURE 1 . COLLISIONS IN PASCO, 2014-2018 Data and graphics: WSDOT Figure 2 shows a heat map of all reported collisions by frequency. Figure 3 points out the location of each crash and identifies fatal and serious injury collisions. Page 8 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 4 FIGURE 2 . ALL REPORTED CRASHES, PASCO-MAINTAINED STREETS, 2014-2018 Data: WSDOT. Graphics: DKS Associates Page 9 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 5 FIGURE 3 . CRASHES BY SEVERITY, PASCO-MAINTAINED STREETS, 2014-2018 Data: WSDOT. Graphics: DKS Associates Page 10 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 6 COMMON COLLISION TYPES All Crash Severities A total of 3,984 crashes occurred within the City of Pasco over the past 5 years (2014-2018), an average of 797 crashes each year. Common crash types included the following: • 1,159 rear-end crashes (29% of crashes) • 1,087 entering at angle crashes (27% of crashes) • 54 pedestrian-related crashes (1.4% of crashes) • 26 bicycle-related crashes (0.01% of crashes) Collisions within the City of Pasco were typically not severe, though several fatal and serious injury crashes occurred: • 7 crashes resulted in fatalities • 43 crashes resulted in serious injuries The five most common driver errors and road user behaviors were responsible for nearly 65% of all crashes in Pasco, including: 1. 1,019 Inattention (26%) 2. 627 Did Not Yield Right-of-Way (16%) 3. 561 Followed Too Closely (14%) 4. 225 Improper Turn or U-turn (6%) 5. 175 Speeding (4%) 6. 141 Alcohol or Drug Use (3.5%) 7. 121 Disregard Stop and Go Light (3%) Page 11 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 7 Fatal and Serious Injury Collisions Figure 4 shows the City of Pasco’s most common collision types that resulted in fatal and serious injury collisions from 2014 to 2018. Following is a description of the Top 5 types. 1. Angle (T) was involved in 32% of fatal/serious collision and more than 27% of all collisions. Pasco has 11% more angle (T) collisions than Average Eastside Cities (cities east of the Cascade Range) 2. Hit Pedestrian includes crashes involving a person walking along the roadway or crossing the road. Pedestrian collisions were only 1% of all crashes (regardless of severity), but 16% of fatal and serious injury collisions, which shows the potential for harm in these crashes. 3. Angle (Left Turn) collisions were a part of 10% of all fatal/serious and total collisions. 4. Roadway Departure (Fixed Object and Overturn) contributed to 22% of fatal and serious injury collisions. Data and graphics: WSDOT FIGURE 4 . MOST COMMON FATAL/SERIOUS INJURY COLLISIONS, 2014-2018 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Angle (T) Hit Pedestrian Angle (Left Turn) Hit Fixed Object Hit Parked Car Overturn Hit Cyclist Rearend Angle (Right Turn) Sideswipe (Opposite Direction) Sideswipe (Same Direction) Head On Wildlife/Animal By Collision Type Page 12 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 8 STEP 2: ANALYZE INDIVIDUAL FATAL/SERIOUS CRASHES TO IDENTIFY RISK FACTORS The City compared collision attributes in fatal/serious injury crashes in Pasco with statewide, citywide, and eastside city proportions. Table 1 shows an excerpt of those contributors that show up more often in Pasco at a higher proportion than comparison roadways in eastside cities (east of Cascades). TABLE 1 . REPRESENTATION OF COLLISION ATTRIBUTES, 2014-2018 Data: WSDOT Fatal/Serious Total Crashes Eastside Cities 1 Pasco Eastside Cities1 Pasco By Collision Type Angle (T) 20.5% 31.9% 29.5% 27.4% Hit Pedestrian 28.1% 17.0% 2.4% 1.3% Angle (Left Turn) 9.0% 10.6% 10.1% 10.6% Hit Fixed Object 16.9% 10.6% 10.6% 8.6% Hit Parked Car 2.4% 8.5% 9.9% 8.5% Rear-end 4.2% 2.1% 23.4% 29.1% By Roadway Surface Condition Wet 10.5% 12.8% 11.3% 9.0% Ice 2.0% 2.1% 4.4% 3.3% By Light Condition Daylight 53.5% 57.4% 71.1% 72.8% Dark-Street Lights On 33.5% 25.5% 20.6% 17.6% Dark-No Street Lights 7.3% 12.8% 3.0% 3.5% By Junction Relationship Intersection Related 52.2% 53.2% 54.1% 57.5% Non-Intersection (Not Related) 40.0% 40.4% 31.7% 29.8% Driveway-Related 7.0% 6.4% 13.1% 12.5% By Roadway Curvature Horizontal Curve 6.9% 8.5% 4.0% 4.1% 1 Eastside Cities based on WSDOT averages for cities east of the Cascade Range. Page 13 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 9 TABLE 1 . REPRESENTATION OF COLLISION ATTRIBUTES, 2014-2018 (CONTINUED) Fatal/Serious Total Crashes Eastside Cities1 Pasco Eastside Cities1 Pasco Hit Fixed Object Crashes - By Fixed Object Hit Fence 10.4% 16.7% 17.4% 27.5% Curb / Raised Traffic Island 14.9% 16.7% 8.3% 9.9% Guardrail 2.6% 16.7% 1.8% 3.2% Misc. Debris on Road 0.6% 16.7% 0.9% 2.2% By Contributing Circumstance Inattention / Distraction 21.9% 23.3% 29.1% 31.1% Exceeding Safe / Stated Speed 16.0% 18.3% 6.0% 6.2% Failing to Yield 13.0% 15.0% 18.8% 16.6% Under Influence of Alcohol / Drugs 13.3% 6.7% 4.6% 3.2% Improper Turn 1.6% 5.0% 3.4% 3.8% Disregard Signal 4.4% 5.0% 3.6% 2.4% Following Too Close 1.3% 1.7% 12.9% 18.3% By Motor Vehicle Type Passenger Car 42.4% 46.3% 49.8% 54.1% Light Truck/SUV 40.4% 35.4% 46.5% 42.3% Motorcycle 13.4% 13.4% 0.9% 0.6% By Traffic Control No Traffic Control 62.9% 48.0% 58.0% 56.4% Signals 24.1% 34.7% 27.9% 29.5% Stop Sign 11.0% 17.3% 10.9% 10.6% By Roadway Type Two Way - Divided, no Barrier 23.5% 43.8% 23.3% 35.9% Two Way - Undivided 49.9% 42.7% 51.3% 42.4% Two Way - Divided, with Barrier 9.9% 9.4% 8.3% 13.8% Page 14 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 10 TABLE 1 . REPRESENTATION OF COLLISION ATTRIBUTES, 2014-2018 CONTINUED Fatal/Serious Total Crashes Eastside Cities1 Pasco Eastside Cities1 Pasco Pedestrian Crashes: Contributing Circumstance Failing to Yield 30.3% 23.1% 27.7% 24.1% Failing to Yield to Ped / Cyclist 1.1% 15.4% 1.6% 10.3% Inattention / Distraction 25.8% 7.7% 28.9% 13.8% Pedestrian Crashes: Facility Used Roadway 41.8% 87.5% 29.7% 33.3% Marked Crosswalk 29.8% 12.5% 42.2% 50.0% Unmarked Crosswalk 9.2% 0.0% 12.7% 3.7% Bicycle Crashes: Contributing Circumstance Failing to Yield 27.5% 100.0% 25.1% 29.4% Inattention / Distraction 21.4% 0.0% 27.3% 52.9% Bicycle Crashes: Facility Used Roadway 52.9% 50.0% 38.8% 26.9% Sidewalk 15.3% 50.0% 21.2% 15.4% Marked Crosswalk 11.8% 0.0% 18.6% 34.6% Unmarked Crosswalk 1.2% 0.0% 6.5% 11.5% STEP 3: SELECT MOST COMMON RISK FACTORS Based on an analysis of the summary data and individual fatal/serious injury crash events, proportion of risk factors, and comparison to other eastside cities, the City selected the following five priority collision attributes to use in network analysis: 1. Angle (T) 2. Pedestrians 3. Angle (Left Turn) 4. Roadway Departure (Fixed Objects, Overturn) 5. Occurring at Signalized Intersections Page 15 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 11 S TEP 4: ANALYZE ROADWAY NETWORK FOR PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS Following WSDOT’s recommended procedure,2 the City applied the most common risk factors in fatal/serious injury crashes to the entire network using frequency of collisions based on the most common risk factors / collision attributes. The City mapped crash frequency based on the seven most common risk factors in fatal and serious injury crashes. The maps in Appendix A illustrate the locations of crashes with these attributes. STEP 5: CREATE PRIORITIZED LIST OF ROADWAY LOCATIONS Table 2 and Table 3 list intersections and corridors ranked by the number of risk factors / collision attributes identified. A location received a “point” for a risk factor if it experienced a relatively high frequency of crashes with that attribute compared to the rest of the City of Pasco roadway network. An additional point was added if that location was identified as a citizen concern. TABLE 2 . INTERSECTION SAFETY NEEDS, PRIORITIZED BY NUMBER OF RISK FACTORS Intersection Angle (T) Pedestrian Angle (Left Turn) Roadway Departure Signalized Intersection High Crash Rate Total A. N 20th Avenue & W Court Street 3 4 B. N Road 28 & W Sylvester Street 4 C. N Road 68 & Burden Road 3 4 D. N Road 68 & Sandifur Parkway 3 E. S 10th Avenue & W Lewis Street 3 F. E Lewis Street & Oregon Avenue 4 3 2 WSDOT Local Road Safety Plans Guidance, https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2014/02/27/LP_Local-Road-Safety-Plans.pdf 3 Automated red light enforcement was installed in Fall 2019. The City will await early results before pursuing additional countermeasures. 4 Project installed along Oregon Ave in 2019 that included a redesign of this intersection. The City will review upcoming safety data before pursuing additional projects. Page 16 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 12 Intersection Angle (T) Pedestrian Angle (Left Turn) Roadway Departure Signalized Intersection High Crash Rate Total G. S 10th Avenue & W Ainsworth Street 3 H. N Road 68 & W Court Street 2 I. N 24th Avenue & W Court Street 2 J. Burden Road & Rd 68 Place 2 K. N 20th Avenue & W Lewis Street 2 L. N 20th Avenue & W Sylvester Street 2 M. N Road 36 & W Argent Road 2 N. N Road 32 & W Court Street 2 TABLE 3 . CORRIDOR SAFETY NEEDS, PRIORITIZED BY NUMBER OF RISK FACTORS Corridor Angle (T) Pedestrian Angle (Left Turn) Roadway Departure Signalized Intersectio High Crash Rate Total W Court Street (Between N Road 36 & 4th Avenue) 4 Burden Road (Between Road 68 & Road 36) 3 N Road 68 (Between Sandifur Parkway & Argent Road) 3 W Sylvester Street (Between N Road 36 & N 10th Avenue) 2 Page 17 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 13 As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the City identified 14 intersections and four corridors whose risk factors matched those exhibited by fatal and serious injury crashes in the City. Figure 5 below plots each of these locations on a map. F IGURE 5 . PRIORITIZED INTERSECTIONS AND CORRIDORS Page 18 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 14 STEP 6 & 7: IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES TO ADDRESS PRIORITIZED LOCATIONS AND DEVELOP A PRIORITIZED LIST OF PROJECTS The City compared the list of prioritized intersections and corridors to recent and already-funded safety projects to identify the most pressing current needs, and then analyzed collision data and existing conditions at the following eight locations: TABLE 4 . PRIORITIZED SAFETY STUDY LOCATIONS Intersections Corridors 1. N Road 28 & W Sylvester St 2. N Road 68 & Sandifur Pkwy 3. S 10th Ave & W Lewis St 4. S 10th Ave & W Ainsworth St 5. W Court St (Between N Road 36 & 4th Ave) 6. Burden Rd (Between Road 68 & N Road 36) 7. N Road 68 (Between Sandifur Pkwy & Argent Rd) 8. W Sylvester St (Between N Road 36 & N 10th Ave) Upon completion of that analysis and identification of potential countermeasures, the City identified three priority projects (two intersections and one segment) to prioritize in this plan, as shown in Table 5 below. TABLE 5 . SAFETY PROJECTS TO PURSUE AND NEXT STEPS Location Safety Project Next Step N Road 28 & W Sylvester Street Traffic signal redesign and an additional northbound left turn lane to accommodate safer left turn movements at the intersection. Coordinate with current traffic signal design project. Update current signal design plans to accommodate these safety needs. S 10th Avenue & W Lewis Street Active Signal Ahead Warning sign to provide additional conspicuity for northbound motorists approaching the intersection. Apply for grant funding under the 2020 WSDOT City Safety Program. W Sylvester Street (between N Rd 36 & N 10th Ave) Road Diet: Reduce cross section from 4 lanes to 3 lanes to improve safety for all road users. Apply for grant funding under the 2020 WSDOT City Safety Program. The following sections detail existing conditions, countermeasures, and estimated project costs, monetary value of estimated safety benefits, and the estimated benefit/cost ratio of each recommended safety project. Detailed calculations for each treatment are available in Appendix B. Page 19 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 15 N ROAD 28 & W SYLVESTER STREET This intersection is approximately 1,000 ft east of US-395. It is a 4-leg signalized intersection with continental crosswalks across W Sylvester Street (eastbound and westbound directions) and standard crosswalks across N 28th Avenue (northbound and southbound directions). The northbound approach along N 28th Avenue has a shared through/left-turn lane and a right-turn only lane. The southbound approach along N 28th Avenue has one shared through/left/right-turn lane. The eastbound approach along W Sylvester St has one shared/right-turn lane, one through lane and a 125’ left-turn pocket. The eastbound approach also has a 5-section dog-house signal that allows protected/permissive movements for the left-turning vehicles. The westbound approach has one shared through/right-turn lane and a 125’ left-turn pocket where left-turning vehicles must yield on green. Based on vehicle counts taken between June 5, 2018 – June 7, 2018, the average daily volume travelling eastbound and westbound along Sylvester Street was reported 4,257 and 4,410, respectively. Based on vehicle counts taken between September 9, 2018 – September 27, 2018, the average daily volume travelling northbound and southbound was reported 3,668 and 4,942, respectively. Table 6 below provides a summary of crash data that occurred at this intersection. TABLE 6 . CRASH DATA SUMMARY AT N ROAD 28 AND W SYLVESTER ST, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of at intersection 39 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 1 Minor Injury = 1 Possible Injury = 9 No Injury = 28 Crash Type Making Left Turn = 19 Entering at angle = 12 Rear-end = 4 Sideswipe = 2 Making a Right Turn = 1 Vehicle Hits Pedestrian = 1 Year 2014 = 5 2015 = 4 2016 = 11 2017 = 11 2018 = 8 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 31 Raining = 3 Overcast = 3 Fog or Smog or Smoke = 2 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 28 Dark-Street Lights On = 10 Dusk =1 Page 20 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 16 Category Number of Crashes Location At intersection and Related = 37 At Intersection and Not Related = 2 Roadway Conditions Dry = 35 Wet = 4 Movement Type 39% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 20% were reported “Disregard stop and go light” 18% were reported “Inattention” 10% were reported “Improper Turn” 2% were reported “under the influence of alcohol” 11% Other Making Left-Turn Collisions Only (18 Crashes) Road Surface Conditions: Dry Road Surface = 16 Wet Road Surface =2 Movement: 44% involved a vehicle moving from the east leg to the south leg (WB LT) 44% involved a vehicle moving from the south to the west leg (NB LT) Lighting Conditions: Daylight =12 Dark- Street Lights On = 6 Nearly half (19 of 39) of collisions during the study period involved a left-turning motorist. Of those 19, nine involved South-to-West (Northbound Left Turn) drivers, and eight involved East-to-South (Westbound Left Turn) movements. Signalized intersection existing conditions—with a focus on left-turn movements—include the following shown in Table 6:5 TABLE 7 . ROAD 28 AND W SYLVESTER STREET INTERSECTION COMPONENTS Direction Signal Lenses Left Turn Phasing Left Turn Indication(s) Lane Configuration Northbound 8” green, 8” yellow, 12” red Permissive Only Green Ball Shared Thru/Left Right Turn Lane Southbound 12” all Permissive Only Green Ball Shared Right/Thru/Left Eastbound 12” all (5-section doghouse) 8” green and 8” yellow (through) Protected- Permissive Green Ball Green Arrow (5-section doghouse) Shared Thru/Right Thru Left Turn Lane Westbound 8” green, 8” yellow, 12” red Permissive Only Green Ball Shared Right/Thru Left Turn Lane 5 Via Google Streetview, Oct 2018. Page 21 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 17 N Rd 28 & W Sylvester St: Intersection Countermeasures The existing lane configuration of the northbound approach has two receiving lanes, but only one entering lane from each other approach (SB thru, EB right, WB left). There is a potential benefit of the City of Pasco restriping the inside receiving lane to a northbound left-turn lane with no additional right-of-way pavement needed, as shown in Figure 6 below. F IGURE 6 . POTENTIAL REDESIGN FOR THE NORTHBOUND APPROACH ALONG N 28TH AVENUE AT W SYLVESTER ST TO ALLOW FOR A LEFT TURN LANE. Page 22 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 18 N Rd 28 & W Sylvester St Countermeasure: Left Turn Lane and Flashing Yellow Arrow Project Description Installing an exclusive left-turn lane and using Flashing Yellow Arrow for the northbound 6 intersection approach can reduce rear-end and left-turning crashes. Cost Estimate $25,000 (includes updated signal head, pavement marking, signing) Benefit / Cost Ratio 25.80 Time Frame Medium-term Crash Reduction 7 35% Combined reduction in left turn collisions for left-turn lane and flashing yellow arrow. History: 9 northbound left turn crashes observed from 2014- 2018. Expected Benefit: 1.10 fewer crashes per year For a more comprehensive upgrade to the intersection, a full re-build of the traffic signal, upgrades to signal heads, and permissive-protected left turns for northbound, eastbound, and westbound motorists is expected to reduce the overall number and severity of collisions. N Rd 28 & W Sylvester St Countermeasure: Signal Upgrades Project Description Traffic signals are designed to reduce angle and left-turn crashes by assigning right-a- way for each intersection movement. Includes head-per-lane, potential mast arm and/or pole replacement, retroreflective backplates, and upgrade to 12” lenses. Cost Estimate $400,000 Benefit / Cost Ratio 3.60 Time Frame Long-term Crash Reduction 8 10% Reduction in intersection crashes. History: 39 crashes observed from 2014- 2018. Expected Benefit: 0.77 fewer crashes per year Next Steps Coordinate with current signal design project at this location to consider accommodation for these safety needs (e.g., protected left turn phasing, northbound dedicated left turn lane). 6 Identified as “From South to West” in the collision database. 7 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=264 8 http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=4112 Page 23 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 19 S 10TH AVENUE & W LEWIS STREET S 10th Avenue provides access between Kennewick and Pasco across the Ed Hendler Bridge (SR 397). This four-legged signalized intersection has continental pedestrian crosswalks on all approaches and has a pedestrian island on the south-east corner. The northbound approach along S 10th Avenue has two through lanes, a right-turn slip lane and a 110’ left-turn lane with a raised curb median. The southbound approach along S 10th Avenue has a shared through/right-turn lane, a through lane and an 85’ left-turn lane. The eastbound approach along W Lewis St has a shared through/right-turn lane, through lane and a 160’ left turn lane that transitions from a two-way-left- turn lane. The westbound approach has a shared through/right-turn lane, a through lane and an 80’ left-turn lane. Based on vehicle counts taken between June 5, 2018 – June 7, 2018, the average daily volume travelling eastbound and westbound along Lewis Street was reported 5,305 and 5,582, respectively. Based on vehicle counts taken between September 25, 2018 – September 27, 2018, the average daily volume travelling northbound and southbound along S 10th Avenue was reported 3,888 and 3,045, respectively. Table 8 below provides a summary of crash data that occurred at this intersection. TABLE 8 . CRASH DATA SUMMARY FOR S 10TH AVENUE & W LEWIS STREET Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes 26 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 1 Minor Injury = 0 Possible Injury = 5 No Injury = 20 Crash Type Entering at angle = 11 Rear-end = 6 Making Left Turn = 5 Sideswipe = 2 Vehicle Hits Pedestrian = 1 Making Right Turn =1 Year 2014 = 4 2015 = 8 2016 = 7 2017 = 5 2018 = 2 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 22 Overcast = 3 Raining = 1 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 21 Dark-Street Lights On = 5 Page 24 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 20 Category Number of Crashes Location At intersection and Related = 22 Not at Intersection and Not Related = 1 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 2 At Intersection and Not Related = 1 Roadway Conditions Dry = 24 Wet = 1 Movement Type 27% were reported “Inattention” 19% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 19% were reported “Disregard stop and go light” 35% Other Making Left-Turn Collisions Only Conditions: 3 or 11 crashes occurred during “Dark-Street Lights on” 5 of 11 crashes involved a vehicle moving from the south leg to the north leg (Northbound through along S 10th Ave) 4 of 11 crashes reported a vehicle “Disregard stop and go light” 4 of 11 crashes reported “inattention” Based on the historical crash data, there was one suspected serious injury crash that occurred at 10pm and involved a pickup/panel truck travelling northbound along S 10th Ave. The motorist was reported ‘had been drinking’ and hit a pedestrian crossing at the marked crosswalk ‘against the signal’. Approximately 290’ south of this study intersection is a railroad crossing with a mild curvature along S 10th Avenue at W Columbia St, as shown in Figure 7. It may be beneficial if the City of Pasco were to consider installing a northbound advance signal ahead warning sign that would alert drivers to stop for an approaching red light. S 10th Ave & W Lewis St: Intersection Countermeasure Seven of the 11 angle crashes at this intersection involved northbound motorists, and a review of the site indicated that another intersection (West Columbia Street), curvature near that intersection, and a railroad track could cause some confusion for northbound motorists. An advanced warning sign indicating the signal ahead could provide additional information for drivers. Connecting a flashing beacon to the signal timing (i.e., flashing only during yellow and red phases for northbound traffic) could increase its effectiveness. Page 25 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 21 F IGURE 7 . STREETVIEW OF NORTHBOUND APPROACH ALONG S 10TH AVE AT W COLUMBIA ST (SOUTH OF RAILROAD CROSSING). S 10th Ave & W Lewis St Countermeasure: Actuated Advanced Warning Sign Project Description Adding advance warning of the signalized intersection for northbound motorists on S 10th Ave, approaching W Lewis St, and tying that warning to the signal controller, reduces the risk of angle crashes Cost Estimate $45,000 Benefit / Cost Ratio 13.43 Time Frame Medium-term Crash Reduction 62% Reduction in NB angle crashes. History: 7 angle crashes involving northbound motorists observed from 2014-2018. Expected Benefit: 0.87 fewer angle crashes per year. Page 26 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 22 W SYLVESTER STREET (BETWEEN N ROAD 36 & N 10TH AVENUE) This study corridor along W Sylvester Street spans 1.7 miles between N Road 36 and N 10th Avenue. Along the W Sylvester Street corridor there are four signalized intersections (N 10th Avenue, N 14th Avenue, N 20th Avenue and N 28th Avenue) and two pedestrian crosswalks (N 18th Avenue and N 24th Avenue). There are sidewalks on both sides of W Sylvester Street from N 10th Avenue to Road 28. The posted speed limit along this corridor is 35mph, however in a school zone such as the Rowena Chess Elementary School, the posted speed limit is 20mph. Based on the WSDOT Functional Classification Map 9, W Sylvester Street is identified as an urban minor arterial and serves as one of the important east-west corridors. TABLE 9 . CRASH DATA SUMMARY FOR SYLVESTER ST CORRIDOR, ROAD 36 TO 10TH AVE,2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes 208 Crash Severity Fatal = 1 Serious Injury = 3 Minor Injury = 14 Possible Injury = 42 No Injury = 144 Unknown = 4 Crash Type Entering at angle = 73 Rear-end = 49 Making Left Turn = 37 Sideswipe = 9 Other = 22 Fixed object = 12 Vehicle Hits Pedestrian = 6 Year 2014 = 27 2015 = 44 2016 =43 2017 = 48 2018 =46 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 167 Raining = 11 Overcast = 21 Fog or Smog or Smoke = 6 Snowing =1 Severe Crosswind =2 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 150 Dark-Street Lights On = 46 Dusk/Dawn = 3 Dark- No street Lights = 1 9 https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/geoportal/?config=FunctionalClass Page 27 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 23 Category Number of Crashes Location At intersection and Related = 144 Not at Intersection and Not Related = 28 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 7 At Intersection and Not Related = 7 At Driveway = 22 Roadway Conditions Dry = 182 Wet = 20 Ice = 6 Movement Type 25% were reported “Inattention” 21% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 11% were reported “Following too closely” 2% were reported “Under the influence of alcohol” Entering at Angle Collisions Only Road Surface Conditions: Dry Road Surface =46 Ice Road Surface = 1 Wet Road Surface =2 Lighting Conditions: Daylight = 40 Dark- Street Lights On = 5 Dusk =4 Page 28 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 24 W Sylvester St: Corridor Countermeasure The existing roadway consists of four 11-ft travel lanes, two per direction, through the study corridor. Due to the large right-of-way width along this study corridor, a potential project to be considered is a road diet, as illustrated in Figure 8. A Road Diet is generally described as "removing travel lanes from a roadway and utilizing the space for other uses and travel modes." 10 F IGURE 8 . BEFORE AND AFTER LANE CONFIGURATIONS OF A ROAD DIET IMPLEMENTATION Road Diets are effective at addressing rear-end, left-turn, angle, and sideswipe (lane-changing) collisions. Along W Sylvester St in the study segment, more than 58% (152 of 262) of collisions were of these types. Road Diets can also provide safer conditions for pedestrians by reducing the number of lanes required to cross from 4 to 3. An example of a road diet is shown in Figure 9. FIGURE 9 . RESIDENTIAL AREA ROAD DIET IMPLEMENTATION 10 FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/rdig.pdf Page 29 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 25 W Sylvester St Countermeasure: Road Diet Project Description A Road Diet typically includes reducing the number of general purpose travel lanes to improve safety for all road users. Cost Estimate 11 $1,853,000 (assuming pavement overlay and minor signal modifications) Benefit / Cost Ratio 10.71 Time Frame Long-term Crash Reduction 29% Reduction in all crashes. History: 208 crashes observed from 2014-2018 (41.6 crashes per year) Expected Benefit: 12 fewer crashes per year 11 FHWA, How Much Does a Road Diet Cost? | Oregon DOT safety treatment cost estimates. Page 30 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 26 W SYLVESTER STREET E XTENDED C ORRIDOR (BETWEEN N ROAD 54 & N 3RD AVENUE) Based on stakeholder discussions, the study corridor analysis along W Sylvester Street was extended to 3.4-miles to include the whole section of W Sylvester Street with four travel lanes. This extended study corridor from Road 54 to N 3rd Avenue includes two additional signalized intersections at N 5th Avenue and N 4th Avenue. Table 10 below provides a summary of crash data for the 3.4-mile study corridor along W Sylvester Street. TABLE 10. CRASH DATA SUMMARY FOR SYLVESTER ST CORRIDOR, ROAD 54 TO N 3RD AVE, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes 270 Crash Severity Fatal = 1 Serious Injury = 3 Minor Injury = 15 Possible Injury = 63 No Injury = 182 Unknown = 6 Crash Type Entering at angle = 100 Rear-end = 53 Making Left Turn = 51 Sideswipe = 10 Other = 31 Fixed object = 18 Vehicle Hits Pedestrian = 7 Year 2014 = 33 2015 = 60 2016 =54 2017 = 58 2018 =65 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 224 Raining = 13 Overcast = 23 Fog or Smog or Smoke = 7 Snowing = 1 Severe Crosswind = 2 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 197 Dark-Street Lights On = 56 Dusk =11 Dawn = 4 Dark-No Street Lights = 2 Location At intersection and Related = 195 Not at Intersection and Not Related = 33 At Driveway = 22 At Intersection and Not Related = 13 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 7 Roadway Conditions Dry = 242 Wet = 21 Page 31 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 27 Category Number of Crashes Ice = 6 Snow = 1 Movement Type 23% were reported “Inattention” 21% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 7% were reported “Following too closely” 3% were reported “Under the influence of alcohol” Entering at Angle Collisions Only (100 crashes) Road Surface Conditions: Dry Road Surface = 88 Ice Road Surface = 1 Wet Road Surface = 11 Lighting Conditions: Daylight = 74 Dark- Street Lights On = 19 Dawn = 2 Dusk =5 W Sylvester St Extended Corridor Countermeasure: Road Diet Project Description A Road Diet typically includes reducing the number of general purpose travel lanes to improve safety for all road users. Cost Estimate 12 $3,645,000 (assuming pavement overlay required and minor signal modifications) Benefit / Cost Ratio 6.27 Time Frame Long-term Crash Reduction 29% Reduction in all crashes. History: 270 crashes observed from 2014-2018 (54 crashes per year) Expected Benefit: 15.6 fewer crashes per year 12 FHWA, How Much Does a Road Diet Cost? https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/fhwasa16100/fhwasa16100.pdf Page 32 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 28 CONCLUSION The City of Pasco is committed to roadway safety, and the Local Road Safety Plan provides the framework to identify safety needs and infrastructure solutions. Implementation of these safety projects will reduce the number and severity of roadway collisions in the City, and further evaluation and analysis over time will support a safety management program to continue improving safety in Pasco. Page 33 of 252 PASCO LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PAGE 29 APPENDIX A . COLLISION MAPS BY TYPE Page 34 of 252 PAGE 30 FIGURE 10. HEAT MAP OF ANGLE T CRASHES, 2014-2018 Page 35 of 252 PAGE 31 FIGURE 11. HEAT MAP OF ROADWAY DEPARTURE CRASHES, 2014-2018 Page 36 of 252 PAGE 32 FIGURE 12. HEAT MAP OF CRASHES NEAR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (74FT BUFFER), 2014-2018 Page 37 of 252 PAGE 33 FIGURE 13. HEAT MAP OF PEDESTRIAN CRASHES, 2014-2018 Page 38 of 252 PAGE 34 F IGURE 14. HEAT MAP OF LEFT TURN CRASHES, 2014-2018 Page 39 of 252 PAGE 35 APPENDIX B . BENEFIT-COST RATIO CALCULATIONS Page 40 of 252 PAGE 36 WSDOT Safety Program Benefit/Cost Worksheet For Crash Reduction Project name: N Rd 28 and W Sylvester St, Northbound Left Turn Lane Application year: Agency: City of Pasco Improvement: Install a northbound left turn lane Evaluator: Brian Chandler and Veronica Sullivan Date: 2/19/2020 1a. Initial Total Project Cost, I: $25,000 1b. Year 11 Cost, J: $0 2. Annual Op. Costs, H: $0 3. Annual Safety Benefits in Number of Collisions: Crash Type Existing Raw # Existing Calculated After Raw # After Calculated Difference a) Fatal injury 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 b) Suspected serious injury 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 c) Suspected minor injury 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 d) Possible Injury 2 0.40 0.7774 0.16 0.24 e) Property damage only 7 1.40 2.7209 0.54 0.86 Totals 9.00 5.382 1.10 4. Societal Costs Per Crash: 5. Annual Safety Benefits by Costs of Crashes: Crash Type Cost Benefit a) Fatality (K) $3,423,400 $0 b) Suspected serious injury (A) $3,423,400 $0 c) Suspected minor injury (B) $237,400 $0 d) Possible Injury © $142,300 $34,795 e) Property damage only (O) $14,800 $12,666 Yearly Benefits= $47,461 7. Salvage Value, T Feature Cost Factor a) Right of Way (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.45 = $0 b) Grading & Drainage (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.40 = $0 c) Structures (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.43 = $0 d) Total, T: $0 8. Present Worth of Costs (PWOC) = I + .68J + 13.59H - T: $25,000 9. Present Worth of Benefits (PWOB) = 13.59 x Yearly Benefits: $645,000 10. Net Benefit = PWOB-PWOC: $620,000 11. Benefit Cost Ratio, B/C = PWOB/PWOC: 25.80 Page 41 of 252 PAGE 37 WSDOT Safety Program Benefit/Cost Worksheet For Crash Reduction Project name: N Rd 28 and W Sylvester St, Signal Upgrade Application year: Agency: City of Pasco Improvement: Upgrade signalized intersection with signal lens upgrade, new back plates, addition of reflective tapes to existing back-plates and installation of additional signal heads. Evaluator: Brian Chandler and Veronica Sullivan Date: 2/19/2020 1a. Initial Total Project Cost, I: $400,000 1b. Year 11 Cost, J: $0 2. Annual Op. Costs, H: $0 3. Annual Safety Benefits in Number of Collisions: Crash Type Existing Raw # Existing Calculated After Raw # After Calculated Difference a) Fatal injury 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 b) Suspected serious injury 1 0.20 0.901 0.18 0.02 c) Suspected minor injury 1 0.20 0.901 0.18 0.02 d) Possible Injury 9 1.80 8.109 1.62 0.18 e) Property damage only 28 5.60 25.228 5.05 0.55 Totals 39.00 35.139 0.77 4. Societal Costs Per Crash: 5. Annual Safety Benefits by Costs of Crashes: Crash Type Cost Benefit a) Fatality (K) $3,423,400 $0 b) Suspected serious injury (A) $3,423,400 $67,783 c) Suspected minor injury (B) $237,400 $4,701 d) Possible Injury © $142,300 $25,358 e) Property damage only (O) $14,800 $8,205 Yearly Benefits= $106,047 7. Salvage Value, T Feature Cost Factor a) Right of Way (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.45 = $0 b) Grading & Drainage (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.40 = $0 c) Structures (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.43 = $0 d) Total, T: $0 8. Present Worth of Costs (PWOC) = I + .68J + 13.59H - T: $400,000 9. Present Worth of Benefits (PWOB) = 13.59 x Yearly Benefits: $1,441,176 10. Net Benefit = PWOB-PWOC: $1,041,176 11. Benefit Cost Ratio, B/C = PWOB/PWOC: 3.60 Page 42 of 252 PAGE 38 WSDOT Safety Program Benefit/Cost Worksheet For Crash Reduction Project name: N 10th Avenue & W Lewis St, Adding advance warning signs Application year: Agency: City of Pasco Improvement: Install a northbound advance signal warning sign Evaluator: Brian Chandler and Veronica Sullivan Date: 2/19/2020 1a. Initial Total Project Cost, I: $45,000 1b. Year 11 Cost, J: $0 2. Annual Op. Costs, H: $0 3. Annual Safety Benefits in Number of Collisions: Crash Type Existing Raw # Existing Calculated After Raw # After Calculated Difference a) Fatal injury 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 b) Suspected serious injury 0 0.20 0 0.00 0.00 c) Suspected minor injury 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 d) Possible Injury 2 1.00 0.76 0.15 0.25 e) Property damage only 5 4.00 1.9 0.38 0.62 Totals 26.00 2.66 0.87 4. Societal Costs Per Crash: 5. Annual Safety Benefits by Costs of Crashes: Crash Type Cost Benefit a) Fatality (K) $3,423,400 $0 b) Suspected serious injury (A) $3,423,400 $0 c) Suspected minor injury (B) $237,400 $0 d) Possible Injury © $142,300 $35,290 e) Property damage only (O) $14,800 $9,176 Yearly Benefits= $44,466 7. Salvage Value, T Feature Cost Factor a) Right of Way (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.45 = $0 b) Grading & Drainage (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.40 = $0 c) Structures (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.43 = $0 d) Total, T: $0 8. Present Worth of Costs (PWOC) = I + .68J + 13.59H - T: $45,000 9. Present Worth of Benefits (PWOB) = 13.59 x Yearly Benefits: $604,298 10. Net Benefit = PWOB-PWOC: $559,298 11. Benefit Cost Ratio, B/C = PWOB/PWOC: 13.43 Page 43 of 252 PAGE 39 WSDOT Safety Program Benefit/Cost Worksheet For Crash Reduction Project name: N Rd 28 and W Sylvester St, Road Diet from Rd 36 to N 10th Avenue Application year: Agency: City of Pasco Improvement: Convert 1.7 miles along Sylvester St from 4 lanes to 3 travel lanes. Evaluator: Brian Chandler and Veronica Sullivan Date: 2/19/2020 1a. Initial Total Project Cost, I: $ 1,853,000.00 1b. Year 11 Cost, J: $0 2. Annual Op. Costs, H: $0 3. Annual Safety Benefits in Number of Collisions: Crash Type Existing Raw # Existing Calculated After Raw # After Calculated Difference a) Fatal injury 1 0.20 0.71 0.14 0.06 b) Suspected serious injury 3 0.60 2.13 0.43 0.17 c) Suspected minor injury 14 2.80 9.94 1.99 0.81 d) Possible Injury 42 8.40 29.82 5.96 2.44 e) Property damage only 148 29.60 105.08 21.02 8.58 Totals 208.00 147.68 12.06 4. Societal Costs Per Crash: 5. Annual Safety Benefits by Costs of Crashes: Crash Type Cost Benefit a) Fatality (K) $3,423,400 $198,557 b) Suspected serious injury (A) $3,423,400 $595,672 c) Suspected minor injury (B) $237,400 $192,769 d) Possible Injury © $142,300 $346,643 e) Property damage only (O) $14,800 $127,043 Yearly Benefits= $1,460,684 7. Salvage Value, T Feature Cost Factor a) Right of Way (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.45 = $0 b) Grading & Drainage (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.40 = $0 c) Structures (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.43 = $0 d) Total, T: $0 8. Present Worth of Costs (PWOC) = I + .68J + 13.59H - T: $1,853,000 9. Present Worth of Benefits (PWOB) = 13.59 x Yearly Benefits: $19,850,69 0 10. Net Benefit = PWOB-PWOC: $17,997,69 0 11. Benefit Cost Ratio, B/C = PWOB/PWOC: 10.71 Page 44 of 252 PAGE 40 WSDOT Safety Program Benefit/Cost Worksheet For Crash Reduction Project name: N Rd 28 and W Sylvester St, Road Diet from Rd 54 to N 3rd Avenue. Application year: Agency: City of Pasco Improvement: Convert 3.4 miles along Sylvester St from 4 lanes to 3 travel lanes. Evaluator: Brian Chandler and Veronica Sullivan Date: 2/25/2020 1a. Initial Total Project Cost, I: $3,645,000.00 1b. Year 11 Cost, J: $0 2. Annual Op. Costs, H: $0 3. Annual Safety Benefits in Number of Collisions: Crash Type Existing Raw # Existing Calculated After Raw # After Calculated Differenc e a) Fatal injury 1 0.20 0.71 0.14 0.06 b) Suspected serious injury 3 0.60 2.13 0.43 0.17 c) Suspected minor injury 15 3.00 10.65 2.13 0.87 d) Possible Injury 63 12.60 44.73 8.95 3.65 e) Property damage only 188 37.60 133.48 26.70 10.90 Totals 270.00 191.7 15.66 4. Societal Costs Per Crash: 5. Annual Safety Benefits by Costs of Crashes: Crash Type Cost Benefit a) Fatality (K) $3,423,400 $198,557 b) Suspected serious injury (A) $3,423,400 $595,672 c) Suspected minor injury (B) $237,400 $206,538 d) Possible Injury © $142,300 $519,964 e) Property damage only (O) $14,800 $161,379 Yearly Benefits= $1,682,110 7. Salvage Value, T Feature Cost Factor a) Right of Way (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.45 = $0 b) Grading & Drainage (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.40 = $0 c) Structures (from cost estimate) $0 x 0.43 = $0 d) Total, T: $0 8. Present Worth of Costs (PWOC) = I + .68J + 13.59H - T: $3,645,000 9. Present Worth of Benefits (PWOB) = 13.59 x Yearly Benefits: $22,859,878 10. Net Benefit = PWOB-PWOC: $19,214,878 11. Benefit Cost Ratio, B/C = PWOB/PWOC: 6.27 Page 45 of 252 PAGE 41 APPENDIX C. PRIORITY LOCATION COLLISION ANALYSIS N ROAD 68 & SANDIFUR PARKWAY COLLISIONS, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes 41 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 0 Minor Injury = 2 Possible Injury =13 No Injury = 26 Crash Type Making Left turn =15 Rear-end = 15 Sideswipe = 3 Entering at angle = 6 Fixed Object = 2 Year 2014 = 7 2015 = 6 2016 = 12 2017 = 8 2018 = 8 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 35 Overcast =3 Fog or Smog or Smoke = 1 Raining = 1 Snowing = 1 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 27 Dark-Street Lights On = 13 Dusk =1 Location At intersection and Related = 33 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 4 At Intersection and Not Related = 4 Roadway Conditions Dry = 36 Wet or ice= 5 Movement Type 29% were reported “Inattention” 24% were reported “Did not Grant Right of Way to vehicle” 12% were reported “Following too closely” Making Left-Turn Collisions Only (15 crashes) Light Condition: 47% of left-turn crashes occurred during “dark-street lights on” (compared to 32% of all crashes occurring during dark conditions) Page 46 of 252 PAGE 42 S 10TH AVENUE & AINSWORTH COLLISIONS, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes 26 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 0 Minor Injury = 0 Possible Injury = 9 No Injury = 17 Crash Type Making Left Turn = 9 Rear-end = 7 Sideswipe = 5 Making Right Turn = 2 Entering at Angle = 2 Heat On = 1 Year 2014 = 4 2015 = 4 2016 = 3 2017 = 9 2018 = 6 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 22 Overcast = 2 Raining = 1 Snowing = 1 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 21 Dark-Street Lights On = 4 Dusk = 1 Location At intersection and Related = 24 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 2 Roadway Conditions Dry = 24 Wet = 2 Movement Type 27% were reported “Inattention” 23% were reported “Improper Turn” 15% were reported “Did not Grant Right of Way” 35% Other Making Left Turn Collisions Only (9 crashes) Conditions: 2 of 9 crashes occurred during “Dark-Street Lights on” 7 of 9 crashes involved a vehicle moving from the east leg (travelling westbound along Ainsworth) 3 of 9 crashes reported a vehicle “Did not Grant Right of Way to Vehicle” 3 of 9 crashes reported “inattention” Page 47 of 252 PAGE 43 W COURT STREET (BETWEEN N RD 36 & 4TH AVE) COLLISIONS, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes along Sylvester St 416 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 1 Minor Injury = 20 Possible Injury = 87 No Injury = 305 Unknown = 3 Crash Type Rear-end = 151 Entering at angle = 136 Making Left Turn = 49 Sideswipe = 29 Other = 29 Fixed object = 13 Vehicle Hits Pedestrian = 8 Vehicle Hits Pedacyclist = 1 Year 2014 = 61 2015 = 78 2016 = 90 2017 = 95 2018 = 92 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 333 Raining = 29 Overcast = 47 Fog or Smog or Smoke = 2 Snowing = 3 Severe Crosswind/Blowing Sand or Snow = 2 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 322 Dark-Street Lights On = 72 Dark-No Street Lights = 3 Dark-Street Lights Off = 2 Dawn = 2 Dusk = 14 Location At intersection and Related = 233 Not at Intersection and Not Related = 53 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 27 At Intersection and Not Related = 19 At Driveway with Major Intersection = 12 At Driveway = 65 Roadway Conditions Dry = 347 Wet = 52 Ice = 7 Snow = 9 Movement Type 25% were reported “Inattention” 19% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 19% were reported “Following Too Closely” 2% were reported “under the influence of alcohol” Page 48 of 252 PAGE 44 Category Number of Crashes Entering at Angle Collisions Only Road Surface Conditions: Dry Road Surface = 112 Ice Road Surface = 3 Wet Road Surface =17 Lighting Conditions: Daylight = 111 Dark- Street Lights On = 20 Dark- No Street Lights =1 Dusk = 3 Page 49 of 252 PAGE 45 BURDEN ROAD (BETWEEN RD 68 & RD 36) COLLISIONS, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes along Court St 304 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 4 Minor Injury = 6 Possible Injury = 65 No Injury = 229 Crash Type Rear-end = 151 Entering at angle = 47 Making Left Turn = 45 Sideswipe = 27 Other = 32 Vehicle Hits Pedal cyclist = 1 Vehicle Hits Pedestrian = 1 Year 2014 = 44 2015 = 65 2016 =56 2017 = 65 2018 =74 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 249 Raining = 21 Overcast = 24 Fog or Smog or Smoke = 2 Snowing = 2 Other = 6 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 219 Dark-Street Lights On = 72 Dusk = 11 Dawn = 2 Location At intersection and Related = 158 Not at Intersection and Not Related = 50 At Intersection and Not Related = 36 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 32 At Driveway = 15 Driveway Related = 13 Roadway Conditions Dry = 253 Wet = 31 Ice = 14 Snow = 6 Movement Type 32% were reported “Inattention” 22% were reported “following too closely” 12% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 8% were reported “Improper Turn” 2% were reported “under the influence of alcohol” 24% Other Road Surface Conditions: Page 50 of 252 PAGE 46 Category Number of Crashes Rear-end Collisions Only Dry Road Surface = 128 Wet Road Surface =15 Ice Road Surface = 5 Snow/Slush = 3 Lighting Conditions: Daylight = 112 Dark- Street Lights On = 32 Dawn =1 Dusk =6 Location: 40% were reported “At intersection and related” 18% were reported “At intersection and not related” 19% were reported “Intersection related but not at intersection” 20% were reported “Not at intersection and not related” 3% Other Other Conditions: 44% involved a pickup, panel truck or semi-trailer 58% involved a vehicle travelling from the east leg to the west leg (Westbound through) ROAD 68 (BETWEEN SANDIFUR PKWY & ARGENT RD) COLLISIONS, 2014-2018 Category Number of Crashes Total Number of Crashes along Court St 483 Crash Severity Fatal = 0 Serious Injury = 3 Minor Injury = 14 Possible Injury = 104 No Injury = 360 Unknown = 2 Crash Type Rear-end = 270 Entering at angle = 73 Making Left Turn = 47 Sideswipe = 64 Other = 19 Fixed object = 10 Year 2014 = 89 2015 = 105 2016 =100 2017 = 89 2018 =100 Weather Clear or Partly Cloudy = 414 Overcast = 39 Raining = 21 Page 51 of 252 PAGE 47 Category Number of Crashes Fog or Smog or Smoke = 3 Snowing = 2 Other = 3 Lighting Conditions Daylight = 191 Dark-Street Lights On = 54 Dawn = 4 Dusk =11 Location At intersection and Related = 186 Not at Intersection and Not Related = 33 Intersection Related but Not at Intersection = 6 At Intersection and Not Related = 15 At Driveway = 16 Roadway Conditions Dry = 238 Wet = 17 Ice = 5 Snow = 2 Movement Type 29% were reported “Inattention” 26% were reported “Following too closely” 12% were reported “Did not grant right-of-way to vehicle” 5% were reported “Disregard stop and go light” 2% were reported “Under the influence of alcohol” Rear-end Collisions Only (270 crashes) Road Surface Conditions: Dry Road Surface = 248 Wet Road Surface =17 Snow / Slush = 5 Lighting Conditions: Daylight = 208 Dark- Street Lights On = 43 Dawn =1 Dusk = 16 Dark – No Street Lights = 2 Location: 57% were reported “At intersection and related” 19% were reported “Not at intersection and not related” 14% were reported “Intersection related but not at intersection” 8% were reported “At intersection and not related” 2% Other Page 52 of 252 BRIAN CHANDLER, PE, PTOE, RSP2IB, PMP NATIONAL DIRECTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY brian.chandler@dksassociates.com 206.276.2668 2020 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Page 53 of 252 AGENDA 1 / PURPOSE & NEED 2 / PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 1.Analyze Summary Data 2.Select Most Common Risk Factors 3.Identify Locations of Need 4.Select and Prioritize Safety Treatments 3 / GRANT APPLICATIONS •S 10th Ave & W Lewis St •W Sylvester Street Road Diet 4 /CURRENT STATUS & NEXT STEPS Page 54 of 252 PURPOSE & NEED: LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Page 55 of 252 WHY DEVELOP A SAFETY PLAN? 1.From 2014 to 2018, 7 people died in traffic collisions in Pasco and 43 were seriously injured. 2.A safety plan identifies safety needs and potential solutions. 3.The WSDOT City Safety Program requires a Local Road Safety Plan to apply for grant funding. 4Page 56 of 252 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN DEVELOPMENT Page 57 of 252 ANALYZE SUMMARY DATA 6Page 58 of 252 ANALYZE SUMMARY DATA 7Page 59 of 252 ANALYZE SUMMARY DATA 8Page 60 of 252 SELECT MOST COMMON RISK FACTORS 9 Most Common Fatal / Serious Injury Collision Factors, 2014-2018Page 61 of 252 IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF NEED 10Page 62 of 252 IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF NEED 11Page 63 of 252 IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF NEED 12Page 64 of 252 SELECT AND PRIORITIZE TREATMENTS 13Page 65 of 252 SAFETY GRANT APPLICATIONS Page 66 of 252 WSDOT CITY SAFETY PROGRAM •Call for Projects: WSDOT safety funding every 2 years •2020 Grant Applications 15Page 67 of 252 S 10 TH AVE & W LEWIS ST 16 •7 of 11 angle crashes involve northbound drivers •Potential driver confusion •Treatment: Advance warning sign connected to signalPage 68 of 252 WARNING SIGN BENEFITS 17 •62% reduction in angle crashes (northbound) •Simplified decision- making for drivers Page 69 of 252 W SYLVESTER ST ROAD DIET N RD 54 –N 3 RD AVE 18 Crashes (2014-2018) •270 crashes •1 fatal crash •3 serious injury crashes Traffic Volume •8,600 vehicles per day Page 70 of 252 W SYLVESTER ST ROAD DIET 19 BEFORE AFTER Page 71 of 252 ROAD DIET BENEFITS W SYLVESTER ST 20 •29% reduction of all crashes •12 fewer collisions each year •Space for other uses •Bicycle lanes •Parking •Enhanced pedestrian treatments •Sidewalks •Median refuge •Intersection Safety Page 72 of 252 CURRENT STATUS & NEXT STEPS Page 73 of 252 CURRENT STATUS & NEXT STEPS •March 2020: Submitted Grant Applications •July 2020: Safe Routes to School and Ped/Bike Grant Applications Due •Summer/Fall 2020: Applications Reviewed by WSDOT •Fall 2020 and Beyond •Identify other needs •Incorporate enforcement/education/health/equity into Safety Program •Monitor current programs: Red Light Running, etc. •Seek out emerging safety needs: Crash Data, Near-miss Analysis, etc. •Fall 2021: Update Local Road Safety Plan for 2022 City Safety Program 22Page 74 of 252 BRIAN CHANDLER, PE, PTOE, RSP2IB, PMP NATIONAL DIRECTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY brian.chandler@dksassociates.com 206.276.2668 THANK YOU Page 75 of 252 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 6, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 7/13/20 FROM: Dave Zabell, City Manager Executive SUBJECT: 2019 Community Survey Highlights I. REFERENCE(S): Community Livability Report Trends Over Time Comparison by Geographic Subgroups Supplemental Online Survey Results Technical Appendices 2019 Community Survey Presentation 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 biennium. The National Research Center was again contracted in the latter part of 2019 to conduct the survey for the City. The survey results were compiled, formatted and analyzed in early 2020. The attached documents referenced above report the results of that survey. The 2019 survey targeted 1,700 randomly selected households. Responses are slightly decreased from prior biennial survey; 207-2019; 215-2017, in spite of an increase in sample size of 200 households. Of the 207 surveys completed in 2019, 16 were completed online (same as 2017) and one survey was completed in Spanish (decrease of two from 2017). The results are statistically valid with an error factor of +/-7%. Page 76 of 252 V. DISCUSSION: Over time, data from the continued use of this survey becomes more meaningful in terms of viewing and understanding trends. 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, as does the population growth, emerging trends may be identified in some areas while in other areas “things are pretty stable”. The overall presentation of survey results consists of five individual reports including: 1. The Community Livability Report. Reports ratings for ten central facets of a community: 1) economy; 2) mobility; 3) community design; 4) utilities; 5) safety; 6) natural environment; 7) parks and recreation; 8) health and wellness; 9) education, arts and culture, and 10) inclusivity and engagement. 2. Trends Over Time. Reports ratings for the ten facets listed above over Pasco’s 14 - year (eight biennial surveys) history of having the survey conducted. This cycle introduced additional questions and are identified with "NA" in the data tables. 3. Comparison by Geographic Subgroups. Subgroups include the six City Council Districts. 4. Supplemental Online Survey Results. The online survey was open for participants from mid-December through February 7. Online results are kept separate from the random survey results. 5. 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. Across all questions, ratings in Pasco for 2019 remained generally stable. Of 139 items surveyed, 83 were rated similar to 2017; 13 items showed a decrease in positive rating while 17 items showed an increase in positive rating (see Trends Over Time). Areas of Interest Governance: Positive responses to the overall direction Pasco is tracking up significantly; (56%-2019; 46%-2017) as are results regarding the value of services for taxes paid (50%- 2019; 37%-2017). Community, Inclusion & Engagement: 81% of respondents plan to remain in Pasco for the next five years and 73% feel positively about raising children in Pasco. Responses indicate a greater sense of community (43%-2019; 34%-2017) and neighborliness remained steady. A question introduced this cycle indicates that respondents feel positively that residents from diverse backgrounds are valued and respected (67%) in Pasco. Economy: Respondents gave significantly higher favorable reviews to; overall economic health of Pasco (63%-2019; 45%-2017), economic development (55%-2019; 40%-2017), Page 77 of 252 and the quality of business and service establishments in Pasco (59%-2019; 42%-2017) than in 2017. Public Safety: Responses in the areas of police, fire, ambulance, and crime prevention generally remained steady while safety in respondent’s neighborhoods and in Pasco’s downtown/commercial area received slight increases. The overall feeling of safety in Pasco is at its highest since introduction of the question in 2013 (64%-2019; 53%-2017). City Council investments in public safety such as community oriented police training, improved fire rating, additional staffing, outreach and transparency are likely to have positively affected these ratings. Additionally, animal control services positive rating matched its highest rating since 2005 (53%-2019; 47%-2017). Overall Image: Positive marks for the image of the City remained similar (35%-2019; 34%-2017), 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. Areas of Opportunity Transportation: Responses highlighted a focus on mobility and alternative modes of transportation. Respondents were more likely to have carpooled, walked or biked instead of driving, and used public transportation in 2019 compared to 2017. Overall quality of the transportation system saw a significant decrease in 2019 (57%-2019; 77%-2017). Respondents indicated the overall transportation system was a top priority to them in the next two years. Positive responses for traffic flow decreased while ease of traveling by car increased (74%-2019; 66%-2017). Staff would like to highlight the report shows ease of walking decreased (49%-2019; 52%-2017) as did ease of traveling by bicycle (44%- 2019; 56%-2017) for future Council discussion on community connectivity, it is important to note that these findings likely correlate with the aforementioned that fact that a higher percentage of respondents reported having walked or biked rather than drive or use public transportation. Arts and Culture: Respondents identified this as an area of high importance. Pasco's ratings for this facet are lower than other benchmark cities and rated much lower for opportunities to attend events for culture, art, and music. Respondents identified this area as a high priority. Quality of Life: Responses indicate that respondents want additional public places to spend time and more opportunities to attend events (arts/culture, sports, festivals, etc.). 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: Funding Public Art Projects: "Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. Page 78 of 252 The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extend do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects?" • 29% strongly support public funding for public art projects. • 50% somewhat support public funding for public art projects. • 17% somewhat oppose public funding for public art projects. • 5% strongly oppose public funding for public art projects. Affordable Housing: "The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each of the following options?" Strongly Support Somewhat Support Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households 47% 31% 12% 10% Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 37% 28% 18% 18% Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 36% 25% 21% 18% Let the market decide 21% 36% 20% 22% Interest in Downtown: "How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often?" Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely More unique dining opportunities 64% 21% 15% More cultural opportunities 37% 40% 23% More national chain restaurant 37% 34% 29% More childcare/youth opportunities 43% 23% 34% More service-oriented businesses 27% 36% 37% Self-Select Online Participation For the third consecutive cycle, the City provided the option for the public to self-select online participation in the survey. There were 289 survey responses (131-2017) for this option, an increase of over 120% over 2017. 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: Page 79 of 252 Governance Supplemental Random Overall Direction 49% 56% Value of City Services 52% 50% Community, Inclusion & Engagement Supplemental Random Remain in Pasco 5 years 79% 81% Place to raise Children 61% 73% Sense of Community 45% 43% Residents from diverse backgrounds are valued and respected 50% 67% Image of Pasco 37% 35% Economy Supplemental Random Overall economic health 58% 63% Economic Development 39% 55% Quality of businesses/service establishments 43% 59% Safety Supplemental Random Overall feeling of safety 57% 64% Animal Control services 50% 53% Transportation Supplemental Random Quality of transportation system 40% 57% Traffic flow 26% 41% Ease of travel by car 53% 74% Ease of travel by walking 43% 49% Ease of travel by bike 15% 44% Policy question responses for online survey compared to random survey are as follows: Funding Public Art Projects: "Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. Page 80 of 252 The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extend do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects?" Supplemental Random Strongly support 40% 29% Somewhat support 29% 50% Affordable Housing: "The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each of the following options?" (Strongly support and somewhat support) Supplemental Random Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households 76% 78% Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 62% 65% Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 64% 61% Let the market decide 47% 57% Interest in Downtown: "How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often?" (Very likely) Supplemental Random More unique dining opportunities 63% 64% More cultural opportunities 45% 37% More national chain restaurant 34% 37% More childcare/youth opportunities 44% 43% More service-oriented businesses 38% 27% Council will note that, while there are variations, the online self-select survey results are generally keeping with the results of the random survey. These results are consistent with 2017 online self-select survey results. New in 2017, the survey tracks results by City Council voting district (Comparison by Geographic Subgroups). Council may find areas of interest/concern from within individual voting districts. As a caution, given the relatively small numbers of respondents in some districts, the numbers should be weighed accordingly. Page 81 of 252 2017 2019 District 1 21 13 District 2 21 22 District 3 50 60 District 4 35 35 District 5 71 54 District 6 17 23 Regarding survey participation, 50% of the random survey respondents identified as not Hispanic (similar to 2017), whereas in the self-select survey, those identifying as not Hispanic was 55% (84%-2017) indicating a significantly higher participation by respondents identifying as Hispanic in the self-select portion of the survey. Page 82 of 252 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 2019 Page 83 of 252 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2020 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 Contents .......................................................................................................... 2 About The NCS™ .............................................................................................. 3 Overview of Results ......................................................................................... 4 Facets of Livability ........................................................................................... 5 Quality of Life .................................................................................................. 7 Governance ..................................................................................................... 8 Economy ........................................................................................................ 10 Mobility ......................................................................................................... 12 Community Design ........................................................................................ 14 Utilities .......................................................................................................... 16 Safety ............................................................................................................ 18 Natural Environment ..................................................................................... 20 Parks and Recreation ..................................................................................... 22 Health and Wellness ...................................................................................... 24 Education, Arts, and Culture.......................................................................... 26 Inclusivity and Engagement ........................................................................... 28 Special Topics ................................................................................................ 32 Page 84 of 252 3 About The NCS™ The National Community Survey™ 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 considering ten central facets of a community: • Economy • Mobility • Community Design • Utilities • Safety • Natural Environment • Parks and Recreation • Health and Wellness • Education, Arts and Culture • Inclusivity & Engagement The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 207 residents of the City of Pasco. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 7% for all respondents and the response rate for the 2019 survey was 12%. 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 85 of 252 4 Overview of Results Residents continue to focus on mobility and explore alternative modes of transportation. Survey respondents were more likely to have carpooled, walked or biked instead of driving, and used public transportation in 2019 compared to 2017; futher, they were more likely to do so than residents in other communities across the nation. An area of opportunity for Pasco continues to be the overall quality of the transportation system, respondents indicated this was a top area of focus for the next two years. Residents’ ratings of most mobility-related aspects, such as ease of travel by car, ease of public parking, traffic services, street cleaning and street lighting were similar to those given in other communities and remained stable from 2017 to 2019. Education, Arts and Culture is an area of opportunity. Education, Arts and Culture, a facet of community livability identified by respondents as an area of relatively high importance and lower quality, could be an area of focus for the City. Well over 7 in 10 residents supported Pasco’s recently formed Arts and Culture Commission to use public funds to help pay for public art projects and indicated that more cultural opportunities would be somewhat or very likely to bring them to downtown Pasco more often. With ratings below the national average for opportunities to attend special events and festivals, opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities and overall oprtunities for education, culture and the arts, there is room for growth in this area. Economy ratings are on the rise. Ratings of aspects of the Economy were similar to national averages including the overall economic health of Pasco, economic development, and the overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco, all of which increased in 2019 compared to 2017. Evaluations of the cost of living in Pasco and employment opportunities were also similar to the rest of the country. However, Pasco as a place to work was trending down from 2017 ratings. Residents were more optimistic in 2019 about the impact of the local economy on their income in the six months with almost 4 in 10 noting the economy would have a positive impact on their income. Page 86 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 5 Facets of Livability Ratings of importance were compared to ratings of quality to help guide City staff and officials with decisions on future resource allocation and strategic planning areas. When competition for limited resources demands that efficiencies or cutbacks be instituted, it is wise not only to know what facets are deemed most important to residents’ quality of life, but which are among the most important are perceived to be delivered with the lowest quality. It is these facets of community livability – more important facets delivered with lower quality – to which attention needs to be paid first. To identify the facets perceived by residents to have relatively lower quality at the same time as relatively higher importance, the national benchmark comparisons for quality and importance ratings were compared for each. The upper left-hand quadrant contains those services of higher importance but lower quality, and may be considered as areas of focus for the City. QUALITY LOWER SIMILAR HIGHER IMPORTANCE HIGHER • Health and Wellness • Education, Arts and Culture • Community Design SIMILAR • Safety • Natural Environment • Economy LOWER • • Mobility Page 87 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 6 Table 1: QUALITY OF FACETS OF LIVABILITY- SUMMARY Table 2: IMPORTANCE OF FACETS OF LIVABILITY- SUMMARY Percent essential or important Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall economic health of Pasco ↔ ↔ 92% Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco ↔ ↔ 75% Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ↑ ↑ 87% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) * * 92% Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ↔ ↔ 94% Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco ↔ ↑ 88% Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities * * 91% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ↑ ↔ 86% Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ↑ ↔ 86% Residents' connection and engagement with their community ↔ ↔ 76% Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall economic health of Pasco ↔ ↑ 63% Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco ↓ ↓ 57% Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ↔ ↑ 51% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) * * 74% Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ↓ ↑ 64% Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco ↓ ↔ 61% Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities * * 59% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ↓ ↔ 46% Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ↓ ↔ 47% Residents' connection and engagement with their community * * 33% Page 88 of 252 7 Quality of Life Measuring community livability starts with assessing the quality of life of those who live there, and ensuring that the community i s attractive, accessible, and welcoming to all . FIGURE 1: QUALITY OF LIFE FIGURE 1: QUALITY OF LIFE - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall image or reputation of Pasco ↓↓ ↔ 35% The overall quality of life in Pasco ↓ ↔ 61% Pasco as a place to live ↔ ↔ 85% FIGURE 2: RECOMMEND PASCO - SUMMARY Percent very or somewhat likely Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 78% ↔ ↔ Remain in Pasco for the next five years 81% ↔ ↔ 78% 81% 85% 35% 61% Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks Remain in Pasco for the next five years PERCENT VERY or SOMEWHAT LIKELY Overall image or reputation of Pasco The overall quality of life in Pasco Pasco as a place to live PERCENT EXCELLENT OR GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 10% Good 51% Fair 33% Poor 6% OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE Page 89 of 252 8 Governance Strong local governments produce results that meet the needs of residents while making the best use of available resources, and are responsive to the present and future needs of the community as a whole. FIGURE 3: GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND SERVICES 43% 56% 50% 51% 51% 49% 45% 59% 55% 62% 39% 46% 40% 60% Overall confidence in Pasco government Overall direction that Pasco is taking Value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco Generally acting in the best interest of the community Being honest Being open and transparent to the public Informing residents about issues facing the community Welcoming resident involvement Treating all residents fairly Treating residents with respect Overall customer service by Pasco employees Public information services Overall quality of City services Services provided by the Federal Government PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 7% Good 35% Fair 42%Poor 15% OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT Page 90 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 9 Table 3: GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND SERVICES - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall confidence in Pasco government ↔ ↔ 43% Overall direction that Pasco is taking ↔ ↑ 56% Value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco ↔ ↑ 50% Generally acting in the best interest of the community ↔ ↔ 51% Being honest ↔ ↔ 51% Being open and transparent to the public * * 46% Informing residents about issues facing the community * * 40% Job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement ↔ ↔ 49% Treating all residents fairly ↔ ↔ 45% Treating residents with respect * * 60% Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ↔ ↔ 59% Public information services ↔ ↔ 55% Overall quality of City services ↔ ↔ 62% Services provided by the Federal Government ↔ ↔ 39% Page 91 of 252 10 Economy Local governments work together with private and nonprofit businesses, and with the community at large, to foster sustainable growth, create jobs, and promote a thriving local economy. FIGURE 4: ECONOMIC HEALTH 38% 63% 55% 59% 56% 47% 45% 52% 29% 35% 33% 54% Economy will have positive impact on income NOT experiencing housing costs stress VERY OR SOMEWHAT POSITIVE Overall economic health of Pasco Economic development Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area Shopping opportunities Pasco as a place to visit Pasco as a place to work Employment opportunities Cost of living in Pasco PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not applicable COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 9% Good 54% Fair 29% Poor 8% OVERALL ECONOMIC HEALTH OF PASCO 12%27%50%9%2% Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Page 92 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 11 Table 4: ECONOMIC HEALTH - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall economic health of Pasco ↔ ↑ 63% Economic development ↔ ↑ 55% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco ↔ ↑ 59% Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco * * 54% Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area ↓ ↔ 29% Shopping opportunities ↓ ↔ 35% Pasco as a place to visit ↓↓ ↔ 33% Pasco as a place to work ↔ ↓ 56% Employment opportunities ↔ ↔ 47% Cost of living in Pasco ↔ ↔ 45% Table 5: ECONOMIC IMPACT - SUMMARY Percent very or somewhat positive Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Economy will have positive impact on income ↔ ↑ 38% Table 6: HOUSING COST - SUMMARY Percent for whom housing costs are NOT 30% or more of household income Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating NOT experiencing housing costs stress ↓ ↑ 52% Page 93 of 252 12 Mobility The ease with which residents can move about their communities, whether for commuting, leisure, or recreation, plays a major role in the quality of life for all who live, work and play i n the community. FIGURE 5: MOBILITY 62% 70% 41% 74% 44% 66% 55% 51% 51% 57% 53% 53% 49% 42% Traffic flow on major streets Ease of travel by car in Pasco Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco Ease of walking in Pasco Ease of public parking Bus or transit services Traffic enforcement Traffic signal timing Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance PERCENT EXCELLENT OR GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 13% Good 44% Fair 34% Poor 9% THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Page 94 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 13 FIGURE 6: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES Table 7: MOBILITY- SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco ↓ ↓ 57% Traffic flow on major streets ↔ ↔ 41% Ease of travel by car in Pasco ↔ ↔ 74% Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco ↑ ↔ 62% Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco ↔ ↔ 44% Ease of walking in Pasco ↓ ↔ 49% Ease of public parking ↔ ↔ 66% Bus or transit services ↑ ↔ 70% Traffic enforcement ↔ ↔ 55% Traffic signal timing ↔ ↔ 51% Street repair ↔ ↔ 51% Street cleaning ↔ ↔ 57% Street lighting ↔ ↔ 53% Snow removal ↓ ↔ 42% Sidewalk maintenance ↔ ↑ 53% Table 8: USE OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES - SUMMARY Percent who did this in past 12 months Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving ↔ ↑ 33% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ↑ ↑ 55% Walked or biked instead of driving ↔ ↑ 49% 55% 33% 49% Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Walked or biked instead of driving USED IN PAST 12 MONTHS Page 95 of 252 14 Community Design A well -designed community enhances the quality of life for its residents by encouraging smart land use and zoning, ensuring that affordable housing is accessible to all, and providing access to parks and other green spaces. FIGURE 7: COMMUNITY DESIGN 51% 77% 62% 44% 36% 43% 52% 53% 30% 37% 45% 43% 50% Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings,… Overall appearance of Pasco Your neighborhood as a place to live Overall quality of new development in Pasco Well-planned residential growth Well-planned commercial growth Well-designed neighborhoods Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Public places where people want to spend time Variety of housing options Availability of affordable quality housing Land use, planning, and zoning Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 11% Good 40% Fair 34% Poor 14% THE OVERALL DESIGN OR LAYOUT OF PASCO’S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS Page 96 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 15 Table 9: COMMUNITY DESIGN - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ↔ ↑ 51% Overall appearance of Pasco ↓ ↔ 52% Your neighborhood as a place to live ↔ ↔ 77% Overall quality of new development in Pasco ↔ ↑ 62% Well-planned residential growth * * 45% Well-planned commercial growth * * 43% Well-designed neighborhoods ↓ * 53% Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community * * 50% Public places where people want to spend time ↓↓ ↓ 30% Variety of housing options ↔ ↔ 44% Availability of affordable quality housing ↔ ↔ 36% Land use, planning, and zoning ↔ ↔ 43% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ↓ ↔ 37% Page 97 of 252 16 Utilities Services such as water, gas, electricity , and internet access play a vital role in ensuring the physical and economic health and well - being of the communities they serve. FIGURE 8: UTILITES 71% 86% 82% 81% 54% 74% 45% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) Affordable high-speed internet access Garbage collection Drinking water Sewer services Storm water management Utility billing PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 25%Good 50% Fair 22% Poor 4% THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE Page 98 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 17 Table 10: UTILITES - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) * * 74% Affordable high-speed internet access * * 45% Garbage collection ↔ ↔ 86% Drinking water ↔ ↑ 82% Sewer services ↔ ↔ 81% Storm water management ↑ ↔ 71% Utility billing ↔ ↔ 54% Page 99 of 252 18 Safety Public safety is often the most important task facing local governments. All residents should feel safe and secure in their neighborhoods and in the greater community, and providing robust Safety -related services is essential to residents' quality of life. FIGURE 9: SAFETY 90% 65% 73% 61% 53% 82% 85% 69% 66% 62% 64% 43% 88% In your neighborhood during the day In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Safety from fire, flood, or other natural disaster PERCENT VERY or SOMEWHAT SAFE Overall feeling of safety in Pasco Police/Sheriff services Crime prevention Animal control Ambulance or emergency medical services Fire services Fire prevention and education Emergency preparedness Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 13% Good 51% Fair 28% Poor 7% OVERALL FEELING OF SAFETY Page 100 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 19 Table 11: SAFETY-RELATED SERVICES - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ↓ ↑ 64% Police/Sheriff services ↔ ↔ 73% Crime prevention ↔ ↔ 61% Animal control ↔ ↔ 53% Ambulance or emergency medical services ↔ ↔ 82% Fire services ↔ ↔ 85% Fire prevention and education ↔ ↔ 69% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ↓ ↔ 43% Table 12: FEELINGS OF SAFETY- SUMMARY Percent who feel very or somewhat safe Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating In your neighborhood during the day ↔ ↔ 90% In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day ↓ ↔ 66% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) ↔ ↑ 65% Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) * * 62% Safety from fire, flood, or other natural disaster * * 88% Page 101 of 252 20 Natural Environment The natural environment plays a vital role in the health and well -being of residents . The natural spaces in which residents live and experience their communities has a direct and profound effect on quality of life. FIGURE 10: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 71% 49% 54% 61% 47% 24% 55% 62% Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco Cleanliness of Pasco Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) Air quality Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Pasco open space Recycling Yard waste pick-up PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 16% Good 45% Fair 29% Poor 10% OVERALL QUALITY OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Page 102 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 21 Table 13: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco ↓ ↔ 61% Cleanliness of Pasco ↓ ↔ 47% Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) * * 62% Air quality ↔ ↔ 71% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ↔ ↔ 49% Pasco open space ↔ ↑ 54% Recycling ↓↓ ↓ 24% Yard waste pick-up ↓ ↓ 55% Page 103 of 252 22 Parks and Recreation "There are no communities that pride themselves on their quality of life, promote themselves as a desirable location f or businesses to relocate, or maintain that they are environmental stewards of their natural resources, without such communities having a robust, active system of parks and recreation programs for public use and enjoyment." - National Recreation and Park A ssociation FIGURE 11: PARKS AND RECREATION 57% 57% 43% 44% 32% 53% 59%Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities Availability of paths and walking trails City parks Recreational opportunities Recreation programs or classes Recreation centers or facilities Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 18% Good 41% Fair 28% Poor 13% THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Page 104 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 23 Table 14: PARKS AND RECREATION - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities * * 59% Availability of paths and walking trails ↔ ↔ 57% City parks ↓ ↓ 57% Recreational opportunities ↓ ↔ 43% Recreation programs or classes ↓ ↔ 44% Recreation centers or facilities ↓↓ ↓ 32% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) ↓ ↔ 53% Page 105 of 252 24 Health and W ellness The characteristics of and amenities available in the communities in which people live has a direct impact on the health and wellness of residents, and thus, on their quality of life overall. FIGURE 12: HEALTH AND WELLNESS 51% 52% 53% 66% 68% 46% 29% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco Health services Availability of affordable quality health care Availability of preventive health services Availability of affordable quality mental health care Availability of affordable quality food In very good to excellent health PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 16% Good 30% Fair 37%Poor 17% 27%42%27%4% Excellent Very good Good Fair HEALTH AND WELLNESS OPPORTUNITIES Would you say that your health in general is: Page 106 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 25 Table 15: HEALTH AND WELLNESS - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ↓ ↔ 46% Health services ↔ ↔ 51% Availability of affordable quality health care ↔ ↔ 52% Availability of preventive health services ↔ ↔ 53% Availability of affordable quality mental health care ↓ ↓ 29% Availability of affordable quality food ↔ ↔ 66% In very good to excellent health ↔ ↑ 68% Page 107 of 252 26 Education, Arts , and Culture Participation in the arts, in educational opportunities, and in cultural activities is linked to increased civic engagement, greater social tolerance, and enhanced enjoyment of the local community. FIGURE 13: EDUCATION, ARTS AND CULTURE 75% 51% 47% 33% 47% 30% 54% 30% Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Opportunities to attend special events and festivals Community support for the arts Public library services Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool K-12 education Adult educational opportunities PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 16% Good 32% Fair 29% Poor 24% OVERALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION, CULTURE, AND THE ARTS Page 108 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 27 Table 16: EDUCATION, ARTS AND CULTURE - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ↓ ↔ 47% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ↓↓ ↔ 33% Opportunities to attend special events and festivals ↓ ↔ 47% Community support for the arts * * 30% Public library services ↔ ↔ 75% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ↓ ↓ 30% K-12 education ↓ ↔ 54% Adult educational opportunities ↔ ↔ 51% Page 109 of 252 28 Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity refers to a cultural and environmental feeling of belonging; residents who feel invited to participate within their communities feel more included, involved, and engaged than those who do not. FIGURE 14: INCLUSIVITY & ENGAGEMENT 43% 49% 73% 54% 49% 55% 42% 34% 33% 31% 63% 54% 67% 44% Residents' connection and engagement with their community Sense of community Sense of civic/community pride Neighborliness of Pasco Pasco as a place to raise children Pasco as a place to retire Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Making all residents feel welcome Attracting people from diverse backgrounds Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters PERCENT EXCELLENT or GOOD Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Excellent 7% Good 26% Fair 47% Poor 20% RESIDENTS’ CONNECTION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR COMMUNITY Page 110 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 29 Table 17: INCLUSIVITY & ENGAGEMENT - SUMMARY Percent excellent or good Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Residents' connection and engagement with their community * * 33% Sense of community ↔ ↔ 43% Sense of civic/community pride * * 31% Neighborliness of Pasco ↔ ↔ 49% Pasco as a place to raise children ↔ ↑ 73% Pasco as a place to retire ↔ ↓ 54% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ↔ ↓ 49% Making all residents feel welcome * * 63% Attracting people from diverse backgrounds * * 54% Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds * * 67% Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) * * 44% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ↓ ↔ 42% Opportunities to volunteer ↔ ↔ 55% Opportunities to participate in community matters ↓ ↓ 34% Page 111 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 30 FIGURE 15: RESIDENTS’ PARTICIPATION LEVELS 44% 9% 22% 26% 31% 15% 68% 88% 90% 81% 92% 35% 50% Contacted Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion Attended a local public meeting Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate Voted in your most recent local election Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer Access the internet from your cell phone Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. Use or check email Share your opinions online Shop online PERCENT YES IN LAST 12 MONTHS Higher Similar Lower Not available COMPARISON TO NATIONAL BENCHMARK Page 112 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 31 Table 18: RESIDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN LAST 12 MONTHS- SUMMARY Percent who had done each in last 12 months Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Contacted Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ↔ ↔ 44% Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ↔ ↔ 9% Attended a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 22% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ↔ ↔ 26% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco ↔ ↑ 31% Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ↔ ↔ 15% Voted in your most recent local election * * 68% Table 19: RESIDENTS' GENERAL USE OF TECHNOLOGY- SUMMARY Comparison to benchmark Comparison to benchmark Change 2017 to 2019 2019 rating Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer * * 88% Access the internet from your cell phone * * 90% Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. * * 81% Use or check email * * 92% Share your opinions online * * 35% Shop online * * 50% Page 113 of 252 32 Special Topics FIGURE 16: Funding Public Art Projects Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? Strongly support 29%Somewhat suppport 50% Somewhat oppose 17% Strongly oppose 5% Page 114 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 33 FIGURE 17: Affordable Housing The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? 21% 36% 37% 47% 36% 25% 28% 31% 20% 21% 18% 12% 22% 18% 18% 10% Let the market decide Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Page 115 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Community Livability Report 34 FIGURE 18: Interest in Downtown How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often? 27% 37% 37% 43% 64% 36% 34% 40% 23% 21% 37% 29% 23% 34% 15% More service- oriented businesses More national chain restaurants More cultural opportunities More children/youth opportunities More unique dining opportunities Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely Page 116 of 252 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 2019 Page 117 of 252 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2020 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. Summary The National Community 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 2020 ratings for the City of Pasco to its previous survey results in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. 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 10 percentage points between the 2017 and 2019 surveys, otherwise the comparisons between 2017 and 2019 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 2019 generally remained stable. Of the 139 items for which comparisons were available, 83 items were rated similarly in 2017 and 2019, 13 items showed a decrease in ratings and 16 showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following: • In 2019, Pasco residents gave more positive scores to the overall direction Pasco is taking and the value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco than in 2017. All other governance evaluations were similar to 2017. • Scores for most aspects of Mobility remained stable from 2017 to 2019, however some changes were observed. Survey respondents were more likely to have carpooled, walked or biked instead of driving, and used public transportation in 2019 compared to 2017, and gave lower marks to the overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco. • Pasco residents gave more positive ratings to several aspects of Economy. Residents were more optimistic about the impact of the local economy on their income in the six months following the survey and tended to give more favorable reviews to the overall economic health of Pasco, economic development, and the overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco in 2019 compared to 2017. Residents were less likely to give high marks to Pasco as a place to work in 2019 than in 2017. • Compared to 2017, more residents indicated that the overall design or layout of Pasco’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, building, streets, parks, etc.) and the overall quality of natural environment were essential or very important focus areas for the community to focus on in the coming two years in 2019. Page 118 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Trends Over Time Report 3 Table 1: Quality of Life Quality of Life Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat likely) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation of Pasco 46% 35% 37% 32% 28% 23% 34% 35% Similar Much lower The overall quality of life in Pasco 64% 52% 76% 64% 69% 59% 69% 61% Similar Lower Pasco as a place to live 75% 59% 78% 73% 69% 66% 77% 85% Similar Similar Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks NA NA 83% 79% 77% 76% 84% 78% Similar Similar Remain in Pasco for the next five years NA NA 85% 83% 85% 80% 83% 81% Similar Similar Table 2: Governance Governance Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Pasco government NA NA NA NA 39% 34% 44% 43% Similar Similar Overall direction that Pasco is taking 61% 54% 60% 45% 51% 42% 46% 56% Higher Similar Value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 52% 51% 53% 49% 34% 45% 37% 50% Higher Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community NA NA NA NA 40% 43% 43% 51% Similar Similar Being honest NA NA NA NA 40% 39% 52% 51% Similar Similar Being open and transparent to the public NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 46% NA NA Informing residents about issues facing the community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 40% NA NA Job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 56% 48% 47% 40% 34% 38% 44% 49% Similar Similar Treating all residents fairly NA NA NA NA 46% 42% 50% 45% Similar Similar Treating residents with respect NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 60% NA NA Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 58% 60% 68% 71% 55% 57% 61% 59% Similar Similar Public information services 55% 58% 65% 57% 51% 63% 53% 55% Similar Similar Overall quality of City services 69% 58% 69% 61% 64% 60% 63% 62% Similar Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 50% 41% 50% 42% 36% 44% 36% 39% Similar Similar Page 119 of 252 4 Table 3: Economy Economy Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat positive) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Pasco NA NA NA NA 44% 40% 45% 63% Higher Similar Economic development 49% 53% 47% 46% 43% 41% 40% 55% Higher Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco NA NA 58% 54% 38% 43% 42% 59% Higher Similar Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% NA NA Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area NA NA NA NA 18% 14% 23% 29% Similar Lower Shopping opportunities 35% 38% 38% 35% 31% 35% 40% 35% Similar Lower Pasco as a place to visit NA NA NA NA 43% 34% 39% 33% Similar Much lower Pasco as a place to work 65% 57% 64% 63% 56% 47% 72% 56% Lower Similar Employment opportunities 39% 33% 48% 40% 28% 37% 45% 47% Similar Similar Cost of living in Pasco NA NA NA NA 48% 49% 48% 45% Similar Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 32% 23% 25% 25% 25% 30% 26% 38% Higher Similar NOT experiencing housing costs stress NA NA 68% 65% 61% 68% 63% 52% Lower Lower Table 4: Mobility Mobility Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, yes in the last 12 months) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco NA NA NA NA 67% 72% 77% 57% Lower Lower Traffic flow on major streets 65% 53% 54% 55% 47% 47% 49% 41% Similar Similar Ease of travel by car in Pasco 73% 64% 72% 72% 67% 72% 66% 74% Similar Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco NA NA NA NA 55% 59% 62% 62% Similar Higher Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 63% 55% 67% 53% 35% 57% 52% 44% Similar Similar Ease of walking in Pasco 67% 57% 61% 55% 47% 57% 56% 49% Similar Lower Ease of public parking NA NA NA NA 63% 66% 57% 66% Similar Similar Bus or transit services NA 77% 68% 73% 69% 64% 69% 70% Similar Higher Traffic enforcement 63% 59% 63% 57% 61% 50% 56% 55% Similar Similar Page 120 of 252 5 Mobility Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, yes in the last 12 months) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Traffic signal timing 57% 44% 49% 57% 41% 48% 52% 51% Similar Similar Street repair 54% 57% 53% 53% 39% 46% 49% 51% Similar Similar Street cleaning 62% 59% 62% 60% 49% 59% 56% 57% Similar Similar Street lighting 57% 54% 57% 51% 46% 50% 47% 53% Similar Similar Snow removal 45% 46% 51% 47% 45% 51% 36% 42% Similar Lower Sidewalk maintenance 53% 51% 47% 50% 49% 48% 42% 53% Higher Similar Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving NA NA NA NA 26% 28% 20% 33% Higher Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone NA NA NA NA 47% 45% 56% 55% Similar Higher Walked or biked instead of driving NA NA NA NA 52% 41% 58% 49% Similar Similar Table 5: Community Design Community Design Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) NA NA NA NA 45% 42% 41% 51% Higher Similar Overall appearance of Pasco 48% 33% 46% 37% 33% 44% 45% 52% Similar Lower Your neighborhood as a place to live 68% 63% 77% 71% 77% 74% 73% 77% Similar Similar Overall quality of new development in Pasco 73% 65% 73% 66% 54% 44% 52% 62% Higher Similar Well-planned residential growth NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 45% NA NA Well-planned commercial growth NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 43% NA NA Well-designed neighborhoods NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 53% NA Lower Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% NA NA Public places where people want to spend time NA NA NA NA 31% 41% 46% 30% Lower Much lower Variety of housing options NA NA 70% 57% 57% 52% 50% 44% Similar Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 55% 52% 66% 52% 54% 48% 41% 36% Similar Similar Land use, planning, and zoning 53% 46% 45% 46% 36% 33% 38% 43% Similar Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 38% 39% 30% 27% 33% 31% 37% 37% Similar Lower Page 121 of 252 6 Table 6: Utilities Utilities Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 74% NA NA Affordable high-speed internet access NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 45% NA NA Garbage collection 85% 84% 83% 84% 76% 84% 82% 86% Similar Similar Drinking water 56% 54% 62% 65% 63% 64% 71% 82% Higher Similar Sewer services 69% 71% 73% 76% 65% 77% 76% 81% Similar Similar Storm water management 66% 63% 65% 68% 60% 69% 73% 71% Similar Higher Utility billing NA NA NA NA 56% 66% 62% 54% Similar Similar Table 7: Safety Safety Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Pasco NA NA NA NA 48% 53% 53% 64% Higher Lower Police/Sheriff services 70% 63% 71% 74% 67% 63% 78% 73% Similar Similar Crime prevention 56% 43% 57% 56% 50% 45% 62% 61% Similar Similar Animal control 53% 45% 43% 37% 46% 36% 47% 53% Similar Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 87% 73% 87% 84% 73% 85% 92% 82% Similar Similar Fire services 89% 87% 88% 88% 78% 87% 90% 85% Similar Similar Fire prevention and education NA NA 68% 70% 62% 65% 68% 69% Similar Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) NA NA 53% 47% 32% 40% 44% 43% Similar Lower In your neighborhood during the day 85% 80% 92% 91% 92% 85% 87% 90% Similar Similar In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 69% 64% 60% 61% 60% 59% 61% 66% Similar Lower Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 40% 32% 44% 44% NA NA NA 65% NA Similar Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 53% 41% 51% 54% NA NA NA 62% NA Lower Safety from fire, flood, or other natural disaster NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% NA NA Page 122 of 252 7 Table 8: Natural Environment Natural Environment Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco NA NA 56% 55% 57% 58% 62% 61% Similar Lower Cleanliness of Pasco NA NA 45% 38% 32% 52% 47% 47% Similar Lower Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 62% NA NA Air quality 64% 59% 62% 56% 56% 64% 65% 71% Similar Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts NA NA 57% 51% 42% 46% 51% 49% Similar Similar Pasco open space NA NA NA NA 37% 47% 43% 54% Higher Similar Recycling 65% 52% 51% 43% 34% 32% 46% 24% Lower Much lower Yard waste pick-up 61% 56% 65% 66% 65% 66% 67% 55% Lower Lower Table 9: Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 59% NA NA Availability of paths and walking trails NA NA 62% 59% 47% 61% 60% 57% Similar Similar City parks 70% 68% 65% 65% 56% 66% 68% 57% Lower Lower Recreational opportunities 47% 48% 47% 45% 42% 42% 50% 43% Similar Lower Recreation programs or classes 69% 59% 56% 53% 45% 50% 53% 44% Similar Lower Recreation centers or facilities 59% 53% 51% 53% 38% 56% 50% 32% Lower Much lower Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) NA NA NA NA 53% 49% 59% 53% Similar Lower Table 10: Health and Wellness Health and Wellness Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, excellent/very good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco NA NA NA NA 49% 40% 48% 46% Similar Lower Health services NA NA 54% 58% 57% 48% 55% 51% Similar Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 42% 45% 54% 43% 51% 47% 60% 52% Similar Similar Availability of preventive health services NA NA 53% 49% 43% 53% 57% 53% Similar Similar Page 123 of 252 8 Health and Wellness Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, excellent/very good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality mental health care NA NA NA NA 30% 38% 49% 29% Lower Lower Availability of affordable quality food 58% 59% NA NA NA NA 59% 66% Similar Similar In very good to excellent health NA NA NA NA 55% 47% 43% 68% Higher Similar Table 11: Education, Arts, and Culture Education, Arts, and Culture Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts NA NA NA NA 52% 40% 55% 47% Similar Lower Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 49% 51% 47% 45% 27% 36% 33% 33% Similar Much lower Opportunities to attend special events and festivals NA NA NA NA 37% 39% 39% 47% Similar Lower Community support for the arts NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30% NA NA Public library services 68% 74% 76% 61% 69% 79% 77% 75% Similar Similar Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 41% 40% 54% 47% 38% 46% 48% 30% Lower Lower K-12 education 62% 50% 63% 53% 54% 53% 55% 54% Similar Lower Adult educational opportunities NA NA NA NA 54% 59% 57% 51% Similar Similar Table 12: Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity and Engagement Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Residents' connection and engagement with their community NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33% NA NA Sense of community 56% 46% 53% 48% 33% 38% 34% 43% Similar Similar Sense of civic/community pride NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 31% NA NA Neighborliness of Pasco NA NA NA NA 40% 41% 50% 49% Similar Similar Pasco as a place to raise children 66% 49% 62% 63% 63% 61% 60% 73% Higher Similar Pasco as a place to retire 54% 45% 60% 59% 59% 45% 66% 54% Lower Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 54% 56% 63% 57% 45% 48% 66% 49% Lower Similar Making all residents feel welcome NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 63% NA NA Attracting people from diverse backgrounds NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 54% NA NA Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 67% NA NA Page 124 of 252 9 Inclusivity and Engagement Items Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 44% NA NA Opportunities to participate in social events and activities NA NA 57% 50% 29% 41% 44% 42% Similar Lower Opportunities to volunteer NA NA 72% 58% 45% 53% 60% 55% Similar Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters NA NA 58% 51% 37% 47% 45% 34% Lower Lower Table 13: Participation Participation Items Percent having done each in last 12 months, or having done each a few times a week or more 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Contacted Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 61% 71% 56% 46% 45% 44% 43% 44% Similar Similar Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion NA NA NA NA 15% 15% 14% 9% Similar Similar Attended a local public meeting 31% 19% 19% 22% 14% 21% 20% 22% Similar Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 45% 41% 39% 47% 30% 29% 36% 26% Similar Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 41% 43% 40% 38% 35% 37% 22% 31% Similar Similar Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate NA NA NA NA 20% 27% 18% 15% Similar Similar Voted in your most recent local election NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 68% NA NA Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 88% NA NA Access the internet from your cell phone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 90% NA NA Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 81% NA NA Use or check email NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% NA NA Share your opinions online NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 35% NA NA Shop online NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 50% NA NA Page 125 of 252 10 Table 14: Focus Areas Focus Areas Percent rating each as "essential" or "very important" 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2019 rating compared to 2017 Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Pasco NA NA NA NA 83% 89% 91% 92% Similar Similar Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco NA NA NA NA 68% 73% 77% 75% Similar Similar Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) NA NA NA NA 56% 74% 74% 87% Higher Higher Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92% NA NA Overall feeling of safety in Pasco NA NA NA NA 94% 91% 87% 94% Similar Similar Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco NA NA NA NA 68% 75% 70% 88% Higher Similar Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 91% NA NA Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco NA NA NA NA 74% 73% 77% 86% Similar Higher Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts NA NA NA NA 81% 81% 78% 86% Similar Higher Residents' connection and engagement with their community NA NA NA NA 70% 82% 77% 76% Similar Similar Page 126 of 252 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 2019 Page 127 of 252 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2020 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. 2 Summary The National Community 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. Communities conducting The NCS can choose from a number of optional services to customize the reporting of survey results. Pasco’s Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups is part of a larger project for the City and additional reports are available under separate cover. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by Council Districts. 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 Districts Number of Completed Surveys District 1 13 District 2 22 District 3 60 District 4 35 District 5 54 District 6 23 Page 128 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 3 Figure 2: Location of Survey Recipients Page 129 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 4 Understanding the Tables For most of the questions, one number appears for each question. Responses have been summarized to 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 respondents who participated in an activity at least once. It should be noted that when a table that does include all responses (not a single number) 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 subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of survey questions by Council District. Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent “real” differences among those populations. As subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant. Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The “Overall” column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of “(A)”, but no statistical tests were done for the overall rating. For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant difference, an uppercase letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different. Subgroups that have no uppercase letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not statistically different. For example, in Table 1 below, respondents in District 2 (B), District 4 (D), and District 6 (F) gave significantly more support for using public funds to help pay for public art projects than respondents in District 3 (C) and District 5 (E), as denoted by the “C E” listed in the cell of the ratings for Districts 2, 4, and 6. Table 1: Example from Pasco on Support for Public Arts Projects Percent rating positively (e.g., strongly support/somewhat support). District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? 76% 98% C E 69% 90% C E 64% 89% C E 78% Page 130 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 5 Table 2: Quality of Life Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat likely) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall image or reputation of Pasco 15% 45% A F 34% 54% A F 36% 16% 35% The overall quality of life in Pasco 41% 37% 82% A B F 70% A B F 66% A B 43% 61% Pasco as a place to live 47% 97% A 84% A 83% A 95% A 96% A 85% Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 75% F 96% C F 75% F 82% F 85% F 51% 78% Remain in Pasco for the next five years 63% 100% A F 83% F 82% 85% A F 64% 81% Table 3: Governance Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall confidence in Pasco government 62% F 39% 52% F 44% 40% 18% 43% The overall direction that Pasco is taking 73% D 64% 54% 40% 52% 68% D 56% The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 74% C E F 51% 48% 65% E F 39% 27% 50% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 53% 57% F 51% 61% F 48% 25% 51% Being honest 23% 53% 54% A F 65% A F 58% A F 25% 51% Being open and transparent to the public 45% 39% 48% 57% F 47% 26% 46% Page 131 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 6 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Informing residents about issues facing the community 22% 20% 49% B 54% A B 43% 29% 40% The job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 22% 60% A D 55% A D 26% 57% A D 62% A D 49% Treating all residents fairly 45% 18% 43% B 71% B C 47% B 48% B 45% Treating residents with respect 45% 58% 55% 76% A F 73% A F 43% 60% Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 45% 61% 74% A E F 73% A E F 46% 46% 59% Public information services 66% F 60% F 53% 64% F 54% 27% 55% The City of Pasco 73% F 77% E F 72% E F 70% F 50% F 26% 62% The Federal Government 37% 69% A D E F 48% F 28% 30% 14% 39% Table 4: Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat positive) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall economic health of Pasco 17% 79% A C F 59% A 69% A 86% A C F 50% A 63% Economic development 38% 84% A C F 44% 63% F 68% A C F 28% 55% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 11% 97% A C E F 56% A 76% A C F 56% A 49% A 59% Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco 9% 66% A 56% A 63% A 64% A 46% A 54% Page 132 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 7 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat positive) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 30% 17% 22% 43% B C 28% 47% B C 29% Shopping opportunities 37% 56% D F 36% 25% 36% 23% 35% Pasco as a place to visit 10% 35% 53% A D E F 25% 28% 24% 33% Pasco as a place to work 48% 61% F 69% F 48% 67% F 25% 56% Employment opportunities 15% 75% A C D E F 46% A 45% A 50% A 46% A 47% Cost of living in Pasco 11% 55% A F 68% A E F 50% A F 43% A F 16% 45% 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: 41% F 64% C D E F 40% F 36% F 36% F 9% 38% NOT under housing cost stress 16% 68% A F 58% A F 75% A F 58% A F 20% 52% Table 5: Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, yes in the last 12 months) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 41% 74% A C 49% 63% 66% 50% 57% Traffic flow on major streets 74% B C D E F 46% 30% 28% 44% 42% 41% Ease of travel by car in Pasco 74% 92% C F 69% 77% F 78% F 52% 74% Page 133 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 8 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, yes in the last 12 months) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 90% B C D F 48% 50% 56% 88% B C D F 49% 62% Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 8% 35% 60% A B D 29% 60% A B D 60% A D 44% Ease of walking in Pasco 18% 39% 56% A D 29% 67% A B D 72% A B D 49% Ease of public parking 67% 89% C E 63% 67% 49% 73% E 66% Bus or transit services 83% D F 97% C D E F 67% 54% 69% 51% 70% Traffic enforcement 38% 61% F 49% F 68% A F 76% A C F 23% 55% Traffic signal timing 66% C F 53% 40% 48% 70% C F 34% 51% Street repair 66% E 43% 45% 73% B C E 30% 62% E 51% Street cleaning 65% E 57% 70% E 67% E 34% 47% 57% Street lighting 65% E F 46% 62% E F 78% B E F 30% 36% 53% Snow removal 37% 42% 49% D 25% 51% D 39% 42% Sidewalk maintenance 36% 58% 68% A E F 66% A E F 38% 39% 53% Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 86% C D E F 64% C D E F 12% 14% 33% C 20% 33% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 96% C D E 82% C D E 36% 38% 37% 80% C D E 55% Walked or biked instead of driving 87% B C D E F 47% F 52% F 40% F 59% F 11% 49% Page 134 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 9 Table 6: Community Design Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 60% 58% 40% 58% 40% 72% C E 51% Overall appearance of Pasco 37% 45% 51% 65% A 46% 68% A 52% Your neighborhood as a place to live 41% 59% 98% A B D F 81% A B F 94% A B F 57% 77% Overall quality of new development in Pasco 37% 85% A C D 54% 59% 64% A 77% A C 62% Well-planned residential growth 67% C E F 54% F 39% 55% F 39% 22% 45% Well-planned commercial growth 65% C D F 87% C D E F 29% 26% 41% 26% 43% Well-designed neighborhoods 65% B 31% 59% B 67% B 49% 43% 53% Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 65% C E F 73% C E F 37% 72% C E F 40% 25% 50% Public places where people want to spend time 1% 42% A 34% A 28% A 24% 48% A E 30% Variety of housing options 9% 34% 41% A 71% A B C F 69% A B C F 28% 44% Availability of affordable quality housing 8% 39% A F 49% A F 37% A F 54% A F 11% 36% Land use, planning, and zoning 59% E 36% 52% E 42% 29% 41% 43% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 36% 14% 41% B 57% B E 32% 42% B 37% Page 135 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 10 Table 7: Utilities Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 89% F 76% 72% 84% F 71% 58% 74% Affordable high-speed internet access 10% 56% A 38% A 55% A 38% A 78% A C E 45% Garbage collection 77% 77% 83% 83% 96% A B 96% 86% Drinking water 67% 88% E 90% A E 86% 69% 90% A E 82% Sewer services 68% 93% A E 90% A E 84% 69% 78% 81% Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 41% 73% A 84% A E 91% A E 54% 75% A 71% Utility billing 11% 87% A D E F 77% A D E F 42% A 59% A F 21% 54% Table 8: Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 45% 33% 75% A B 62% B 78% A B 77% A B 64% Police/Sheriff services 69% 49% 79% B F 82% B F 93% A B F 52% 73% Crime prevention 62% 49% 76% B F 58% 63% 43% 61% Animal control 10% 82% A D E F 72% A D F 34% 57% A F 25% 53% Page 136 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 11 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Ambulance or emergency medical services 56% 99% A D F 89% A 74% 86% A 74% 82% Fire services 57% 99% A D 90% A 76% 88% A 85% A 85% Fire prevention and education 66% 78% 76% E 68% 50% 81% E 69% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 30% 43% 63% A D 19% 40% 44% 43% In your neighborhood during the day 77% 78% 94% A B 93% A 94% A B 96% A B 90% In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 97% B C D E F 55% 65% 65% 69% F 45% 66% From property crime 70% F 74% F 66% F 68% F 76% F 25% 65% From violent crime 47% 68% 61% 69% 71% 47% 62% From fire, flood or other natural disaster 77% 83% 91% 95% A 88% 91% 88% Table 9: Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 66% 41% 55% 56% 73% B 83% B C D 61% Cleanliness of Pasco 45% 23% 67% B E F 53% B 38% 39% 47% Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 38% 63% 61% 63% 68% A 71% A 62% Page 137 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 12 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Air quality 45% 89% A C 63% 70% A 82% A C 71% A 71% Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) 67% B 22% 43% 72% B C E F 44% 43% 49% Pasco open space 67% C 64% C 38% 66% C 58% 42% 54% Recycling 1% 54% A C D F 20% 11% 39% A C D F 10% 24% Yard waste pick-up 41% 27% 62% B 67% B F 78% A B F 39% 55% Table 10: Parks and Recreation Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 62% 39% 64% B 63% 72% B F 44% 59% Availability of paths and walking trails 3% 38% A 61% A B 62% A B 81% A B C 73% A B 57% City parks 39% 73% A D 64% A 46% 59% 52% 57% Recreational opportunities 14% 25% 45% A 65% A B 43% A 43% 43% Recreation programs or classes 38% 31% 47% 58% 51% 33% 44% Recreation centers or facilities 30% 24% 42% F 22% 51% B D F 16% 32% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 3% 50% A 55% A 77% A B C F 69% A F 43% A 53% Page 138 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 13 Table 11: Health and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, excellent/very good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 37% 41% 45% 62% 42% 44% 46% Health services 38% 25% 52% B 77% A B C E 41% 71% A B E 51% Availability of affordable quality health care 9% 54% A 53% A 61% A 54% A 71% A 52% Availability of preventive health services 11% 63% A 53% A 57% A 56% A 72% A 53% Availability of affordable quality mental health care 8% 31% 25% 21% 47% A D 42% A 29% Availability of affordable quality food 39% 59% 72% A F 72% A 85% A B F 48% 66% Would you say that in general your health is: 69% 63% 80% D F 60% 72% 56% 68% Table 12: Education, Arts, and Culture Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 37% 37% 46% 56% 55% 47% 47% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 60% B D E F 34% 40% F 20% 29% 13% 33% Community support for the arts 38% 29% 42% F 22% 32% 11% 30% Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 9% 28% 38% A 35% 46% A F 13% 30% K-12 education 12% 65% A F 54% A F 71% A F 80% A C F 13% 54% Adult educational opportunities 51% 69% C F 39% 53% 58% 38% 51% Page 139 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 14 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 60% F 44% 54% F 43% 51% F 20% 47% Public library services 75% F 95% C F 72% F 77% F 79% F 49% 75% Table 13: Inclusivity and Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Residents' connection and engagement with their community 32% 17% 51% B F 34% 32% 16% 33% Sense of community 34% 24% 56% B 35% 51% B 42% 43% Sense of civic/community pride 8% 50% A F 33% A 32% 40% A F 12% 31% Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 37% 54% D 42% 26% 68% A C D 67% A C D 49% Pasco as a place to raise children 39% 90% A F 78% A F 77% A F 82% A F 53% 73% Pasco as a place to retire 17% 45% A 69% A B 68% A 55% A 50% A 54% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 38% 34% 39% 61% B 72% A B C F 46% 49% Making all residents feel welcome 63% 86% E F 71% E F 65% 46% 46% 63% Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 40% 34% 64% A B F 80% A B E F 53% 29% 54% Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 46% 81% A F 62% 83% A C F 79% A F 45% 67% Page 140 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 15 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 11% 32% 56% A B F 58% A B F 62% A B F 26% 44% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 60% E 37% 45% 35% 22% 54% E 42% Opportunities to volunteer 67% E 49% 52% 56% 33% 84% B C E 55% Opportunities to participate in community matters 38% 18% 44% B 47% B 27% 30% 34% Table 14: Participation Percent rating positively (e.g., yes in the last 12 months) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information 38% 50% F 54% D F 32% 58% D F 16% 44% Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion 3% 22% A D E F 14% D 1% 8% 1% 9% Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 26% 20% 22% 15% 14% 38% D E 22% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 26% 40% D 26% 10% 22% 40% D 26% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 8% 45% A E 37% A 29% 19% 50% A E 31% Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate 2% 21% 14% 14% 9% 37% A C D E 15% Voted in your most recent local election 65% B 20% 80% B 89% A B E F 68% B 63% B 68% Page 141 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 16 Table 15: Online Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., at least once every few weeks) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer 98% C 84% 81% 98% B C 99% B C 96% C 92% Access the internet from your cell phone 99% D 90% 88% 80% 96% D 93% 90% Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 91% 88% 76% 89% 74% 90% 83% Use or check email 93% 91% 97% 94% 90% 93% 93% Share your opinions online 60% C E 33% 32% 59% B C E 34% 55% 43% Shop online 74% 92% F 76% 89% F 79% 65% 80% Table 16: Community Focus Areas Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall economic health of Pasco 71% 97% A 96% A 91% A 94% A 99% A 92% Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 69% 80% 77% 67% 70% 93% D E 75% Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 71% 93% A D 94% A D 70% 95% A D 95% A D 87% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 100% C 93% C 80% 95% C 96% C 96% C 92% Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 99% 93% 89% 95% 95% 98% 94% Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 99% E 93% 86% 85% 79% 97% E 88% Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 98% E 96% E 89% 91% 81% 96% E 91% Page 142 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 17 Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 100% D E 93% D 91% D E 67% 77% 95% D E 86% Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 70% 96% A 87% 91% A 82% 90% A 86% Residents' connection and engagement with their community 99% D E F 80% 80% 70% 68% 66% 76% Table 17: Cultural Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good). City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Opportunities for cultural enrichment 36% 38% 41% 32% 35% 18% 35% Table 18: Public Art Projects Percent rating positively (e.g., support/somewhat support) City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? 76% 98% C E 69% 90% C E 64% 89% C E 78% Page 143 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Geographic Subgroup Report 18 Table 19: Affordable Housing The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? (Percent strongly support/somewhat support). City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households (lower price points) 100% C E 82% E 73% 89% E 57% 85% E 78% Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 98% C E F 70% E 66% E 74% E 41% 56% 65% Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 90% C E 80% C E 47% 68% C E 33% 82% C E 61% Let the market decide 48% 47% 59% 40% 86% A B C D F 56% 57% Table 20: Downtown Engagement How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often? (Percent very likely/somewhat likely). City Council District Overall District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 (A) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) More cultural opportunities 98% C D E 90% D E 75% E 69% 55% 91% D E 77% More unique dining opportunities 71% 97% A E 97% A E 88% E 64% 91% A E 85% More national chain restaurants 97% C D E 92% C D E 68% E 54% 49% 88% D E 71% More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee café, dry cleaner, etc.) 56% 51% 75% B E 68% 52% 67% 63% More children/youth opportunities 96% B C D E F 68% 66% 51% 58% 69% 66% Page 144 of 252 National Research Center, Inc. International City/County Management Asssociation 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 2019 Page 145 of 252 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2020 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 the Open Participation Online Survey ..................................................................................... 1 Complete Survey Responses to Online Open Participation Survey ...................................................... 3 Page 146 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 1 About the Open Participation Online Survey As part of its participation in The National Community Survey™, the City of Pasco conducted a mailed survey of 1,700 residents. Surveys were mailed to randomly selected households in December 2019 and data were collected through February 7, 2020 (see the report, The National Community Survey: Community Livability Report, Pasco, WA, 2020). The results from this main survey effort represent the most robust estimate of your residents’ opinions. After the above data collection period was underway, 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 starting January 10 and 289 surveys were received. This report contains the results of this opt-in administration of the web-based survey. These data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the community was aware of link on the City’s website; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were weighted to match the demographic characteristics of the 2010 Census and 2017 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Pasco. Page 147 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 2 The results of the weighting scheme for the opt-in survey are presented in the following table. Table 1: Pasco, WA 2020 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 30% 10% 30% Own home 70% 90% 70% Detached unit* 79% 93% 81% Attached unit* 21% 7% 19% Race and Ethnicity White 60% 82% 63% Not white 40% 18% 37% Not Hispanic 51% 84% 55% Hispanic 49% 16% 45% Sex and Age Female 50% 54% 47% Male 50% 46% 53% 18-34 years of age 43% 25% 43% 35-54 years of age 35% 48% 34% 55+ years of age 22% 27% 23% Females 18-34 21% 10% 22% Females 35-54 17% 30% 16% Females 55+ 11% 14% 10% Males 18-34 22% 15% 25% Males 35-54 18% 21% 18% Males 55+ 11% 10% 9% Area District 1 11% 6% 10% District 2 14% 6% 15% District 3 24% 27% 24% District 4 20% 24% 22% District 5 19% 35% 20% District 6 12% 2% 10% * U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2017 5-year estimates Page 148 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 3 Complete Survey Responses to Online Open Participation Survey The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. For questions that included a “don’t know” response option, two tables for that question are provided: the first that excludes the “don’t know” responses, and the second that includes those responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 2: Question 1 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Pasco as a place to live 16% N=47 54% N=153 28% N=79 2% N=6 100% N=285 Your neighborhood as a place to live 27% N=70 42% N=110 29% N=75 2% N=6 100% N=261 Pasco as a place to raise children 15% N=38 48% N=120 31% N=78 5% N=12 100% N=249 Pasco as a place to work 15% N=30 49% N=100 26% N=54 9% N=19 100% N=203 Pasco as a place to visit 12% N=29 24% N=60 41% N=104 24% N=60 100% N=253 Pasco as a place to retire 14% N=29 50% N=106 25% N=53 11% N=22 100% N=210 The overall quality of life in Pasco 14% N=36 50% N=130 33% N=86 3% N=9 100% N=260 Sense of community 15% N=37 31% N=78 28% N=70 26% N=64 100% N=249 Page 149 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 4 Table 3: Question 1 with "don't know" responses 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 16% N=47 54% N=153 28% N=79 2% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=285 Your neighborhood as a place to live 27% N=70 42% N=110 29% N=75 2% N=6 0% N=0 100% N=261 Pasco as a place to raise children 15% N=38 46% N=120 30% N=78 5% N=12 5% N=12 100% N=260 Pasco as a place to work 12% N=30 39% N=100 21% N=54 7% N=19 22% N=57 100% N=260 Pasco as a place to visit 11% N=29 23% N=60 40% N=104 23% N=60 3% N=7 100% N=260 Pasco as a place to retire 11% N=29 41% N=106 20% N=53 9% N=22 19% N=50 100% N=260 The overall quality of life in Pasco 14% N=36 50% N=130 33% N=86 3% N=9 0% N=0 100% N=260 Sense of community 15% N=37 30% N=78 27% N=70 25% N=64 3% N=7 100% N=257 Table 4: Question 2 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall economic health of Pasco 8% N=21 50% N=130 31% N=81 10% N=27 100% N=258 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 7% N=18 34% N=84 41% N=101 18% N=45 100% N=247 Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 4% N=10 26% N=64 41% N=101 29% N=70 100% N=246 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 9% N=21 62% N=148 23% N=54 7% N=16 100% N=240 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 17% N=43 40% N=100 30% N=75 12% N=31 100% N=250 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 11% N=26 37% N=92 37% N=92 15% N=37 100% N=248 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 14% N=35 35% N=86 39% N=97 12% N=29 100% N=246 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 8% N=19 40% N=93 41% N=97 11% N=25 100% N=235 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 3% N=8 40% N=95 36% N=84 20% N=48 100% N=236 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 9% N=21 20% N=48 39% N=94 32% N=77 100% N=239 Page 150 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 5 Table 5: Question 2 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall economic health of Pasco 8% N=21 49% N=130 30% N=81 10% N=27 3% N=9 100% N=267 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 7% N=18 33% N=84 40% N=101 18% N=45 2% N=5 100% N=252 Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 4% N=10 26% N=64 41% N=101 28% N=70 1% N=3 100% N=249 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 8% N=21 59% N=148 22% N=54 6% N=16 4% N=10 100% N=250 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 17% N=43 40% N=100 30% N=75 12% N=31 0% N=0 100% N=250 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 10% N=26 37% N=92 37% N=92 15% N=37 1% N=2 100% N=250 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 14% N=35 34% N=86 39% N=97 12% N=29 2% N=4 100% N=250 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 8% N=19 37% N=93 39% N=97 10% N=25 6% N=16 100% N=250 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 3% N=8 38% N=95 34% N=84 20% N=48 5% N=11 100% N=247 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 8% N=21 19% N=48 38% N=94 31% N=77 4% N=9 100% N=248 Table 6: Question 3 without "don't know" responses 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 28% N=73 47% N=123 18% N=48 8% N=20 100% N=264 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 57% N=141 23% N=57 10% N=25 10% N=24 100% N=247 Table 7: Question 3 with "don't know" responses 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 28% N=73 47% N=123 18% N=48 8% N=20 0% N=0 100% N=265 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 56% N=141 23% N=57 10% N=25 9% N=24 1% N=3 100% N=250 Page 151 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 6 Table 8: Question 4 without "don't know" responses 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 52% N=130 35% N=87 8% N=20 4% N=11 0% N=1 100% N=249 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 21% N=52 33% N=81 16% N=39 22% N=53 8% N=21 100% N=245 From property crime 15% N=36 43% N=103 14% N=33 25% N=61 4% N=9 100% N=242 From violent crime 29% N=70 40% N=99 11% N=26 17% N=42 3% N=7 100% N=244 From fire, flood or other natural disaster 58% N=142 30% N=72 8% N=20 4% N=10 0% N=0 100% N=245 Table 9: Question 4 with "don't know" responses 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 52% N=130 35% N=87 8% N=20 4% N=11 0% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=249 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 21% N=52 32% N=81 15% N=39 21% N=53 8% N=21 2% N=5 100% N=250 From property crime 15% N=36 42% N=103 13% N=33 25% N=61 3% N=9 2% N=5 100% N=247 From violent crime 28% N=70 40% N=99 10% N=26 17% N=42 3% N=7 2% N=5 100% N=250 From fire, flood or other natural disaster 57% N=142 29% N=72 8% N=20 4% N=10 0% N=0 2% N=5 100% N=250 Page 152 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 7 Table 10: Question 5 without "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Pasco community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Making all residents feel welcome 10% N=24 43% N=99 28% N=65 19% N=43 100% N=231 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 13% N=29 47% N=105 19% N=42 22% N=49 100% N=225 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 10% N=21 43% N=97 29% N=65 18% N=39 100% N=222 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 1% N=3 24% N=47 43% N=84 31% N=60 100% N=193 Table 11: Question 5 with "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Pasco community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Making all residents feel welcome 10% N=24 40% N=99 27% N=65 18% N=43 5% N=13 100% N=245 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 12% N=29 45% N=105 18% N=42 21% N=49 4% N=9 100% N=234 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 9% N=21 41% N=97 28% N=65 17% N=39 5% N=12 100% N=234 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 1% N=3 20% N=47 36% N=84 25% N=60 18% N=42 100% N=235 Table 12: Question 6 without "don't know" responses 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 4% N=9 39% N=91 47% N=111 10% N=24 100% N=235 Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco 7% N=16 33% N=77 35% N=83 25% N=58 100% N=234 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 0% N=1 18% N=41 36% N=82 45% N=101 100% N=225 Employment opportunities 5% N=11 39% N=78 40% N=79 15% N=31 100% N=199 Shopping opportunities 1% N=2 22% N=52 43% N=101 33% N=78 100% N=233 Cost of living in Pasco 12% N=27 32% N=75 41% N=95 15% N=36 100% N=233 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 1% N=3 36% N=84 37% N=85 26% N=62 100% N=234 Page 153 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 8 Table 13: Question 6 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 4% N=9 39% N=91 47% N=111 10% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=235 Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco 7% N=16 33% N=77 35% N=83 25% N=58 0% N=0 100% N=234 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 0% N=1 18% N=41 35% N=82 43% N=101 4% N=10 100% N=234 Employment opportunities 5% N=11 34% N=78 34% N=79 13% N=31 15% N=35 100% N=234 Shopping opportunities 1% N=2 22% N=52 43% N=101 33% N=78 0% N=0 100% N=233 Cost of living in Pasco 12% N=27 32% N=75 41% N=95 15% N=36 0% N=1 100% N=234 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 1% N=3 36% N=84 36% N=85 26% N=62 0% N=0 100% N=234 Table 14: Question 7 without "don't know" responses 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 2% N=4 24% N=56 41% N=94 33% N=77 100% N=232 Ease of public parking 15% N=33 42% N=91 34% N=75 9% N=20 100% N=219 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 15% N=33 38% N=83 36% N=80 11% N=24 100% N=220 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 14% N=16 24% N=27 39% N=45 22% N=25 100% N=113 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 3% N=3 25% N=31 43% N=54 29% N=37 100% N=125 Ease of walking in Pasco 6% N=12 42% N=84 33% N=65 19% N=38 100% N=198 Well-planned residential growth 2% N=5 15% N=31 38% N=80 44% N=91 100% N=208 Well-planned commercial growth 2% N=4 24% N=43 32% N=58 42% N=77 100% N=182 Well-designed neighborhoods 3% N=6 28% N=60 47% N=101 23% N=49 100% N=216 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 2% N=4 35% N=60 35% N=60 27% N=47 100% N=170 Public places where people want to spend time 5% N=11 20% N=41 39% N=82 36% N=77 100% N=211 Variety of housing options 3% N=5 26% N=56 47% N=101 24% N=52 100% N=215 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=4 29% N=62 36% N=77 33% N=69 100% N=212 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 4% N=9 44% N=92 34% N=71 18% N=37 100% N=209 Overall appearance of Pasco 2% N=4 36% N=79 50% N=110 12% N=27 100% N=220 Page 154 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 9 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Cleanliness of Pasco 5% N=11 45% N=99 37% N=82 13% N=28 100% N=219 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 16% N=33 36% N=74 27% N=55 21% N=43 100% N=206 Air quality 10% N=22 60% N=132 26% N=58 3% N=7 100% N=219 Availability of paths and walking trails 13% N=26 40% N=82 35% N=70 12% N=24 100% N=202 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 18% N=37 35% N=74 30% N=63 17% N=36 100% N=210 Recreational opportunities 9% N=17 43% N=86 26% N=51 22% N=44 100% N=198 Availability of affordable quality food 8% N=17 39% N=82 40% N=85 13% N=28 100% N=213 Availability of affordable quality health care 4% N=10 44% N=94 39% N=84 13% N=27 100% N=215 Availability of preventive health services 5% N=10 46% N=89 29% N=57 19% N=37 100% N=194 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 0% N=0 18% N=21 27% N=32 54% N=64 100% N=118 Opportunities for cultural enrichment 1% N=3 40% N=75 37% N=69 21% N=39 100% N=185 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 6% N=11 26% N=53 40% N=80 28% N=56 100% N=201 Community support for the arts 5% N=9 26% N=47 35% N=63 34% N=62 100% N=181 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 1% N=1 24% N=23 48% N=46 28% N=26 100% N=96 K-12 education 10% N=17 35% N=55 43% N=68 11% N=18 100% N=158 Adult educational opportunities 11% N=20 33% N=59 34% N=61 21% N=38 100% N=178 Sense of civic/community pride 3% N=5 34% N=66 33% N=64 30% N=60 100% N=195 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 8% N=16 39% N=83 34% N=72 18% N=38 100% N=209 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 6% N=12 32% N=65 37% N=74 26% N=52 100% N=204 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 8% N=17 34% N=68 37% N=75 21% N=42 100% N=202 Opportunities to volunteer 7% N=13 53% N=91 27% N=46 13% N=23 100% N=172 Opportunities to participate in community matters 6% N=10 35% N=64 35% N=63 24% N=42 100% N=180 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 9% N=19 45% N=92 23% N=48 22% N=46 100% N=205 Page 155 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 10 Table 15: Question 7 with "don't know" responses 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 2% N=4 24% N=56 41% N=94 33% N=77 0% N=0 100% N=232 Ease of public parking 15% N=33 41% N=91 34% N=75 9% N=20 1% N=2 100% N=221 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 15% N=33 38% N=83 36% N=80 11% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=220 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 7% N=16 12% N=27 20% N=45 11% N=25 49% N=108 100% N=221 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 1% N=3 14% N=31 25% N=54 17% N=37 43% N=96 100% N=221 Ease of walking in Pasco 5% N=12 38% N=84 29% N=65 17% N=38 10% N=23 100% N=221 Well-planned residential growth 2% N=5 14% N=31 36% N=80 41% N=91 6% N=14 100% N=221 Well-planned commercial growth 2% N=4 19% N=43 26% N=58 35% N=77 18% N=39 100% N=221 Well-designed neighborhoods 3% N=6 27% N=60 46% N=101 22% N=49 2% N=5 100% N=221 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 2% N=4 27% N=60 27% N=60 21% N=47 23% N=51 100% N=221 Public places where people want to spend time 5% N=11 19% N=41 37% N=82 35% N=77 5% N=10 100% N=221 Variety of housing options 2% N=5 25% N=56 46% N=101 24% N=52 3% N=6 100% N=221 Availability of affordable quality housing 2% N=4 28% N=62 35% N=77 31% N=69 4% N=9 100% N=220 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 4% N=9 42% N=92 32% N=71 17% N=37 5% N=12 100% N=221 Overall appearance of Pasco 2% N=4 36% N=79 50% N=110 12% N=27 0% N=1 100% N=221 Cleanliness of Pasco 5% N=11 45% N=99 37% N=82 13% N=28 1% N=2 100% N=221 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 15% N=33 34% N=74 25% N=55 20% N=43 6% N=13 100% N=219 Air quality 10% N=22 60% N=132 26% N=58 3% N=7 1% N=1 100% N=220 Availability of paths and walking trails 12% N=26 37% N=82 32% N=70 11% N=24 9% N=19 100% N=221 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 17% N=37 33% N=74 29% N=63 16% N=36 5% N=12 100% N=221 Recreational opportunities 8% N=17 39% N=86 23% N=51 20% N=44 9% N=21 100% N=219 Availability of affordable quality food 8% N=17 37% N=82 39% N=85 13% N=28 4% N=8 100% N=220 Availability of affordable quality health care 4% N=10 43% N=94 38% N=84 12% N=27 2% N=5 100% N=220 Page 156 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 11 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 preventive health services 5% N=10 41% N=89 26% N=57 17% N=37 11% N=25 100% N=219 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 0% N=0 10% N=21 15% N=32 29% N=64 46% N=101 100% N=219 Opportunities for cultural enrichment 1% N=3 34% N=75 31% N=69 18% N=39 15% N=34 100% N=219 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 5% N=11 24% N=53 37% N=80 26% N=56 8% N=18 100% N=219 Community support for the arts 4% N=9 21% N=47 29% N=63 28% N=62 17% N=38 100% N=219 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 0% N=1 10% N=23 21% N=46 12% N=26 56% N=124 100% N=220 K-12 education 8% N=17 25% N=55 32% N=68 8% N=18 27% N=59 100% N=217 Adult educational opportunities 9% N=20 27% N=59 28% N=61 17% N=38 19% N=41 100% N=219 Sense of civic/community pride 3% N=5 30% N=66 29% N=64 27% N=60 11% N=23 100% N=219 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 7% N=16 38% N=83 33% N=72 17% N=38 4% N=9 100% N=219 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 5% N=12 30% N=65 34% N=74 24% N=52 7% N=15 100% N=219 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 8% N=17 31% N=68 34% N=75 19% N=42 8% N=17 100% N=219 Opportunities to volunteer 6% N=13 42% N=91 21% N=46 10% N=23 21% N=47 100% N=219 Opportunities to participate in community matters 5% N=10 29% N=64 29% N=63 19% N=42 18% N=39 100% N=219 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 9% N=19 42% N=92 22% N=48 21% N=46 6% N=13 100% N=219 Page 157 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 12 Table 16: Question 8 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information 54% N=120 46% N=104 100% N=224 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion 77% N=172 23% N=52 100% N=224 Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 70% N=156 30% N=67 100% N=224 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 63% N=140 37% N=84 100% N=224 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 59% N=132 41% N=92 100% N=224 Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate 68% N=152 32% N=71 100% N=223 Voted in your most recent local election 19% N=42 81% N=182 100% N=224 Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 76% N=170 24% N=54 100% N=224 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 48% N=107 52% N=117 100% N=224 Walked or biked instead of driving 56% N=124 44% N=99 100% N=224 Table 17: Question 9 without "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Public information services 4% N=8 37% N=68 40% N=75 19% N=36 100% N=187 Economic development 2% N=3 37% N=67 38% N=70 23% N=42 100% N=182 Traffic enforcement 11% N=22 42% N=82 32% N=62 14% N=28 100% N=193 Traffic signal timing 8% N=16 43% N=86 35% N=70 14% N=29 100% N=202 Street repair 2% N=3 51% N=98 35% N=68 12% N=23 100% N=192 Street cleaning 17% N=33 43% N=87 29% N=59 10% N=21 100% N=200 Street lighting 7% N=14 46% N=95 27% N=55 20% N=41 100% N=204 Snow removal 7% N=13 43% N=85 23% N=46 27% N=52 100% N=196 Sidewalk maintenance 3% N=6 40% N=75 36% N=67 20% N=36 100% N=185 Bus or transit services 13% N=16 45% N=56 31% N=39 11% N=14 100% N=124 Land use, planning, and zoning 1% N=1 24% N=41 42% N=72 34% N=59 100% N=173 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 6% N=11 19% N=34 36% N=64 38% N=67 100% N=177 Page 158 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 13 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Affordable high-speed internet access 5% N=10 34% N=67 29% N=57 33% N=65 100% N=199 Garbage collection 47% N=97 33% N=69 17% N=35 3% N=7 100% N=208 Drinking water 22% N=45 47% N=96 22% N=45 9% N=19 100% N=205 Sewer services 31% N=59 52% N=101 16% N=31 2% N=3 100% N=194 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 27% N=53 54% N=103 17% N=32 2% N=4 100% N=192 Utility billing 16% N=31 47% N=93 25% N=50 13% N=25 100% N=199 Police/Sheriff services 41% N=77 35% N=65 18% N=33 6% N=11 100% N=187 Crime prevention 13% N=25 53% N=103 22% N=43 13% N=24 100% N=195 Animal control 6% N=11 44% N=82 37% N=69 13% N=24 100% N=187 Ambulance or emergency medical services 37% N=59 43% N=68 18% N=28 2% N=3 100% N=157 Fire services 44% N=72 42% N=68 14% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=164 Fire prevention and education 27% N=43 39% N=61 23% N=35 11% N=17 100% N=156 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 3% N=5 34% N=52 32% N=49 31% N=47 100% N=153 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) 3% N=5 31% N=51 35% N=58 31% N=52 100% N=166 Pasco open space 2% N=4 28% N=48 40% N=67 30% N=51 100% N=170 Recycling 1% N=2 20% N=38 25% N=48 54% N=102 100% N=190 Yard waste pick-up 23% N=40 32% N=57 30% N=54 15% N=27 100% N=178 City parks 20% N=40 42% N=83 28% N=55 10% N=19 100% N=197 Recreation programs or classes 4% N=6 44% N=70 37% N=59 15% N=23 100% N=158 Recreation centers or facilities 4% N=6 29% N=47 45% N=73 22% N=36 100% N=162 Health services 3% N=5 48% N=90 41% N=76 9% N=16 100% N=186 Public library services 28% N=51 54% N=96 14% N=25 4% N=7 100% N=180 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 22% N=39 43% N=76 25% N=45 10% N=18 100% N=178 Page 159 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 14 Table 18: Question 9 with "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Public information services 4% N=8 33% N=68 36% N=75 17% N=36 11% N=22 100% N=210 Economic development 2% N=3 34% N=67 35% N=70 21% N=42 9% N=17 100% N=200 Traffic enforcement 10% N=22 39% N=82 30% N=62 13% N=28 7% N=15 100% N=208 Traffic signal timing 8% N=16 41% N=86 34% N=70 14% N=29 3% N=6 100% N=208 Street repair 1% N=3 47% N=98 33% N=68 11% N=23 7% N=16 100% N=208 Street cleaning 16% N=33 42% N=87 28% N=59 10% N=21 4% N=9 100% N=208 Street lighting 7% N=14 45% N=95 26% N=55 20% N=41 2% N=4 100% N=208 Snow removal 6% N=13 41% N=85 22% N=46 25% N=52 6% N=12 100% N=208 Sidewalk maintenance 3% N=6 36% N=75 32% N=67 17% N=36 11% N=23 100% N=208 Bus or transit services 8% N=16 27% N=56 19% N=39 7% N=14 40% N=84 100% N=208 Land use, planning, and zoning 1% N=1 20% N=41 35% N=72 28% N=59 17% N=35 100% N=208 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 5% N=11 16% N=34 31% N=64 32% N=67 15% N=31 100% N=208 Affordable high-speed internet access 5% N=10 32% N=67 28% N=57 31% N=65 4% N=9 100% N=208 Garbage collection 47% N=97 33% N=69 17% N=35 3% N=7 0% N=1 100% N=208 Drinking water 22% N=45 46% N=96 22% N=45 9% N=19 1% N=2 100% N=208 Sewer services 29% N=59 49% N=101 15% N=31 2% N=3 6% N=13 100% N=207 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 25% N=53 50% N=103 16% N=32 2% N=4 8% N=16 100% N=207 Utility billing 15% N=31 45% N=93 24% N=50 12% N=25 4% N=9 100% N=208 Police/Sheriff services 37% N=77 31% N=65 16% N=33 5% N=11 10% N=21 100% N=208 Crime prevention 12% N=25 50% N=103 21% N=43 12% N=24 6% N=12 100% N=207 Animal control 5% N=11 39% N=82 33% N=69 12% N=24 10% N=22 100% N=208 Ambulance or emergency medical services 28% N=59 33% N=68 14% N=28 1% N=3 24% N=50 100% N=207 Fire services 35% N=72 33% N=68 11% N=24 0% N=0 21% N=44 100% N=207 Fire prevention and education 21% N=43 30% N=61 17% N=35 8% N=17 25% N=51 100% N=207 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 2% N=5 25% N=52 24% N=49 23% N=47 26% N=55 100% N=208 Page 160 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 15 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) 2% N=5 24% N=51 28% N=58 25% N=52 20% N=42 100% N=208 Pasco open space 2% N=4 23% N=48 33% N=67 24% N=51 18% N=37 100% N=207 Recycling 1% N=2 18% N=38 23% N=48 49% N=102 9% N=18 100% N=208 Yard waste pick-up 19% N=40 27% N=57 26% N=54 13% N=27 15% N=30 100% N=208 City parks 19% N=40 40% N=83 27% N=55 9% N=19 5% N=11 100% N=208 Recreation programs or classes 3% N=6 34% N=70 28% N=59 11% N=23 24% N=50 100% N=208 Recreation centers or facilities 3% N=6 23% N=47 35% N=73 17% N=36 22% N=47 100% N=208 Health services 2% N=5 43% N=90 36% N=76 8% N=16 11% N=22 100% N=208 Public library services 24% N=51 46% N=96 12% N=25 4% N=7 13% N=28 100% N=208 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 19% N=39 37% N=76 22% N=45 9% N=18 14% N=30 100% N=208 Table 19: Question 10 without "don't know" responses Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 7% N=13 45% N=85 32% N=60 16% N=30 100% N=187 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 8% N=15 41% N=74 27% N=50 24% N=43 100% N=183 The job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 6% N=9 36% N=56 38% N=60 21% N=33 100% N=158 Overall confidence in Pasco government 5% N=9 35% N=64 36% N=66 24% N=45 100% N=183 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 6% N=11 38% N=65 34% N=57 21% N=36 100% N=169 Being honest 5% N=8 46% N=72 36% N=56 13% N=20 100% N=156 Being open and transparent to the public 7% N=11 31% N=47 44% N=65 18% N=27 100% N=149 Informing residents about issues facing the community 4% N=7 20% N=34 51% N=86 25% N=43 100% N=170 Treating all residents fairly 4% N=7 46% N=75 22% N=36 27% N=45 100% N=163 Treating residents with respect 6% N=10 46% N=80 26% N=45 22% N=39 100% N=174 Page 161 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 16 Table 20: Question 10 with "don't know" responses 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 6% N=13 43% N=85 30% N=60 15% N=30 6% N=12 100% N=199 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 8% N=15 38% N=74 25% N=50 22% N=43 7% N=15 100% N=197 The job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 5% N=9 29% N=56 30% N=60 17% N=33 20% N=38 100% N=196 Overall confidence in Pasco government 5% N=9 32% N=64 33% N=66 23% N=45 7% N=14 100% N=197 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 6% N=11 33% N=65 29% N=57 18% N=36 14% N=28 100% N=196 Being honest 4% N=8 37% N=72 29% N=56 10% N=20 20% N=40 100% N=196 Being open and transparent to the public 5% N=11 24% N=47 33% N=65 14% N=27 24% N=47 100% N=196 Informing residents about issues facing the community 4% N=7 17% N=34 44% N=86 22% N=43 13% N=26 100% N=196 Treating all residents fairly 4% N=7 38% N=75 18% N=36 23% N=45 17% N=33 100% N=196 Treating residents with respect 5% N=10 41% N=80 23% N=45 20% N=39 11% N=22 100% N=196 Table 21: Question 11 without "don't know" responses 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 8% N=15 52% N=97 32% N=59 8% N=15 100% N=186 The Federal Government 4% N=7 34% N=60 42% N=73 20% N=36 100% N=175 Table 22: Question 11 with "don't know" responses 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 8% N=15 50% N=97 30% N=59 8% N=15 5% N=9 100% N=195 The Federal Government 4% N=7 31% N=60 38% N=73 19% N=36 9% N=17 100% N=192 Page 162 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 17 Table 23: Question 12 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 economic health of Pasco 38% N=74 43% N=83 19% N=36 0% N=1 100% N=193 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 21% N=39 41% N=77 37% N=69 1% N=2 100% N=187 Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 53% N=102 30% N=58 17% N=33 0% N=0 100% N=193 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 51% N=97 35% N=67 14% N=26 0% N=0 100% N=190 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 59% N=114 31% N=60 6% N=12 4% N=7 100% N=193 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 32% N=61 48% N=92 19% N=37 1% N=2 100% N=193 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 35% N=68 39% N=76 21% N=41 4% N=8 100% N=193 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 28% N=54 45% N=86 26% N=51 1% N=2 100% N=192 Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 43% N=83 32% N=62 19% N=37 6% N=11 100% N=193 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 32% N=62 37% N=72 29% N=57 1% N=2 100% N=193 Table 24: Question 13 without "don't know" responses Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? Percent Number Strongly support 41% N=77 Somewhat support 30% N=56 Somewhat oppose 12% N=23 Strongly oppose 16% N=30 Total 100% N=186 Page 163 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 18 Table 25: Question 13 with "don't know" responses Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? Percent Number Strongly support 40% N=77 Somewhat support 29% N=56 Somewhat oppose 12% N=23 Strongly oppose 16% N=30 Don't know 2% N=5 Total 100% N=191 Table 26: Question 14 without "don't know" responses The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households (lower price points) 46% N=84 32% N=58 8% N=15 14% N=25 100% N=182 Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 31% N=53 36% N=61 15% N=26 18% N=31 100% N=172 Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 35% N=63 32% N=58 13% N=24 20% N=36 100% N=181 Let the market decide 20% N=35 32% N=53 29% N=49 19% N=32 100% N=169 Table 27: Question 14 with "don't know" responses The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households (lower price points) 45% N=84 31% N=58 8% N=15 13% N=25 2% N=5 100% N=187 Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 29% N=53 33% N=61 14% N=26 17% N=31 8% N=15 100% N=187 Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 33% N=63 31% N=58 13% N=24 19% N=36 3% N=6 100% N=187 Let the market decide 18% N=35 29% N=53 26% N=49 17% N=32 10% N=18 100% N=187 Page 164 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 19 Table 28: Question 15 How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often? Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely Total More cultural opportunities 45% N=82 30% N=55 25% N=47 100% N=184 More unique dining opportunities 63% N=117 27% N=49 10% N=19 100% N=185 More national chain restaurants 34% N=62 38% N=69 29% N=53 100% N=184 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee café, dry cleaner, etc.) 38% N=71 36% N=66 26% N=49 100% N=185 More children/youth opportunities 44% N=82 24% N=45 31% N=58 100% N=184 Table 29: Question D1 without "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer 77% N=147 6% N=12 12% N=22 3% N=5 2% N=4 100% N=190 Access the internet from your cell phone 93% N=176 1% N=2 3% N=6 2% N=4 1% N=1 100% N=189 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 72% N=136 6% N=12 5% N=9 4% N=8 13% N=24 100% N=189 Use or check email 79% N=147 14% N=26 6% N=12 0% N=0 1% N=2 100% N=188 Share your opinions online 20% N=36 7% N=13 33% N=61 12% N=22 28% N=52 100% N=183 Shop online 13% N=25 10% N=20 30% N=57 35% N=65 12% N=22 100% N=189 Page 165 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 20 Table 30: Question D1 with "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Don't know Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer 77% N=147 6% N=12 12% N=22 3% N=5 2% N=4 0% N=0 100% N=190 Access the internet from your cell phone 93% N=176 1% N=2 3% N=6 2% N=4 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=189 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 72% N=136 6% N=12 5% N=9 4% N=8 13% N=24 0% N=0 100% N=189 Use or check email 79% N=147 14% N=26 6% N=12 0% N=0 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=188 Share your opinions online 19% N=36 7% N=13 32% N=61 12% N=22 28% N=52 3% N=5 100% N=187 Shop online 13% N=25 10% N=20 30% N=57 35% N=65 12% N=22 0% N=1 100% N=189 Table 31: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 16% N=31 Very good 42% N=80 Good 29% N=55 Fair 11% N=21 Poor 0% N=1 Total 100% N=188 Table 32: 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 b e: Percent Number Very positive 18% N=32 Somewhat positive 29% N=51 Neutral 38% N=68 Somewhat negative 15% N=27 Very negative 0% N=0 Total 100% N=177 Page 166 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 21 Table 33: Question D4 How many years have you lived in Pasco? Percent Number Less than 2 years 8% N=15 2 to 5 years 16% N=30 6 to 10 years 17% N=31 11 to 20 years 24% N=44 More than 20 years 35% N=65 Total 100% N=185 Table 34: Question D5 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 80% N=186 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 19% N=44 Mobile home 1% N=3 Other 0% N=1 Total 100% N=233 Table 35: Question D6 Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number Rent 30% N=69 Own 70% N=164 Total 100% N=232 Page 167 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 22 Table 36: Question D7 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 $500 per month 5% N=8 $500 to $999 per month 19% N=31 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 35% N=58 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 27% N=46 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 12% N=20 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 1% N=2 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 0% N=0 $3,500 or more per month 2% N=3 Total 100% N=167 Table 37: Question D8 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 60% N=90 Yes 40% N=61 Total 100% N=151 Table 38: Question D9 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 72% N=136 Yes 28% N=52 Total 100% N=189 Page 168 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 23 Table 39: Question D10 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 3% N=5 $25,000 to $49,999 17% N=31 $50,000 to $74,999 21% N=38 $75,000 to $99,999 31% N=57 $100,000 to $149,999 17% N=32 $150,000 or more 11% N=19 Total 100% N=182 Table 40: Question D11 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 55% N=101 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 45% N=84 Total 100% N=185 Table 41: Question D12 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=2 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% N=3 Black or African American 1% N=1 White 67% N=115 Other 34% N=57 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Page 169 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Supplemental Online Survey Report 24 Table 42: Question D13 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 7% N=20 25 to 34 years 36% N=102 35 to 44 years 19% N=55 45 to 54 years 15% N=42 55 to 64 years 12% N=33 65 to 74 years 11% N=31 75 years or older 1% N=3 Total 100% N=287 Table 43: Question D14 What is your gender? Percent Number Female 47% N=109 Male 52% N=122 Identify in another way 0% N=1 Total 100% N=232 Table 44: Council District Council District Percent Number District 1 10% N=30 District 2 15% N=43 District 3 24% N=68 District 4 22% N=63 District 5 20% N=58 District 6 10% N=28 Total 100% N=289 Page 170 of 252 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 2019 Page 171 of 252 The National Community Survey™ © 2001-2020 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 ....................................................... 3 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons ........................................................... 21 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods .......................................................... 32 Appendix D: Survey Materials ....................................................................... 38 Page 172 of 252 3 Appendix A: Complete Survey Responses The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. For questions that included a “don’t know” response option, two tables for that question are provided: the first that excludes the “don’t know” responses, and the second that includes those responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with “N=”). Table 1: Question 1 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Pasco: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Pasco as a place to live 22% N=46 63% N=130 14% N=28 1% N=2 100% N=206 Your neighborhood as a place to live 30% N=61 48% N=99 17% N=36 5% N=10 100% N=206 Pasco as a place to raise children 21% N=42 51% N=102 22% N=43 6% N=11 100% N=198 Pasco as a place to work 14% N=26 42% N=80 39% N=74 6% N=11 100% N=191 Pasco as a place to visit 8% N=17 25% N=50 43% N=88 24% N=49 100% N=204 Pasco as a place to retire 16% N=31 38% N=74 28% N=54 18% N=35 100% N=194 The overall quality of life in Pasco 10% N=20 51% N=106 33% N=67 6% N=13 100% N=206 Sense of community 11% N=22 32% N=65 46% N=94 11% N=22 100% N=204 Table 2: Question 1 with "don't know" responses 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 22% N=46 63% N=130 14% N=28 1% N=2 0% N=0 100% N=206 Your neighborhood as a place to live 30% N=61 48% N=99 17% N=36 5% N=10 0% N=0 100% N=207 Pasco as a place to raise children 20% N=42 49% N=102 21% N=43 5% N=11 4% N=8 100% N=206 Pasco as a place to work 13% N=26 39% N=80 36% N=74 5% N=11 7% N=15 100% N=206 Pasco as a place to visit 8% N=17 24% N=50 43% N=88 24% N=49 1% N=2 100% N=207 Pasco as a place to retire 15% N=31 36% N=74 26% N=54 17% N=35 6% N=13 100% N=207 The overall quality of life in Pasco 10% N=20 51% N=106 33% N=67 6% N=13 0% N=1 100% N=207 Sense of community 11% N=22 32% N=65 46% N=94 11% N=22 1% N=2 100% N=206 Table 3: Question 2 without "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall economic health of Pasco 9% N=18 54% N=107 29% N=57 8% N=17 100% N=198 Page 173 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 4 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 13% N=27 44% N=90 34% N=69 9% N=19 100% N=205 Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 11% N=24 40% N=83 34% N=71 14% N=29 100% N=207 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 25% N=51 50% N=103 22% N=45 4% N=8 100% N=207 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 13% N=27 51% N=106 28% N=58 7% N=15 100% N=206 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 16% N=33 45% N=93 29% N=59 10% N=21 100% N=206 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 18% N=38 41% N=83 28% N=58 13% N=26 100% N=205 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 16% N=32 30% N=61 37% N=77 17% N=35 100% N=205 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 16% N=32 32% N=65 29% N=59 24% N=48 100% N=204 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 7% N=14 26% N=51 47% N=93 20% N=40 100% N=198 Table 4: Question 2 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall economic health of Pasco 9% N=18 52% N=107 27% N=57 8% N=17 4% N=8 100% N=207 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 13% N=27 44% N=90 33% N=69 9% N=19 1% N=2 100% N=207 Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 11% N=24 40% N=83 34% N=71 14% N=29 0% N=0 100% N=207 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 25% N=51 50% N=103 22% N=45 4% N=8 0% N=0 100% N=207 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 13% N=27 51% N=106 28% N=58 7% N=15 0% N=0 100% N=206 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 16% N=33 45% N=93 29% N=59 10% N=21 0% N=0 100% N=206 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 18% N=38 40% N=83 28% N=58 13% N=26 1% N=2 100% N=207 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 16% N=32 30% N=61 37% N=77 17% N=35 0% N=1 100% N=206 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 15% N=32 31% N=65 28% N=59 23% N=48 1% N=3 100% N=206 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 7% N=14 25% N=51 46% N=93 20% N=40 2% N=5 100% N=203 Table 5: Question 3 without "don't know" responses 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 33% N=67 45% N=94 14% N=28 8% N=17 100% N=206 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 54% N=108 27% N=54 11% N=21 8% N=15 100% N=199 Page 174 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 5 Table 6: Question 3 with "don't know" responses 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 33% N=67 45% N=94 14% N=28 8% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=206 Remain in Pasco for the next five years 52% N=108 26% N=54 10% N=21 7% N=15 4% N=8 100% N=207 Table 7: Question 4 without "don't know" responses 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 63% N=129 27% N=56 7% N=14 3% N=7 0% N=0 100% N=207 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 19% N=38 47% N=94 17% N=35 10% N=19 7% N=15 100% N=201 From property crime 19% N=39 46% N=92 17% N=35 11% N=22 7% N=15 100% N=203 From violent crime 27% N=55 35% N=70 17% N=34 15% N=31 6% N=11 100% N=201 From fire, flood or other natural disaster 61% N=123 28% N=56 8% N=17 1% N=3 2% N=4 100% N=202 Table 8: Question 4 with "don't know" responses 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 63% N=129 27% N=56 7% N=14 3% N=7 0% N=0 0% N=0 100% N=207 In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 18% N=38 46% N=94 17% N=35 9% N=19 7% N=15 3% N=5 100% N=207 From property crime 19% N=39 45% N=92 17% N=35 11% N=22 7% N=15 1% N=3 100% N=206 From violent crime 27% N=55 34% N=70 17% N=34 15% N=31 5% N=11 2% N=4 100% N=206 From fire, flood or other natural disaster 60% N=123 27% N=56 8% N=17 1% N=3 2% N=4 2% N=3 100% N=205 Table 9: Question 5 without "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Pasco community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Making all residents feel welcome 16% N=32 47% N=92 28% N=55 8% N=16 100% N=195 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 19% N=36 35% N=66 31% N=59 15% N=29 100% N=190 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 14% N=28 53% N=104 19% N=37 14% N=27 100% N=197 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 13% N=23 32% N=56 31% N=55 24% N=43 100% N=176 Page 175 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 6 Table 10: Question 5 with "don't know" responses Please rate the job you feel the Pasco community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Making all residents feel welcome 16% N=32 45% N=92 27% N=55 8% N=16 5% N=10 100% N=205 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 18% N=36 32% N=66 29% N=59 14% N=29 7% N=15 100% N=205 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 14% N=28 51% N=104 18% N=37 13% N=27 4% N=9 100% N=205 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 11% N=23 27% N=56 27% N=55 21% N=43 14% N=29 100% N=205 Table 11: Question 6 without "don't know" responses 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 10% N=21 49% N=100 28% N=57 13% N=27 100% N=205 Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco 12% N=25 42% N=86 30% N=62 16% N=33 100% N=206 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 7% N=14 22% N=42 48% N=93 22% N=43 100% N=193 Employment opportunities 11% N=21 36% N=68 35% N=67 18% N=33 100% N=190 Shopping opportunities 9% N=18 27% N=55 41% N=84 24% N=49 100% N=206 Cost of living in Pasco 13% N=27 32% N=67 38% N=79 16% N=34 100% N=206 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 5% N=11 29% N=60 47% N=97 18% N=36 100% N=205 Table 12: Question 6 with "don't know" responses Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 10% N=21 49% N=100 28% N=57 13% N=27 0% N=0 100% N=205 Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco 12% N=25 42% N=86 30% N=62 16% N=33 0% N=0 100% N=206 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 7% N=14 21% N=42 47% N=93 22% N=43 3% N=5 100% N=198 Employment opportunities 10% N=21 33% N=68 33% N=67 16% N=33 8% N=16 100% N=206 Shopping opportunities 9% N=18 27% N=55 41% N=84 24% N=49 0% N=0 100% N=206 Cost of living in Pasco 13% N=27 32% N=67 38% N=79 16% N=34 0% N=0 100% N=206 Overall image or reputation of Pasco 5% N=11 29% N=60 47% N=97 18% N=36 0% N=1 100% N=206 Table 13: Question 7 without "don't know" responses 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=10 36% N=73 30% N=60 29% N=60 100% N=203 Ease of public parking 16% N=32 50% N=103 26% N=53 8% N=16 100% N=204 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 21% N=43 53% N=108 17% N=35 9% N=18 100% N=203 Page 176 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 7 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 16% N=25 46% N=71 30% N=46 8% N=13 100% N=155 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 7% N=13 37% N=63 38% N=65 17% N=30 100% N=170 Ease of walking in Pasco 9% N=17 40% N=79 35% N=69 16% N=31 100% N=197 Well-planned residential growth 7% N=14 38% N=75 37% N=72 19% N=37 100% N=198 Well-planned commercial growth 9% N=17 34% N=66 39% N=74 18% N=34 100% N=191 Well-designed neighborhoods 9% N=18 44% N=88 38% N=76 8% N=17 100% N=198 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 8% N=15 42% N=77 41% N=77 8% N=16 100% N=185 Public places where people want to spend time 7% N=14 23% N=47 45% N=91 25% N=50 100% N=203 Variety of housing options 11% N=20 34% N=64 36% N=68 20% N=38 100% N=190 Availability of affordable quality housing 5% N=10 31% N=59 34% N=64 30% N=56 100% N=188 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 13% N=26 49% N=99 31% N=62 7% N=14 100% N=201 Overall appearance of Pasco 10% N=20 42% N=86 36% N=72 12% N=25 100% N=204 Cleanliness of Pasco 10% N=21 37% N=76 34% N=70 19% N=39 100% N=205 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 18% N=37 43% N=87 32% N=64 6% N=13 100% N=201 Air quality 19% N=38 52% N=105 20% N=40 9% N=18 100% N=201 Availability of paths and walking trails 20% N=40 37% N=76 24% N=48 19% N=38 100% N=202 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 16% N=32 37% N=73 31% N=62 16% N=31 100% N=197 Recreational opportunities 13% N=24 30% N=57 43% N=82 15% N=28 100% N=191 Availability of affordable quality food 21% N=44 45% N=91 22% N=45 12% N=24 100% N=203 Availability of affordable quality health care 19% N=39 32% N=65 35% N=71 13% N=26 100% N=201 Availability of preventive health services 18% N=35 35% N=69 30% N=58 17% N=34 100% N=196 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 8% N=13 21% N=33 32% N=51 40% N=64 100% N=160 Opportunities for cultural enrichment 5% N=8 30% N=49 43% N=70 21% N=35 100% N=163 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 4% N=8 29% N=53 34% N=63 33% N=60 100% N=184 Community support for the arts 3% N=5 27% N=43 30% N=48 39% N=62 100% N=158 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 9% N=12 21% N=30 38% N=53 32% N=44 100% N=139 K-12 education 21% N=35 33% N=56 31% N=53 15% N=26 100% N=171 Adult educational opportunities 12% N=19 38% N=60 34% N=53 16% N=25 100% N=156 Sense of civic/community pride 6% N=11 25% N=45 53% N=97 16% N=28 100% N=182 Page 177 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 8 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 6% N=12 42% N=83 39% N=77 12% N=24 100% N=198 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 9% N=16 32% N=56 40% N=69 19% N=33 100% N=174 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 6% N=12 40% N=74 34% N=62 20% N=36 100% N=184 Opportunities to volunteer 18% N=30 37% N=61 32% N=53 14% N=22 100% N=166 Opportunities to participate in community matters 6% N=11 28% N=46 52% N=85 14% N=23 100% N=164 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 7% N=13 42% N=78 33% N=62 18% N=33 100% N=186 Table 14: Question 7 with "don't know" responses 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=10 36% N=73 30% N=60 29% N=60 0% N=0 100% N=204 Ease of public parking 16% N=32 50% N=103 26% N=53 8% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=205 Ease of travel by car in Pasco 21% N=43 53% N=108 17% N=35 9% N=18 1% N=1 100% N=205 Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 12% N=25 35% N=71 23% N=46 6% N=13 23% N=47 100% N=202 Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 6% N=13 31% N=63 32% N=65 15% N=30 17% N=34 100% N=204 Ease of walking in Pasco 8% N=17 39% N=79 34% N=69 15% N=31 3% N=6 100% N=202 Well-planned residential growth 7% N=14 36% N=75 35% N=72 18% N=37 4% N=8 100% N=205 Well-planned commercial growth 8% N=17 32% N=66 36% N=74 17% N=34 7% N=14 100% N=204 Well-designed neighborhoods 9% N=18 43% N=88 37% N=76 8% N=17 3% N=7 100% N=205 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 8% N=15 38% N=77 38% N=77 8% N=16 9% N=19 100% N=204 Public places where people want to spend time 7% N=14 23% N=47 45% N=91 25% N=50 1% N=2 100% N=204 Variety of housing options 10% N=20 31% N=64 33% N=68 18% N=38 7% N=15 100% N=204 Availability of affordable quality housing 5% N=10 29% N=59 31% N=64 27% N=56 8% N=16 100% N=205 Overall quality of new development in Pasco 13% N=26 48% N=99 30% N=62 7% N=14 2% N=3 100% N=204 Overall appearance of Pasco 10% N=20 42% N=86 35% N=72 12% N=25 1% N=1 100% N=205 Cleanliness of Pasco 10% N=21 37% N=76 34% N=70 19% N=39 0% N=0 100% N=205 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 18% N=37 43% N=87 31% N=64 6% N=13 2% N=4 100% N=204 Air quality 18% N=38 51% N=105 20% N=40 9% N=18 2% N=3 100% N=204 Availability of paths and walking trails 19% N=40 37% N=76 23% N=48 19% N=38 2% N=3 100% N=205 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 15% N=32 36% N=73 30% N=62 15% N=31 4% N=8 100% N=205 Recreational opportunities 12% N=24 29% N=57 41% N=82 14% N=28 4% N=8 100% N=199 Page 178 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 9 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 food 21% N=44 44% N=91 22% N=45 12% N=24 1% N=2 100% N=205 Availability of affordable quality health care 19% N=39 32% N=65 35% N=71 13% N=26 2% N=5 100% N=205 Availability of preventive health services 17% N=35 34% N=69 29% N=58 17% N=34 4% N=8 100% N=205 Availability of affordable quality mental health care 6% N=13 16% N=33 25% N=51 31% N=64 22% N=44 100% N=204 Opportunities for cultural enrichment 4% N=8 25% N=49 36% N=70 18% N=35 18% N=35 100% N=197 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 4% N=8 26% N=53 31% N=63 30% N=60 10% N=20 100% N=205 Community support for the arts 2% N=5 22% N=43 24% N=48 31% N=62 21% N=42 100% N=200 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool 6% N=12 15% N=30 26% N=53 22% N=44 31% N=62 100% N=201 K-12 education 18% N=35 28% N=56 27% N=53 13% N=26 15% N=30 100% N=200 Adult educational opportunities 10% N=19 30% N=60 27% N=53 12% N=25 21% N=41 100% N=197 Sense of civic/community pride 6% N=11 23% N=45 50% N=97 15% N=28 7% N=13 100% N=195 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco 6% N=12 41% N=83 38% N=77 12% N=24 3% N=6 100% N=203 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 8% N=16 28% N=56 34% N=69 16% N=33 14% N=29 100% N=203 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 6% N=12 36% N=74 30% N=62 18% N=36 10% N=20 100% N=204 Opportunities to volunteer 15% N=30 30% N=61 26% N=53 11% N=22 19% N=39 100% N=204 Opportunities to participate in community matters 5% N=11 23% N=46 42% N=85 11% N=23 19% N=38 100% N=203 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 7% N=13 39% N=78 31% N=62 17% N=33 7% N=14 100% N=200 Table 15: Question 8 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Contacted the City of Pasco (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information 56% N=112 44% N=89 100% N=202 Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion 91% N=185 9% N=18 100% N=202 Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) 78% N=159 22% N=44 100% N=202 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 74% N=149 26% N=53 100% N=202 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 69% N=139 31% N=64 100% N=202 Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate 85% N=169 15% N=31 100% N=200 Voted in your most recent local election 32% N=65 68% N=136 100% N=201 Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 67% N=135 33% N=67 100% N=202 Page 179 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 10 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 45% N=91 55% N=111 100% N=202 Walked or biked instead of driving 51% N=102 49% N=100 100% N=202 Table 16: Question 9 without "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Public information services 9% N=14 46% N=71 41% N=63 4% N=7 100% N=155 Economic development 8% N=13 47% N=81 37% N=65 8% N=14 100% N=173 Traffic enforcement 10% N=20 44% N=86 35% N=68 10% N=20 100% N=194 Traffic signal timing 11% N=21 40% N=78 30% N=59 18% N=35 100% N=194 Street repair 8% N=15 43% N=84 41% N=82 8% N=15 100% N=197 Street cleaning 15% N=30 42% N=83 34% N=67 9% N=19 100% N=199 Street lighting 18% N=35 35% N=70 29% N=57 18% N=36 100% N=198 Snow removal 8% N=16 34% N=67 42% N=84 16% N=31 100% N=197 Sidewalk maintenance 8% N=15 45% N=86 34% N=65 13% N=25 100% N=192 Bus or transit services 15% N=23 56% N=87 23% N=36 6% N=10 100% N=155 Land use, planning, and zoning 9% N=15 34% N=59 40% N=69 17% N=29 100% N=173 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 5% N=10 32% N=58 26% N=48 36% N=66 100% N=182 Affordable high-speed internet access 10% N=19 35% N=65 25% N=47 30% N=57 100% N=188 Garbage collection 51% N=102 35% N=71 14% N=27 1% N=1 100% N=201 Drinking water 38% N=77 44% N=88 12% N=23 6% N=13 100% N=201 Sewer services 35% N=66 47% N=89 17% N=33 2% N=3 100% N=191 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 31% N=56 39% N=69 27% N=47 3% N=5 100% N=178 Utility billing 16% N=32 38% N=77 37% N=73 9% N=18 100% N=200 Police/Sheriff services 25% N=47 49% N=93 17% N=33 9% N=18 100% N=190 Crime prevention 19% N=35 42% N=79 27% N=51 12% N=23 100% N=188 Animal control 12% N=21 41% N=72 24% N=42 23% N=41 100% N=177 Ambulance or emergency medical services 35% N=56 47% N=75 14% N=22 4% N=6 100% N=159 Fire services 30% N=49 55% N=92 14% N=23 1% N=2 100% N=167 Fire prevention and education 21% N=34 48% N=77 27% N=43 3% N=5 100% N=159 Page 180 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 11 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 13% N=17 30% N=40 34% N=46 23% N=31 100% N=135 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) 10% N=16 39% N=63 37% N=60 13% N=22 100% N=161 Pasco open space 5% N=8 49% N=81 33% N=55 13% N=22 100% N=167 Recycling 4% N=8 20% N=38 23% N=43 54% N=103 100% N=192 Yard waste pick-up 27% N=48 27% N=47 29% N=50 16% N=29 100% N=174 City parks 11% N=22 46% N=93 32% N=64 11% N=23 100% N=201 Recreation programs or classes 11% N=16 33% N=50 35% N=53 22% N=33 100% N=153 Recreation centers or facilities 7% N=11 26% N=43 37% N=62 31% N=51 100% N=167 Health services 10% N=19 41% N=76 40% N=74 9% N=18 100% N=187 Public library services 38% N=70 36% N=67 18% N=33 8% N=14 100% N=183 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 23% N=45 36% N=70 29% N=57 11% N=22 100% N=194 Table 17: Question 9 with "don't know" responses Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Public information services 7% N=14 37% N=71 33% N=63 3% N=7 19% N=37 100% N=192 Economic development 7% N=13 41% N=81 33% N=65 7% N=14 12% N=25 100% N=198 Traffic enforcement 10% N=20 43% N=86 34% N=68 10% N=20 3% N=7 100% N=201 Traffic signal timing 11% N=21 39% N=78 30% N=59 18% N=35 3% N=5 100% N=199 Street repair 8% N=15 42% N=84 41% N=82 8% N=15 2% N=4 100% N=201 Street cleaning 15% N=30 41% N=83 33% N=67 9% N=19 2% N=3 100% N=202 Street lighting 17% N=35 35% N=70 28% N=57 18% N=36 2% N=3 100% N=201 Snow removal 8% N=16 33% N=67 42% N=84 15% N=31 2% N=4 100% N=201 Sidewalk maintenance 8% N=15 43% N=86 32% N=65 12% N=25 5% N=10 100% N=202 Bus or transit services 11% N=23 43% N=87 18% N=36 5% N=10 22% N=45 100% N=201 Land use, planning, and zoning 8% N=15 29% N=59 34% N=69 14% N=29 14% N=29 100% N=202 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 5% N=10 29% N=58 24% N=48 33% N=66 9% N=18 100% N=200 Affordable high-speed internet access 9% N=19 33% N=65 24% N=47 29% N=57 5% N=10 100% N=198 Garbage collection 51% N=102 35% N=71 14% N=27 1% N=1 0% N=0 100% N=202 Drinking water 38% N=77 44% N=88 12% N=23 6% N=13 0% N=1 100% N=202 Page 181 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 12 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sewer services 33% N=66 44% N=89 16% N=33 1% N=3 5% N=9 100% N=200 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) 28% N=56 34% N=69 23% N=47 3% N=5 12% N=24 100% N=202 Utility billing 16% N=32 38% N=77 36% N=73 9% N=18 1% N=1 100% N=201 Police/Sheriff services 23% N=47 46% N=93 16% N=33 9% N=18 6% N=11 100% N=202 Crime prevention 17% N=35 40% N=79 25% N=51 11% N=23 6% N=12 100% N=200 Animal control 10% N=21 36% N=72 21% N=42 20% N=41 12% N=25 100% N=202 Ambulance or emergency medical services 28% N=56 37% N=75 11% N=22 3% N=6 21% N=42 100% N=201 Fire services 25% N=49 46% N=92 12% N=23 1% N=2 16% N=32 100% N=198 Fire prevention and education 17% N=34 38% N=77 21% N=43 3% N=5 21% N=43 100% N=202 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 9% N=17 21% N=40 24% N=46 16% N=31 30% N=57 100% N=192 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) 8% N=16 32% N=63 31% N=60 11% N=22 17% N=33 100% N=194 Pasco open space 4% N=8 41% N=81 28% N=55 11% N=22 16% N=32 100% N=199 Recycling 4% N=8 19% N=38 22% N=43 52% N=103 3% N=6 100% N=198 Yard waste pick-up 24% N=48 24% N=47 25% N=50 14% N=29 12% N=25 100% N=199 City parks 11% N=22 46% N=93 32% N=64 11% N=23 0% N=1 100% N=202 Recreation programs or classes 8% N=16 25% N=50 26% N=53 16% N=33 24% N=49 100% N=202 Recreation centers or facilities 5% N=11 21% N=43 31% N=62 25% N=51 17% N=35 100% N=202 Health services 10% N=19 39% N=76 38% N=74 9% N=18 5% N=11 100% N=198 Public library services 35% N=70 34% N=67 17% N=33 7% N=14 8% N=15 100% N=199 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 22% N=45 35% N=70 28% N=57 11% N=22 4% N=8 100% N=202 Table 18: Question 10 without "don't know" responses 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 42% N=78 39% N=72 11% N=21 100% N=186 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 9% N=16 47% N=85 30% N=54 14% N=25 100% N=181 The job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 7% N=11 41% N=63 38% N=58 13% N=20 100% N=152 Overall confidence in Pasco government 7% N=13 35% N=64 42% N=77 15% N=27 100% N=180 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 7% N=13 43% N=78 33% N=59 17% N=30 100% N=179 Page 182 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 13 Please rate the following categories of Pasco government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Being honest 9% N=16 41% N=70 32% N=54 17% N=30 100% N=170 Being open and transparent to the public 12% N=20 34% N=58 32% N=54 23% N=39 100% N=171 Informing residents about issues facing the community 10% N=18 29% N=51 39% N=68 22% N=38 100% N=175 Treating all residents fairly 8% N=13 37% N=63 33% N=57 21% N=36 100% N=169 Treating residents with respect 8% N=14 52% N=93 28% N=51 12% N=22 100% N=179 Table 19: Question 10 with "don't know" responses 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 38% N=78 36% N=72 10% N=21 8% N=16 100% N=202 The overall direction that Pasco is taking 8% N=16 43% N=85 27% N=54 13% N=25 9% N=17 100% N=198 The job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 5% N=11 31% N=63 29% N=58 10% N=20 24% N=48 100% N=201 Overall confidence in Pasco government 6% N=13 32% N=64 38% N=77 13% N=27 11% N=22 100% N=202 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 6% N=13 38% N=78 29% N=59 15% N=30 11% N=23 100% N=202 Being honest 8% N=16 35% N=70 27% N=54 15% N=30 16% N=31 100% N=202 Being open and transparent to the public 10% N=20 29% N=58 27% N=54 19% N=39 16% N=31 100% N=202 Informing residents about issues facing the community 9% N=18 25% N=51 34% N=68 19% N=38 13% N=27 100% N=202 Treating all residents fairly 7% N=13 32% N=63 29% N=57 18% N=36 14% N=28 100% N=198 Treating residents with respect 7% N=14 46% N=93 25% N=51 11% N=22 11% N=23 100% N=202 Table 20: Question 11 without "don't know" responses 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 15% N=30 47% N=92 30% N=59 8% N=16 100% N=197 The Federal Government 5% N=10 34% N=62 33% N=62 28% N=52 100% N=185 Table 21: Question 11 with "don't know" responses 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 15% N=30 46% N=92 29% N=59 8% N=16 2% N=5 100% N=202 The Federal Government 5% N=10 31% N=62 31% N=62 26% N=52 8% N=16 100% N=202 Page 183 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 14 Table 22: Question 12 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 economic health of Pasco 46% N=93 46% N=92 7% N=14 1% N=1 100% N=201 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 30% N=61 45% N=90 23% N=47 1% N=2 100% N=201 Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 40% N=80 48% N=96 12% N=24 0% N=1 100% N=202 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 47% N=94 45% N=89 8% N=17 0% N=0 100% N=200 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 57% N=115 37% N=76 6% N=12 0% N=0 100% N=202 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 37% N=75 51% N=102 11% N=22 1% N=1 100% N=201 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 37% N=75 53% N=107 9% N=19 0% N=0 100% N=201 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 45% N=91 41% N=82 13% N=25 1% N=3 100% N=201 Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts 45% N=91 41% N=84 12% N=24 2% N=4 100% N=202 Residents' connection and engagement with their community 31% N=62 46% N=92 23% N=46 1% N=2 100% N=201 Table 23: Question 13 without "don't know" responses Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? Percent Number Strongly support 29% N=52 Somewhat support 50% N=91 Somewhat oppose 17% N=30 Strongly oppose 5% N=9 Total 100% N=181 Page 184 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 15 Table 24: Question 13 with "don't know" responses Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? Percent Number Strongly support 26% N=52 Somewhat support 46% N=91 Somewhat oppose 15% N=30 Strongly oppose 5% N=9 Don't know 7% N=14 Total 100% N=196 Table 25: Question 14 without "don't know" responses The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households (lower price points) 47% N=89 31% N=59 12% N=23 10% N=19 100% N=190 Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 37% N=68 28% N=51 18% N=33 18% N=33 100% N=184 Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 36% N=69 25% N=47 21% N=41 18% N=34 100% N=191 Let the market decide 21% N=38 36% N=63 20% N=36 22% N=39 100% N=176 Table 26: Question 14 with "don't know" responses The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know Total Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households (lower price points) 44% N=89 29% N=59 11% N=23 10% N=19 6% N=12 100% N=202 Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 34% N=68 26% N=51 16% N=33 16% N=33 7% N=15 100% N=199 Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 34% N=69 23% N=47 20% N=41 17% N=34 6% N=11 100% N=202 Let the market decide 19% N=38 32% N=63 18% N=36 20% N=39 12% N=25 100% N=201 Page 185 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 16 Table 27: Question 15 How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often? Very likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely Total More cultural opportunities 37% N=72 40% N=78 23% N=45 100% N=195 More unique dining opportunities 64% N=124 21% N=42 15% N=30 100% N=196 More national chain restaurants 37% N=71 34% N=65 29% N=56 100% N=193 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee café, dry cleaner, etc.) 27% N=52 36% N=70 37% N=71 100% N=193 More children/youth opportunities 43% N=86 23% N=45 34% N=68 100% N=199 Table 28: Question D1 without "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer 77% N=152 9% N=17 3% N=5 3% N=7 8% N=16 100% N=197 Access the internet from your cell phone 81% N=159 7% N=15 2% N=4 0% N=1 10% N=19 100% N=198 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 54% N=106 14% N=27 13% N=26 2% N=4 17% N=34 100% N=198 Use or check email 63% N=124 23% N=45 5% N=10 2% N=4 7% N=13 100% N=195 Share your opinions online 20% N=37 2% N=4 14% N=25 8% N=14 57% N=107 100% N=187 Shop online 20% N=37 6% N=11 24% N=46 30% N=56 20% N=39 100% N=189 Table 29: Question D1 with "don't know" responses Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several times a day Once a day A few times a week Every few weeks Less often or never Don't know Total Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer 77% N=152 9% N=17 3% N=5 3% N=7 8% N=16 0% N=0 100% N=197 Access the internet from your cell phone 80% N=159 7% N=15 2% N=4 0% N=1 10% N=19 0% N=0 100% N=198 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 53% N=106 14% N=27 13% N=26 2% N=4 17% N=34 1% N=1 100% N=199 Use or check email 63% N=124 23% N=45 5% N=10 2% N=4 7% N=13 0% N=0 100% N=195 Share your opinions online 19% N=37 2% N=4 13% N=25 7% N=14 55% N=107 3% N=7 100% N=194 Shop online 19% N=37 6% N=11 24% N=46 29% N=56 20% N=39 3% N=5 100% N=194 Page 186 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 17 Table 30: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 27% N=54 Very good 42% N=84 Good 27% N=55 Fair 4% N=8 Poor 0% N=0 Total 100% N=202 Table 31: 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 12% N=23 Somewhat positive 27% N=53 Neutral 50% N=100 Somewhat negative 9% N=18 Very negative 2% N=5 Total 100% N=200 Table 32: Question D4 How many years have you lived in Pasco? Percent Number Less than 2 years 8% N=16 2 to 5 years 11% N=22 6 to 10 years 12% N=23 11 to 20 years 22% N=44 More than 20 years 47% N=96 Total 100% N=202 Page 187 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 18 Table 33: Question D5 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 81% N=167 Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 14% N=29 Mobile home 2% N=4 Other 2% N=5 Total 100% N=205 Table 34: Question D6 Do you rent or own your home? Percent Number Rent 26% N=52 Own 74% N=152 Total 100% N=205 Table 35: Question D7 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 $500 per month 7% N=13 $500 to $999 per month 23% N=45 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 24% N=47 $1,500 to $1,999 per month 22% N=43 $2,000 to $2,499 per month 18% N=36 $2,500 to $2,999 per month 2% N=4 $3,000 to $3,499 per month 1% N=2 $3,500 or more per month 4% N=8 Total 100% N=198 Table 36: Question D8 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 49% N=95 Yes 51% N=98 Total 100% N=193 Page 188 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 19 Table 37: Question D9 Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 72% N=145 Yes 28% N=56 Total 100% N=200 Table 38: Question D10 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 7% N=14 $25,000 to $49,999 32% N=60 $50,000 to $74,999 24% N=45 $75,000 to $99,999 11% N=21 $100,000 to $149,999 20% N=38 $150,000 or more 6% N=11 Total 100% N=189 Table 39: Question D11 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 50% N=97 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 50% N=99 Total 100% N=196 Table 40: Question D12 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 8% N=15 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 3% N=5 Black or African American 1% N=2 White 75% N=145 Other 23% N=44 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Page 189 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 20 Table 41: Question D13 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 8% N=16 25 to 34 years 32% N=65 35 to 44 years 20% N=41 45 to 54 years 16% N=34 55 to 64 years 6% N=13 65 to 74 years 12% N=24 75 years or older 6% N=12 Total 100% N=204 Table 42: Question D14 What is your gender? Percent Number Female 51% N=104 Male 48% N=98 Identify in another way 1% N=1 Total 100% N=203 Page 190 of 252 21 Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 600 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community 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. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Pasco’s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Pasco’s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. 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 191 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 22 National Benchmark Comparisons Table 43: Quality of Life Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall image or reputation of Pasco 35% 314 346 Much lower The overall quality of life in Pasco 61% 386 440 Lower Pasco as a place to live 85% 263 385 Similar Recommend living in Pasco to someone who asks 78% 225 287 Similar Remain in Pasco for the next five years 81% 194 280 Similar Table 44: Governance Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall confidence in Pasco government 43% 197 274 Similar Overall direction that Pasco is taking 56% 200 315 Similar Value of services for the taxes paid to Pasco 50% 207 389 Similar Generally acting in the best interest of the community 51% 189 274 Similar Being honest 51% 186 265 Similar Being open and transparent to the public 46% NA NA NA Informing residents about issues facing the community 40% NA NA NA Job Pasco government does at welcoming resident involvement 49% 199 319 Similar Treating all residents fairly 45% 210 271 Similar Treating residents with respect 60% NA NA NA Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 59% 297 374 Similar Public information services 55% 227 294 Similar Overall quality of City services 62% 312 410 Similar Services provided by the Federal Government 39% 191 254 Similar Table 45: Economy Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Pasco 63% 170 274 Similar Economic development 55% 142 285 Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco 59% 198 276 Similar Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco 54% NA NA NA Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area 29% 187 251 Lower Shopping opportunities 35% 231 294 Lower Pasco as a place to visit 33% 268 289 Much lower Pasco as a place to work 56% 214 358 Similar Employment opportunities 47% 129 311 Similar Cost of living in Pasco 45% 114 270 Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 38% 59 262 Similar Page 192 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 23 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark NOT experiencing housing costs stress 52% 249 261 Lower Table 46: Mobility Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 57% 244 277 Lower Traffic flow on major streets 41% 243 337 Similar Ease of travel by car in Pasco 74% 115 306 Similar Ease of travel by public transportation in Pasco 62% 25 241 Higher Ease of travel by bicycle in Pasco 44% 199 306 Similar Ease of walking in Pasco 49% 245 307 Lower Ease of public parking 66% 68 235 Similar Bus or transit services 70% 46 237 Higher Traffic enforcement 55% 271 360 Similar Traffic signal timing 51% 147 267 Similar Street repair 51% 137 375 Similar Street cleaning 57% 195 322 Similar Street lighting 53% 207 321 Similar Snow removal 42% 235 271 Lower Sidewalk maintenance 53% 177 315 Similar Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving 33% 64 220 Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 55% 29 254 Higher Walked or biked instead of driving 49% 179 263 Similar Table 47: Community Design Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 51% 198 268 Similar Overall appearance of Pasco 52% 282 345 Lower Your neighborhood as a place to live 77% 231 312 Similar Overall quality of new development in Pasco 62% 85 293 Similar Well-planned residential growth 45% NA NA NA Well-planned commercial growth 43% NA NA NA Well-designed neighborhoods 53% 5 6 Lower Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community 50% NA NA NA Public places where people want to spend time 30% 255 262 Much lower Variety of housing options 44% 188 281 Similar Availability of affordable quality housing 36% 183 303 Similar Land use, planning, and zoning 43% 168 301 Similar Page 193 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 24 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 37% 317 378 Lower Table 48: Utilities Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Affordable high-speed internet access 45% NA NA NA Garbage collection 86% 38 339 Similar Drinking water 82% 59 307 Similar Sewer services 81% 73 314 Similar Storm water management 71% 45 338 Higher Utility billing 54% 201 237 Similar Table 49: Safety Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 64% 294 355 Lower Police/Sheriff services 73% 332 436 Similar Crime prevention 61% 243 355 Similar Animal control 53% 266 325 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 82% 258 334 Similar Fire services 85% 316 372 Similar Fire prevention and education 69% 221 286 Similar Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 43% 260 283 Lower In your neighborhood during the day 90% 245 355 Similar In Pasco's downtown/commercial area during the day 66% 309 321 Lower Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 65% 10 16 Similar Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 62% 14 16 Lower Safety from fire, flood, or other natural disaster 88% NA NA NA Table 50: Natural Environment Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Quality of overall natural environment in Pasco 61% 248 278 Lower Cleanliness of Pasco 47% 251 286 Lower Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) 62% NA NA NA Air quality 71% 193 249 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 49% 196 256 Similar Pasco open space 54% 192 243 Similar Recycling 24% 345 346 Much lower Yard waste pick-up 55% 226 267 Lower Page 194 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 25 Table 51: Parks and Recreation Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 59% NA NA NA Availability of paths and walking trails 57% 215 320 Similar City parks 57% 298 317 Lower Recreational opportunities 43% 264 296 Lower Recreation programs or classes 44% 311 326 Lower Recreation centers or facilities 32% 277 282 Much lower Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 53% 221 260 Lower Table 52: Health and Wellness Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 46% 242 270 Lower Health services 51% 180 227 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 52% 177 263 Similar Availability of preventive health services 53% 182 245 Similar Availability of affordable quality mental health care 29% 203 239 Lower Availability of affordable quality food 66% 146 249 Similar In very good to excellent health 68% 52 255 Similar Table 53: Education, Arts, and Culture Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 47% 234 271 Lower Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 33% 280 291 Much lower Opportunities to attend special events and festivals 47% 275 286 Lower Community support for the arts 30% NA NA NA Public library services 75% 252 327 Similar Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 30% 234 262 Lower K-12 education 54% 212 275 Lower Adult educational opportunities 51% 169 248 Similar Table 54: Inclusivity and Engagement Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Residents' connection and engagement with their community 33% NA NA NA Sense of community 43% 257 306 Similar Sense of civic/community pride 31% NA NA NA Neighborliness of Pasco 49% 235 263 Similar Pasco as a place to raise children 73% 267 373 Similar Pasco as a place to retire 54% 269 353 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 49% 257 294 Similar Page 195 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 26 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Making all residents feel welcome 63% NA NA NA Attracting people from diverse backgrounds 54% NA NA NA Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds 67% NA NA NA Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) 44% NA NA NA Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 42% 245 267 Lower Opportunities to volunteer 55% 240 268 Similar Opportunities to participate in community matters 34% 275 278 Lower Table 55: Participation Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Contacted Pasco (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information 44% 163 326 Similar Contacted Pasco elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 9% 254 258 Similar Attended a local public meeting 22% 113 267 Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 26% 70 237 Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco 31% 182 268 Similar Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 15% 218 245 Similar Voted in your most recent local election 68% NA NA NA Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer 88% NA NA NA Access the internet from your cell phone 90% NA NA NA Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. 81% NA NA NA Use or check email 92% NA NA NA Share your opinions online 35% NA NA NA Shop online 50% NA NA NA Table 56: Focus Areas Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall economic health of Pasco 92% 86 250 Similar Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco 75% 147 250 Similar Overall design or layout of Pasco's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 87% 10 250 Higher Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) 92% NA NA NA Overall feeling of safety in Pasco 94% 88 250 Similar Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco 88% 75 250 Similar Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities 91% NA NA NA Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco 86% 9 249 Higher Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 86% 29 250 Higher Residents' connection and engagement with their community 76% 160 250 Similar Page 196 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 27 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 American Community Survey (ACS) 2017 5-year estimates. Adams County, CO ........................................................ 487,850 Airway Heights city, WA .................................................... 8,017 Albany city, OR ................................................................ 52,007 Albemarle County, VA ................................................... 105,105 Albert Lea city, MN .......................................................... 17,716 Alexandria city, VA ........................................................ 154,710 Allegan County, MI ........................................................ 114,145 American Canyon city, CA ............................................... 20,341 Ames city, IA .................................................................... 65,005 Ankeny city, IA ................................................................. 56,237 Ann Arbor city, MI ......................................................... 119,303 Apache Junction city, AZ ................................................. 38,452 Arapahoe County, CO .................................................... 626,612 Arlington city, TX ........................................................... 388,225 Arvada city, CO .............................................................. 115,320 Asheville city, NC ............................................................. 89,318 Ashland city, OR .............................................................. 20,733 Ashland town, MA ........................................................... 17,478 Ashland town, VA .............................................................. 7,554 Aspen city, CO ................................................................... 7,097 Athens-Clarke County, GA ............................................. 122,292 Auburn city, AL ................................................................ 61,462 Augusta CCD, GA ........................................................... 136,103 Aurora city, CO .............................................................. 357,323 Austin city, TX ................................................................ 916,906 Avon town, CO .................................................................. 6,503 Avon town, IN ................................................................. 16,479 Avondale city, AZ ............................................................. 81,590 Azusa city, CA .................................................................. 49,029 Bainbridge Island city, WA .............................................. 23,689 Baltimore city, MD ........................................................ 619,796 Baltimore County, MD................................................... 828,637 Battle Creek city, MI ........................................................ 51,505 Bay Village city, OH ......................................................... 15,426 Baytown city, TX .............................................................. 76,205 Bedford city, TX ............................................................... 49,082 Bedford town, MA ........................................................... 14,105 Bellevue city, WA .......................................................... 139,014 Bellingham city, WA ........................................................ 85,388 Bend city, OR ................................................................... 87,167 Bethlehem township, PA ................................................. 23,800 Bettendorf city, IA ........................................................... 35,293 Billings city, MT ............................................................. 109,082 Bloomington city, IN ........................................................ 83,636 Bloomington city, MN ..................................................... 85,417 Boise City city, ID ........................................................... 220,859 Bonner Springs city, KS ...................................................... 7,644 Boulder city, CO ............................................................ 106,271 Bowling Green city, KY .................................................... 64,302 Bozeman city, MT ............................................................ 43,132 Brentwood city, TN ......................................................... 41,524 Brighton city, CO ............................................................. 38,016 Brookline CDP, MA .......................................................... 59,246 Brooklyn Center city, MN ................................................ 30,885 Brooklyn city, OH............................................................. 10,891 Broomfield city, CO ......................................................... 64,283 Brownsburg town, IN ...................................................... 24,625 Buffalo Grove village, IL ................................................... 41,551 Burlingame city, CA ......................................................... 30,401 Cabarrus County, NC ..................................................... 196,716 Cambridge city, MA ....................................................... 110,893 Canandaigua city, NY ....................................................... 10,402 Cannon Beach city, OR ...................................................... 1,517 Cañon City city, CO .......................................................... 16,298 Canton city, SD .................................................................. 3,352 Cape Coral city, FL ......................................................... 173,679 Carlsbad city, CA ............................................................ 113,147 Carroll city, IA .................................................................... 9,937 Cartersville city, GA ......................................................... 20,235 Cary town, NC ................................................................ 159,715 Castle Rock town, CO....................................................... 57,274 Cedar Hill city, TX ............................................................. 48,149 Cedar Park city, TX ........................................................... 70,010 Cedar Rapids city, IA ...................................................... 130,330 Celina city, TX .................................................................... 7,910 Centennial city, CO ........................................................ 108,448 Chandler city, AZ ............................................................ 245,160 Chandler city, TX ................................................................ 2,896 Chanhassen city, MN ....................................................... 25,108 Chapel Hill town, NC ........................................................ 59,234 Chardon city, OH ............................................................... 5,166 Charles County, MD ....................................................... 156,021 Charlotte County, FL ...................................................... 173,236 Charlottesville city, VA ..................................................... 46,487 Chattanooga city, TN ..................................................... 176,291 Chautauqua town, NY ........................................................ 4,362 Chesterfield County, VA................................................. 335,594 Clackamas County, OR ................................................... 399,962 Clayton city, MO .............................................................. 16,214 Clearwater city, FL ......................................................... 112,794 Cleveland Heights city, OH .............................................. 45,024 Clinton city, SC ................................................................... 8,538 Clive city, IA ..................................................................... 17,134 Clovis city, CA ................................................................ 104,411 College Park city, MD ....................................................... 32,186 College Station city, TX .................................................. 107,445 Colleyville city, TX ............................................................ 25,557 Collinsville city, IL............................................................. 24,767 Columbia city, MO ......................................................... 118,620 Columbia city, SC ........................................................... 132,236 Columbia Falls city, MT ...................................................... 5,054 Commerce City city, CO ................................................... 52,905 Concord city, CA ............................................................ 128,160 Concord town, MA .......................................................... 19,357 Conshohocken borough, PA .............................................. 7,985 Coolidge city, AZ .............................................................. 12,221 Coon Rapids city, MN ...................................................... 62,342 Coral Springs city, FL ...................................................... 130,110 Coronado city, CA ............................................................ 24,053 Corvallis city, OR .............................................................. 56,224 Cottonwood Heights city, UT ........................................... 34,214 Coventry Lake CDP, CT ....................................................... 2,932 Coventry town, CT ........................................................... 12,458 Creve Coeur city, MO....................................................... 18,259 Cupertino city, CA ............................................................ 60,687 Dacono city, CO ................................................................. 4,929 Dakota County, MN ....................................................... 414,655 Dallas city, OR .................................................................. 15,413 Page 197 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 28 Dallas city, TX ............................................................. 1,300,122 Danville city, KY ............................................................... 16,657 Darien city, IL................................................................... 22,206 Davenport city, FL ............................................................. 3,665 Davidson town, NC .......................................................... 12,325 Dayton city, OH ............................................................. 140,939 Dayton town, WY ................................................................. 815 Dearborn city, MI ............................................................ 95,295 Decatur city, GA .............................................................. 22,022 Del Mar city, CA ................................................................. 4,338 DeLand city, FL ................................................................ 30,315 Delaware city, OH............................................................ 38,193 Denison city, TX ............................................................... 23,342 Denton city, TX .............................................................. 131,097 Denver city, CO.............................................................. 678,467 Des Moines city, IA ........................................................ 214,778 Des Peres city, MO ............................................................ 8,536 Destin city, FL .................................................................. 13,421 Dover city, NH ................................................................. 30,901 Dublin city, CA ................................................................. 57,022 Dublin city, OH ................................................................ 44,442 Duluth city, MN ............................................................... 86,066 Durham city, NC ............................................................ 257,232 Durham County, NC ...................................................... 300,865 Dyer town, IN .................................................................. 16,077 Eagan city, MN ................................................................ 66,102 Eagle Mountain city, UT .................................................. 27,773 Eau Claire city, WI ........................................................... 67,945 Eden Prairie city, MN....................................................... 63,660 Eden town, VT ................................................................... 1,254 Edgewater city, CO ............................................................ 5,299 Edina city, MN ................................................................. 50,603 Edmond city, OK .............................................................. 89,769 Edmonds city, WA ........................................................... 41,309 El Cerrito city, CA ............................................................. 24,982 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, CA ......................... 31,409 Elk Grove city, CA .......................................................... 166,228 Elmhurst city, IL ............................................................... 46,139 Englewood city, CO ......................................................... 33,155 Erie town, CO .................................................................. 22,019 Estes Park town, CO .......................................................... 6,248 Euclid city, OH ................................................................. 47,698 Fairview town, TX .............................................................. 8,473 Farmers Branch city, TX ................................................... 33,808 Farmersville city, TX .......................................................... 3,440 Farmington Hills city, MI ................................................. 81,235 Farmington town, CT ....................................................... 25,596 Fate city, TX ..................................................................... 10,339 Fayetteville city, GA......................................................... 17,069 Fayetteville city, NC ....................................................... 210,324 Ferguson township, PA.................................................... 18,837 Fernandina Beach city, FL ................................................ 11,957 Flower Mound town, TX .................................................. 71,575 Forest Grove city, OR ...................................................... 23,554 Fort Collins city, CO ....................................................... 159,150 Franklin city, TN............................................................... 72,990 Frederick town, CO .......................................................... 11,397 Fremont city, CA ............................................................ 230,964 Fruita city, CO .................................................................. 13,039 Gahanna city, OH ............................................................ 34,691 Gaithersburg city, MD ..................................................... 67,417 Galveston city, TX ............................................................ 49,706 Gardner city, KS ............................................................... 21,059 Germantown city, TN ...................................................... 39,230 Gilbert town, AZ ............................................................ 232,176 Gillette city, WY ............................................................... 31,783 Glen Ellyn village, IL ......................................................... 27,983 Glendora city, CA ............................................................. 51,891 Glenview village, IL .......................................................... 47,066 Golden city, CO ................................................................ 20,365 Golden Valley city, MN .................................................... 21,208 Goodyear city, AZ ............................................................ 74,953 Grafton village, WI ........................................................... 11,576 Grand Blanc city, MI .......................................................... 7,964 Grand Rapids city, MI .................................................... 195,355 Grants Pass city, OR ......................................................... 36,687 Grass Valley city, CA ........................................................ 12,893 Greeley city, CO ............................................................. 100,760 Greenville city, NC ........................................................... 90,347 Greenwich town, CT ........................................................ 62,782 Greenwood Village city, CO ............................................. 15,397 Greer city, SC ................................................................... 28,587 Gunnison County, CO ...................................................... 16,215 Haltom City city, TX ......................................................... 44,059 Hamilton city, OH ............................................................ 62,216 Hamilton town, MA ........................................................... 7,991 Hampton city, VA ........................................................... 136,255 Hanover County, VA ...................................................... 103,218 Harrisburg city, SD ............................................................. 5,429 Harrisonburg city, VA ....................................................... 53,064 Harrisonville city, MO ...................................................... 10,025 Hastings city, MN ............................................................. 22,620 Henderson city, NV ........................................................ 284,817 Herndon town, VA ........................................................... 24,545 High Point city, NC ......................................................... 109,849 Highland Park city, IL ....................................................... 29,796 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO .............................................. 105,264 Homer Glen village, IL ...................................................... 24,403 Honolulu County, HI ...................................................... 990,060 Hoquiam city, WA .............................................................. 8,416 Horry County, SC ........................................................... 310,186 Hudson town, CO............................................................... 1,709 Huntley village, IL ............................................................ 26,265 Huntsville city, TX ............................................................ 40,727 Hutchinson city, MN ........................................................ 13,836 Hutto city, TX ................................................................... 22,644 Independence city, MO ................................................. 117,369 Indio city, CA .................................................................... 86,867 Iowa City city, IA .............................................................. 73,415 Irving city, TX ................................................................. 235,648 Issaquah city, WA ............................................................ 35,629 Jackson city, MO .............................................................. 14,690 Jackson County, MI ........................................................ 158,989 James City County, VA ..................................................... 73,028 Jefferson County, NY ..................................................... 116,567 Jefferson Parish, LA ....................................................... 437,038 Jerome city, ID ................................................................. 11,306 Johnson City city, TN........................................................ 65,598 Johnston city, IA .............................................................. 20,172 Jupiter town, FL ............................................................... 62,373 Kalamazoo city, MI .......................................................... 75,833 Kansas City city, KS ........................................................ 151,042 Kansas City city, MO ...................................................... 476,974 Keizer city, OR .................................................................. 37,910 Kent city, WA ................................................................. 126,561 Kerrville city, TX ............................................................... 22,931 Key West city, FL .............................................................. 25,316 King City city, CA .............................................................. 13,721 Kingman city, AZ .............................................................. 28,855 Kirkland city, WA ............................................................. 86,772 Page 198 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 29 Kirkwood city, MO ........................................................... 27,659 Knoxville city, IA ................................................................ 7,202 La Mesa city, CA .............................................................. 59,479 La Plata town, MD ............................................................. 9,160 La Vista city, NE ............................................................... 17,062 Laguna Niguel city, CA ..................................................... 65,429 Lake Forest city, IL ........................................................... 18,931 Lake in the Hills village, IL ................................................ 28,908 Lake Zurich village, IL....................................................... 19,983 Lakeville city, MN ............................................................ 61,056 Lakewood city, CO ......................................................... 151,411 Lakewood city, WA .......................................................... 59,102 Lancaster County, SC ....................................................... 86,544 Lansing city, MI ............................................................. 115,222 Laramie city, WY.............................................................. 32,104 Larimer County, CO ....................................................... 330,976 Las Cruces city, NM ....................................................... 101,014 Las Vegas city, NM .......................................................... 13,445 Lawrence city, KS............................................................. 93,954 Lawrenceville city, GA ..................................................... 29,287 Lehi city, UT ..................................................................... 58,351 Lenexa city, KS ................................................................. 52,030 Lewisville city, TX .......................................................... 103,638 Lewisville town, NC ......................................................... 13,516 Libertyville village, IL ....................................................... 20,504 Lincolnwood village, IL .................................................... 12,637 Lindsborg city, KS .............................................................. 3,313 Little Chute village, WI .................................................... 11,006 Littleton city, CO.............................................................. 45,848 Livermore city, CA ........................................................... 88,232 Lombard village, IL .......................................................... 43,776 Lone Tree city, CO ........................................................... 13,430 Long Grove village, IL ........................................................ 7,980 Longmont city, CO ........................................................... 91,730 Lonsdale city, MN .............................................................. 3,850 Los Alamos County, NM .................................................. 18,031 Los Altos Hills town, CA ..................................................... 8,490 Loudoun County, VA ..................................................... 374,558 Louisville city, CO ............................................................ 20,319 Lower Merion township, PA ............................................ 58,500 Lynchburg city, VA ........................................................... 79,237 Lynnwood city, WA ......................................................... 37,242 Manassas city, VA............................................................ 41,379 Manhattan Beach city, CA ............................................... 35,698 Manhattan city, KS .......................................................... 55,427 Mankato city, MN ........................................................... 41,241 Maple Grove city, MN ..................................................... 68,362 Maplewood city, MN ....................................................... 40,127 Maricopa County, AZ .................................................. 4,155,501 Marin County, CA .......................................................... 260,814 Marion city, IA ................................................................. 38,014 Mariposa County, CA ....................................................... 17,658 Marshfield city, WI .......................................................... 18,326 Martinez city, CA ............................................................. 37,902 Marysville city, WA .......................................................... 66,178 Maui County, HI ............................................................ 164,094 McKinney city, TX .......................................................... 164,760 McMinnville city, OR ....................................................... 33,211 Mecklenburg County, NC ........................................... 1,034,290 Menlo Park city, CA ......................................................... 33,661 Menomonee Falls village, WI .......................................... 36,411 Mercer Island city, WA .................................................... 24,768 Meridian charter township, MI ....................................... 41,903 Meridian city, ID .............................................................. 91,917 Merriam city, KS .............................................................. 11,259 Mesa city, AZ ................................................................. 479,317 Miami Beach city, FL ........................................................ 92,187 Miami city, FL ................................................................ 443,007 Middleton city, WI ........................................................... 18,951 Middletown town, RI ....................................................... 16,100 Midland city, MI .............................................................. 41,958 Milford city, DE ................................................................ 10,645 Milton city, GA ................................................................. 37,556 Minneapolis city, MN .................................................... 411,452 Minnetrista city, MN ......................................................... 7,187 Missouri City city, TX ....................................................... 72,688 Moline city, IL .................................................................. 42,644 Monroe city, MI ............................................................... 20,128 Montgomery city, MN ....................................................... 2,921 Montgomery County, MD ........................................... 1,039,198 Monticello city, UT ............................................................ 2,599 Montrose city, CO ............................................................ 18,918 Moraga town, CA ............................................................. 17,231 Morristown city, TN ......................................................... 29,446 Morrisville town, NC ........................................................ 23,873 Morro Bay city, CA ........................................................... 10,568 Mountlake Terrace city, WA ............................................ 20,922 Murphy city, TX ............................................................... 20,361 Naperville city, IL ........................................................... 146,431 Napoleon city, OH ............................................................. 8,646 Nederland city, TX ........................................................... 17,284 Needham CDP, MA .......................................................... 30,429 Nevada City city, CA ........................................................... 3,112 Nevada County, CA .......................................................... 98,838 New Braunfels city, TX ..................................................... 70,317 New Brighton city, MN .................................................... 22,440 New Concord village, OH ................................................... 2,561 New Hope city, MN ......................................................... 20,909 New Orleans city, LA ...................................................... 388,182 New Ulm city, MN ........................................................... 13,249 Newport city, RI ............................................................... 24,745 Newport News city, VA .................................................. 180,775 Newton city, IA ................................................................ 15,085 Niles village, IL ................................................................. 29,823 Noblesville city, IN ........................................................... 59,807 Norcross city, GA ............................................................. 16,474 Norfolk city, NE ................................................................ 24,352 Norfolk city, VA .............................................................. 245,752 North Mankato city, MN.................................................. 13,583 North Port city, FL ............................................................ 62,542 North Yarmouth town, ME ................................................ 3,714 Northglenn city, CO ......................................................... 38,473 Novato city, CA ................................................................ 55,378 Novi city, MI .................................................................... 58,835 O'Fallon city, IL ................................................................ 29,095 Oak Park village, IL ........................................................... 52,229 Oakley city, CA ................................................................. 39,950 Oklahoma City city, OK .................................................. 629,191 Olmsted County, MN ..................................................... 151,685 Olympia city, WA ............................................................. 49,928 Orange village, OH ............................................................. 3,280 Orland Park village, IL ...................................................... 59,161 Orleans Parish, LA .......................................................... 388,182 Oshkosh city, WI .............................................................. 66,649 Oswego village, IL ............................................................ 33,759 Ottawa County, MI ........................................................ 280,243 Overland Park city, KS .................................................... 186,147 Paducah city, KY .............................................................. 24,879 Palm Beach Gardens city, FL ............................................ 53,119 Palm Coast city, FL ........................................................... 82,356 Page 199 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 30 Palo Alto city, CA ............................................................. 67,082 Palos Verdes Estates city, CA ........................................... 13,591 Papillion city, NE .............................................................. 19,478 Paradise Valley town, AZ ................................................. 13,961 Park City city, UT ............................................................... 8,167 Parker town, CO .............................................................. 51,125 Parkland city, FL .............................................................. 28,901 Pasco city, WA ................................................................. 70,607 Pasco County, FL ........................................................... 498,136 Payette city, ID .................................................................. 7,366 Pearland city, TX ............................................................ 113,693 Peoria city, IL ................................................................. 115,424 Pflugerville city, TX .......................................................... 58,013 Pinehurst village, NC ....................................................... 15,580 Piqua city, OH .................................................................. 20,793 Pitkin County, CO ............................................................ 17,747 Plano city, TX ................................................................. 281,566 Platte City city, MO ........................................................... 4,867 Pleasant Hill city, IA ........................................................... 9,608 Pleasanton city, CA .......................................................... 79,341 Plymouth city, MN .......................................................... 76,258 Polk County, IA .............................................................. 467,235 Pompano Beach city, FL ................................................ 107,542 Port Orange city, FL ......................................................... 60,315 Port St. Lucie city, FL ..................................................... 178,778 Portland city, OR ........................................................... 630,331 Powell city, OH ................................................................ 12,658 Powhatan County, VA ..................................................... 28,364 Prince William County, VA ............................................ 450,763 Prior Lake city, MN .......................................................... 25,452 Pueblo city, CO .............................................................. 109,122 Purcellville town, VA ......................................................... 9,217 Queen Creek town, AZ .................................................... 33,298 Raleigh city, NC ............................................................. 449,477 Ramsey city, MN ............................................................. 25,853 Raymond town, ME ........................................................... 4,497 Raymore city, MO ........................................................... 20,358 Redmond city, OR............................................................ 28,492 Redmond city, WA .......................................................... 60,712 Redwood City city, CA ..................................................... 84,368 Reno city, NV ................................................................. 239,732 Richland city, WA ............................................................ 53,991 Richmond city, CA ......................................................... 108,853 Richmond Heights city, MO ............................................... 8,466 Rio Rancho city, NM ........................................................ 93,317 River Falls city, WI ........................................................... 15,256 Riverside city, CA ........................................................... 321,570 Roanoke city, VA ............................................................. 99,572 Roanoke County, VA........................................................ 93,419 Rochester city, NY ......................................................... 209,463 Rock Hill city, SC .............................................................. 70,764 Rockville city, MD ............................................................ 66,420 Roeland Park city, KS ......................................................... 6,810 Rohnert Park city, CA ...................................................... 42,305 Rolla city, MO .................................................................. 20,013 Rosemount city, MN ....................................................... 23,474 Rosenberg city, TX ........................................................... 35,867 Roseville city, MN ............................................................ 35,624 Round Rock city, TX ....................................................... 116,369 Royal Palm Beach village, FL............................................ 37,665 Sacramento city, CA ...................................................... 489,650 Sahuarita town, AZ .......................................................... 28,257 Sammamish city, WA ...................................................... 62,877 San Carlos city, CA ........................................................... 29,954 San Diego city, CA....................................................... 1,390,966 San Jose city, CA ......................................................... 1,023,031 San Marcos city, CA ......................................................... 93,493 San Marcos city, TX .......................................................... 59,935 Sangamon County, IL ..................................................... 198,134 Santa Fe city, NM ............................................................. 82,980 Santa Fe County, NM ..................................................... 147,514 Sarasota County, FL ....................................................... 404,839 Savage city, MN ............................................................... 30,011 Schaumburg village, IL ..................................................... 74,427 Schertz city, TX ................................................................ 38,199 Scott County, MN .......................................................... 141,463 Scottsdale city, AZ ......................................................... 239,283 Sedona city, AZ ................................................................ 10,246 Sevierville city, TN ........................................................... 16,387 Shakopee city, MN ........................................................... 40,024 Sharonville city, OH ......................................................... 13,974 Shawnee city, KS .............................................................. 64,840 Shawnee city, OK ............................................................. 30,974 Sherborn town, MA ........................................................... 4,302 Shoreline city, WA ........................................................... 55,431 Shoreview city, MN ......................................................... 26,432 Shorewood village, IL ....................................................... 16,809 Sierra Vista city, AZ .......................................................... 43,585 Silverton city, OR ............................................................... 9,757 Sioux Falls city, SD ......................................................... 170,401 Skokie village, IL ............................................................... 64,773 Snoqualmie city, WA ....................................................... 12,944 Snowmass Village town, CO .............................................. 2,827 Somerset town, MA ......................................................... 18,257 South Jordan city, UT ....................................................... 65,523 Southlake city, TX ............................................................ 30,090 Spearfish city, SD ............................................................. 11,300 Springfield city, MO ....................................................... 165,785 Springville city, UT ........................................................... 32,319 St. Augustine city, FL ........................................................ 13,952 St. Charles city, IL ............................................................. 32,730 St. Joseph city, MO .......................................................... 76,819 St. Louis County, MN ..................................................... 200,294 St. Lucie County, FL ........................................................ 298,763 State College borough, PA ............................................... 42,224 Steamboat Springs city, CO ............................................. 12,520 Sugar Land city, TX ........................................................... 86,886 Suisun City city, CA .......................................................... 29,280 Summit County, UT.......................................................... 39,731 Sunnyvale city, CA ......................................................... 151,565 Surprise city, AZ ............................................................. 129,534 Suwanee city, GA ............................................................. 18,655 Tacoma city, WA ............................................................ 207,280 Takoma Park city, MD ...................................................... 17,643 Temecula city, CA .......................................................... 110,722 Tempe city, AZ ............................................................... 178,339 Temple city, TX ................................................................ 71,795 Texarkana city, TX ............................................................ 37,222 The Woodlands CDP, TX ................................................ 109,608 Tigard city, OR ................................................................. 51,355 Tinley Park village, IL ....................................................... 57,107 Tracy city, CA ................................................................... 87,613 Trinidad CCD, CO ............................................................. 10,819 Tualatin city, OR .............................................................. 27,135 Tulsa city, OK ................................................................. 401,352 Tustin city, CA .................................................................. 80,007 Twin Falls city, ID ............................................................. 47,340 Unalaska city, AK ............................................................... 4,809 University Heights city, OH .............................................. 13,201 University Park city, TX .................................................... 24,692 Page 200 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 31 Urbandale city, IA ............................................................ 42,222 Vail town, CO..................................................................... 5,425 Ventura CCD, CA............................................................ 115,218 Vernon Hills village, IL ..................................................... 26,084 Vestavia Hills city, AL ....................................................... 34,003 Victoria city, MN................................................................ 8,679 Vienna town, VA.............................................................. 16,474 Virginia Beach city, VA................................................... 450,057 Walnut Creek city, CA ...................................................... 68,516 Warrensburg city, MO ..................................................... 19,890 Washington County, MN ............................................... 250,979 Washoe County, NV ...................................................... 445,551 Washougal city, WA ........................................................ 15,241 Wauwatosa city, WI ........................................................ 47,687 Wentzville city, MO ......................................................... 35,768 West Carrollton city, OH ................................................. 12,963 West Chester township, OH ............................................ 62,804 Western Springs village, IL .............................................. 13,187 Westerville city, OH ......................................................... 38,604 Westlake town, TX ............................................................ 1,006 Westminster city, CO .................................................... 111,895 Westminster city, MD ...................................................... 18,557 Wheat Ridge city, CO ....................................................... 31,162 White House city, TN ....................................................... 11,107 Wichita city, KS .............................................................. 389,054 Williamsburg city, VA....................................................... 14,817 Willowbrook village, IL ...................................................... 8,598 Wilmington city, NC ....................................................... 115,261 Wilsonville city, OR .......................................................... 22,789 Windsor town, CO ........................................................... 23,386 Windsor town, CT ............................................................ 29,037 Winnetka village, IL ......................................................... 12,504 Winter Garden city, FL ..................................................... 40,799 Woodbury city, MN ......................................................... 67,648 Woodinville city, WA ....................................................... 11,675 Wyandotte County, KS................................................... 163,227 Yakima city, WA ............................................................... 93,182 York County, VA ............................................................... 67,196 Yorktown town, IN........................................................... 11,200 Yorkville city, IL ................................................................ 18,691 Yountville city, CA .............................................................. 2,978 Page 201 of 252 32 Appendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Community 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 provide 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 budgeting, 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 Angela Pashon of the City of Pasco at pashona@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 his or her opinion Page 202 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 33 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 current community quality 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 1,700 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 practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). Page 203 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 34 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. Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients Survey Administration and Response Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on December 6, 2019. 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. The survey was available in English and Spanish languages. Both cover letters included a URL through which the residents selected for the mail survey could choose respond online rather than by mail. The cover letters also contained paragraphs in Spanish instructing participants to complete the Page 204 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 35 Spanish version of the survey online. The City of Pasco chose to augment their administration of The NCS with geographic subgroup comparisons. The results of this additional service have been provided under separate cover. Completed surveys were collected over the following nine weeks. The online “opt-in” survey became available to all residents on January 10, 2020 and remained open for four weeks. About 2% of the 1,700 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 1,662 households that received the survey, 207 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 12. Of the 207 completed surveys, one was completed in Spanish and 16 were completed online. Additionally, responses were tracked by Council District; response rates by Council District ranged from 7% to 19%. The response rates were calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #21 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. Table 57: Survey Response Rates by Council District Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Overall Total sample used 194 256 390 333 295 232 1,700 I=Complete Interviews 13 20 58 35 54 23 203 P=Partial Interviews 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 R=Refusal and break off 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 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 170 227 327 297 237 195 1,453 NE=Not eligible 10 6 3 1 4 14 38 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 7% 9% 16% 11% 19% 11% 12% 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 (207 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. 1 See AAPOR’s Standard Definitions here: http://www.aapor.org/Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx for more information 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 ta rget 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 205 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 36 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 dataset. 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 SurveyGizmo, 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 Upon completion of data collection for both the scientific (probability) and nonscientific open participation online opt-in (non-probability) surveys, the demographics of each dataset were separately 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 o f the community. Both survey datasets were weighted independently to best match the Census. The characteristics used for weighting were housing unit type, ethnicity, sex, age and Council District. No adjustments were made for design effects. Results for the opt-in survey have been provided under separate cover. Table 58: Pasco, WA 2020 Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 30% 11% 26% Own home 70% 89% 74% Detached unit* 79% 92% 84% Attached unit* 21% 8% 16% Race and Ethnicity White 60% 83% 66% Not white 40% 17% 34% Not Hispanic 51% 81% 50% Hispanic 49% 19% 50% Sex and Age Female 50% 48% 52% Male 50% 52% 48% 18-34 years of age 43% 10% 40% Page 206 of 252 The National Community Survey™ - Technical Appendices 37 35-54 years of age 35% 27% 37% 55+ years of age 22% 63% 24% Females 18-34 21% 5% 22% Females 35-54 17% 13% 18% Females 55+ 11% 29% 12% Males 18-34 22% 5% 18% Males 35-54 18% 13% 19% Males 55+ 11% 34% 12% Council District District 1 11% 6% 11% District 2 14% 11% 14% District 3 24% 29% 26% District 4 20% 17% 17% District 5 19% 26% 20% District 6 12% 11% 12% * U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2017 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 o f 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 207 of 252 38 Appendix D: Survey Materials Page 208 of 252 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 209 of 252 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 210 of 252 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • (509) 545-3404 • FAX (509) 545-3403 P.O. Box 293 • 525 North 3rd Ave. • Pasco, WA 99301 www.pasco-wa.gov December 2019 Dear City of Pasco Resident: Please help us shape the future of Pasco! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2019 Pasco Community 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: WEB PLACEHOLDER Please do not share your survey link. This survey is for randomly selected households only. 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 la Comunidad de Pasco del 2019. 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: WEB PLACEHOLDER Para la versión en español haga clic en “Español” en la esquina superior a mano derecha. Por favor no comparta el enlace de su encuesta. Esta encuesta es solamente para hogares seleccionados al azar. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta por favor llame al 509-545-3404. ¡Gracias por su tiempo y participación! Atentamente, Matt Watkins Mayor/Alcalde Page 211 of 252 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • (509) 545-3404 • FAX (509) 545-3403 P.O. Box 293 • 525 North 3rd Ave. • Pasco, WA 99301 www.pasco-wa.gov Matt Watkins Mayor/Alcalde December 2019 Dear City of Pasco Resident: Here’s a second chance if you haven’t already responded to the 2019 Pasco Community 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 2019 Pasco Community 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: WEB PLACEHOLDER Please do not share your survey link. 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: ¡Aquí tiene una segunda oportunidad si usted aún no ha respondido a la Encuesta de la Comunidad de Pasco del 2019! (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 de la Comunidad de Pasco del 2019. 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: WEB PLACEHOLDER Para la versión en español haga clic en “Español” en la esquina superior a mano derecha. Por favor no comparta el enlace de su encuesta. Esta encuesta es solamente para hogares seleccionados al azar. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre la encuesta por favor llame al 509-545-3404. ¡Gracias por su tiempo y participación! Atentamente, Page 212 of 252 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The City of Pasco 2019 Community Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this survey if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday (the year of birth does not matter). 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 Sense of community ................................................................................................................ 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 economic health of Pasco ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Pasco .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall design or layout of Pasco’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Residents’ connection and engagement with their community .......................... 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 From property crime ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 From violent crime ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 From fire, flood or other natural disaster .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate the job you feel the Pasco community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Making all residents feel welcome ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Pasco as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall quality of business and service establishments in Pasco ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of business and service establishments in Pasco ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area ..................................................................... 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 image or reputation of Pasco .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Page 213 of 252 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5 7. 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 Well-planned residential growth ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Well-planned commercial growth .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Well-designed neighborhoods ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community ............ 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 Overall quality of new development in Pasco ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Pasco ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Pasco ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails .......................................................................... 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 Opportunities for cultural enrichment ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Community support for the Arts ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of civic/community pride ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Pasco............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities .................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals ............................................... 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 toward people of diverse backgrounds ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 8. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes 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 Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) ............................................ 1 2 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ............................................................................................... 1 2 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Pasco ................................................................................................. 1 2 Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause or candidate ................................................................................... 1 2 Voted in your most recent local election ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving ................................................................ 1 2 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone .............................................................................. 1 2 Walked or biked instead of driving ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Page 214 of 252 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The City of Pasco 2019 Community Survey Page 3 of 5 9. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Pasco. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Public information services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ............................................................................................................ 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 Bus or transit services ....................................................................................................... 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 Affordable high-speed internet access ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ............................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) .................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Police/Sheriff services ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ....................................................................................... 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 (open space, farmlands and greenbelts) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Pasco open space ................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up.............................................................................................................. 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 Health services ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by Pasco employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 10. 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 resident 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 Being open and transparent to the public ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Informing residents about issues facing the community ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Treating residents with respect .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Page 215 of 252 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 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 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 economic health of Pasco ........................................................................................1 2 3 4 The overall quality of the transportation system in Pasco .......................................1 2 3 4 The overall design or layout of Pasco’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ..........................1 2 3 4 The overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Pasco (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas) ...................................................................1 2 3 4 Overall feeling of safety in Pasco ..........................................................................................1 2 3 4 Overall quality of natural environment in Pasco ..........................................................1 2 3 4 The overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities ...............................1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in Pasco ...................................................................1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts.........................................1 2 3 4 Residents’ connection and engagement with their community .............................1 2 3 4 13. Pasco recently formed an Arts and Culture Commission. The Commission will be responsible for finding funding and resources to create several public art projects. To what extent do you support or oppose using public funds to help pay for public art projects? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Stongly oppose Don’t know 14. The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units. To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each the following options? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t support support oppose oppose know Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households (lower price points) ...................1 2 3 4 5 Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types ..................1 2 3 4 5 Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing .............................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Let the market decide ......................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 15. How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often? Very Somewhat Not at all likely likely likely More cultural opportunities .................................................................................... 1 2 3 More unique dining opportunities ....................................................................... 1 2 3 More national chain restaurants ........................................................................... 1 2 3 More service-oriented businesses (e.g., spa/nail/esthetician services, beer/wine bar, coffee café, dry cleaner, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 More children/youth opportunities .................................................................... 1 2 3 Page 216 of 252 The National Community Survey™ • © 2001-2019 National Research Center, Inc. The City of Pasco 2019 Community 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. Thinking about a typical week, how many times do you: Several Once A few times Every Less often Don’t times a day a day a week few weeks or never know Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop or tablet computer .......................1 2 3 4 5 6 Access the internet from your cell phone .......................1 2 3 4 5 6 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc. .....................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 Use or check email ....................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 Share your opinions online ...................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 Shop online ..................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 6 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 you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative D4. How many years have you lived in Pasco? Less than 2 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years D5. 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 D6. Do you rent or own your home? Rent Own D7. 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 $500 $2,000 to $2,499 $500 to $999 $2,400 to $2,999 $1,000 to $1,499 $3,000 to $3,499 $1,500 to $1,999 $3,500 or more D8. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D9. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D10. 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 $75,000 to $99,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $150,000 or more D11. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D12. 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 D13. 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 D14. What is your gender? Female Male Identify in another way Thank you! Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Page 217 of 252 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 218 of 252 2019 Community Survey July 13, 2020 Page 219 of 252 National Research Center & Community Survey •The National Community Survey, conducted by the National Research Center, was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy was to asses and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. •Standardization of common questions and survey methods assure valid results •Results offer insight into residents’ perspectives about the community as a whole Page 220 of 252 Surveying Pasco •Conducted survey in odd years since 2005, providing trends over time •Survey information has been used by City Council in developing biennia goals •Selected survey services: •Three-part mailing of 1,700 randomly selected households •Online open participation option •Geographic subgroup comparison report (Council Districts) •Spanish translation option Page 221 of 252 Surveying Timeline Policy Questions •Council discussed and approved (3) questions to include in November 2019. -Funding public art -City action related to affordable housing -Interest in downtown amenities Random Survey •1,700 households randomly selected •Postcard sent to households notifying they are selected •December 6, 2019 -random households receive paper survey (option to return or complete online) •2nd notification mailed •Data collected until February 7, 2020 Supplemental Online Survey •January 10 –opt-in online survey available •Data collected until February 7, 2020 Results Draft results provided in March 2020 Page 222 of 252 Survey Responses Random Survey •1,700 sample size •2% returned undeliverable •207 returned (215 returned in 2017) •16 completed online •1 completed in Spanish •Response Rate = 12 •139 surveyed items •83 similar •17 increase positively •13 decreased Online Open Survey •289 completed surveys •120% increase from 2017 •Respondents •2019 –55% not Hispanic •2017 –84% not Hispanic Page 223 of 252 Results –Governance •Respondents provided positive responses to the overall direction Pasco is taking and value of services they are receiving 2017 –Random 2019 –Random 2019 -Online Overall direction 46%56%49% Value of services 37%50%52% First CAFR AwardPage 224 of 252 Results –Community, Inclusion & Engagement •Respondents believe Pasco is a place to raise children and would recommend living here •While showing a significant decrease in 2019, responses for openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds remain similar to historical trends (IDEC opportunity) 2017 –Random 2019 –Random 2019 -Online Remain in Pasco next 5 years 83%81%79% Place to raise children 60%73%61% Recommend living in Pasco 84%78%75% Residents from diverse backgrounds are valued and respected NA 67%50% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 66%49%49% Image of Pasco 34%35%37%Page 225 of 252 Results –Economy •Respondents provided positive responses for the overall economic health and quality of businesses demonstrating our economic development strategy is improving 2017 –Random 2019 –Random 2019 -Online Overall economic health 45%63%58% Economic development 40%55%39% Quality of businesses 42%59%43%Page 226 of 252 Results –Public Safety •Responses in the areas of police, fire, ambulance, and crime prevention remained steady •Overall feeling of safety is at its highest rating since the question was introduced in 2013 likely a result of Council investments such as community oriented policing programs, training, improved fire rating and, additional staffing allocation Designate monthly in-service well above State mandated 24 hours Regional Fire Recruit School hosted by Pasco Fire Fire Station 83 & 84 under construction Police body-worn camera programPage 227 of 252 Results –Transportation •Responses indicate the overall transportation system is a top priority to them in the next two years •Respondents were more likely to have carpooled, walked or biked, and used public transportation than in 2017 highlighting additional awareness for alternative modes of transportation as well as greater connectivity for biking and walking 2017 –Random 2019 –Random 2019 -Online Overall transportation system 77%57%40%Page 228 of 252 Results –Affordable Housing Policy Question No. 1 The City of Pasco is exploring ways to take action to increase the development/supply of more affordable housing units.To what extent would you support or oppose the City exploring each of the following options? Support –Random Support -Online Provide incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to more households 78%76% Implement zoning initiatives to increase housing supply and options through increased density or building types 65%62% Allocate public funding to create additional affordable housing 61%64% Let the market decide 57%47%Page 229 of 252 Results –Interest Downtown Policy Question No. 2 How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often? Likely –Random Likely -Online More unique dining opportunities 64%63% More cultural opportunities 37%45% More national chain restaurant 37%34% More childcare/youth opportunities 43%44% More service-oriented businesses 27%38%Page 230 of 252 Results –Arts & Culture •Respondents identified this as an area of high importance •Pasco received lower ratings compared to benchmark cities but remained similar to previous survey years •Policy Question No. 3 •The majority of respondents support the use of public funds to help pay for public art projects (Arts & Culture Commission opportunity) •Respondents indicated more cultural opportunities would likely bring them to downtown Page 231 of 252 Wrap-Up •The Community Survey is another tool for City Council to consider when setting biennial goals •The information can provide useful trends and areas of opportunities •Prior to this survey, Council identified areas of opportunity and acted on them: •Creation of an Arts and Culture Commission •Ad-hoc Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission Page 232 of 252 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 9, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Remote Workshop Meeting: 7/13/20 FROM: Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: House Bill 1406 (MF# INFO 2020-001) I. REFERENCE(S): Draft Ordinance Resolution No. 3937 Franklin County Ordinance No. 03-2020 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: A maximum of approximately $105,000 (credited) annually for 20 years for affordable housing opportunities. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The 2019 Washington State Legislature passed Substitute House Bill 1406(SHB -1406) creating a sales tax revenue sharing program that allows cities and counties to access a portion of the state sales tax revenue to make local investments in affordable housing. Over a 20-year commitment, the state will be sharing more than $500 million with local governments. This is a credit against the state sales tax, and will not increase the tax rate for consumers. annually, $105,714 be would funds For estimated the Pasco, or (maximum) $2,114,279 over the 20-year duration. This estimate was provided by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) using the taxable retail sales for cities, towns and counties for state fiscal year 2019. This amount is based on the tax credit rate of 0.0073%, as stated in SHB-1406. Page 233 of 252 For cities under 100,000 (such as Pasco), the funds may be used for the following: the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of affordable housing, which may include new units within an existing structure or facilities providing supportive housing services under RCW 71.24.385; the operation and maintenance cost of new units of affordable or supportive housing; or rental assistance to tenants that are at or below the 60% of the area median income. Additionally, participating jurisdictions may finance loans or grants to nonprofit organizations or public housing authorities to carry out the purposes of the bill. Any participating city may also enter into an interlocal agreement with other cities, counties and/or housing authorities to pool and allocate the tax revenues received under SHB - 1406 to fulfill the intent of the legislation. To become eligible, cities and counties were required to pass a resolution of intent by January 27, 2020 that indicated the intention to imposing the sales tax credit. The Pasco City Council passed Resolution No. 3937 on January 21, 2020, declaring the intent to adopt the legislation in accordance with SHB-1406. Again, SHB-1406 is not a tax, additional tax or new fee, it is a credit against the state sales tax that will return funds to Pasco. V. DISCUSSION: Staff has identified that the revenues provided by SHB-1406 would assist with local and regional housing efforts, including supplementing existing plans and projects in place. Staff has held preliminary discussions with local and regional agencies involved with affordable and supportive housing to determine the appropriate implementation procedures and use of the funds. This has included the Benton and Franklin Counties Department of Human Services and the Benton Franklin Community Action Committee. In addition, Pasco is one of the three principle cities (along with the City of Kennewick and City of Richland) that comprise the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium. The consortium is tasked with developing common goals and policy directions to meet the affordable housing needs of our region. The ongoing efforts to update the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan (scheduled for a fall 2020 adoption) includes an updated Housing Element that identifies its own goals and policies. Together, the Comprehensive Plan and the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan provide initial guidance to assist with answering the following question: How should this tax credit be deployed to maximize progress towards providing affordable housing for members of our community? The following draft strategies have been identified to implement SHB-1406 funding: Page 234 of 252 1. Sustain and enhance the quality of existing affordable housing stock. 2. Support and advance programs that encourage access to safe and affordable housing. 3. Support organizations and programs involved in affordable housing development, repair and rehabilitation. 4. Increase housing supply and diversity through appropriate and flexible development and zoning standards. 5. Prioritize affordable and accessible housing within proximity of existing and planned frequent transit service. 6. Promote greater housing growth and diversity near and adjacent to employment and public service areas. Staff is seeking Council comments on the proposed draft strategies derived from the Comprehensive Plan and the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Per RCW 82.14.055(2), the sales and use tax may take effect no sooner than thirty days after the notifying the Department of Revenue. Page 235 of 252 Ordinance – SHB-1406 - 1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON ADOPTING LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF A SALES AND USE TAX FOR AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1406 (CHAPTER 338, LAWS OF 2019), AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council adopted Resolution No. 3937 on January 21, 2020; declaring the intent to adopt legislation to authorize the use of a portion of the sales and use tax for affordable and supportive housing in accordance with Substitute House Bill 1406 (“SHB- 1406”); and WHEREAS, in 2019, the Washington State Legislature enacted SHB-1406 a revenue sharing program for local governments providing a local sales and use tax credited against the state sales tax for housing investments; and WHEREAS, this is not a new tax, rather the tax will be credited against the state sales taxes and therefore, will not result in any new or higher sales and use taxes for consumers, and will represent an additional source of funding to address housing needs in Pasco; and WHEREAS, eligible uses SHB-1406 include the acquisition, rehabilitation and/or construction of affordable housing units; the operation and maintenance costs of existing or new units, rental assistance to tenants at or below 60% of Pasco’s median income and financing and/or grants to nonprofit organizations or housing authorities carrying out the purposes of SHB-1406; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco aims to provide housing for all of its residents and with 27% of all Pasco households identifies as cost-burdened in 2018, has determined that the authorization of SHB-1406 will benefit its residents; and WHEREAS, the credit against the state retails sales or use tax can be in place for a maximum of twenty (20) years and will represent an additional source of funding to address needs in Pasco; and WHEREAS, the tax is considered to be restricted revenue subject to the reporting requirements and audit review for compliance; and WHEREAS, the City has consulted with local housing and service agencies about the intent to authorize legislation for SHB-1406 to maximize benefit; and WHEREAS, the state legislation requires the City adopt an ordinance authoring the tax within twelve (12) months of the effective date of SHB-1406, or by July 28, 2020. Page 236 of 252 Ordinance – SHB-1406 - 2 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3.## of the Pasco Municipal Code Established. A chapter of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “Sales and Use Tax for Affordable and Supportive Housing,” to be codified as Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 3.##, is hereby established to read as follows: 3.## SALES AND USE TAX FOR AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Sections: 3.##.010 Imposition of Sales and Use Tax for Affordable and Supportive Housing 3.##.020 Purpose of Tax 3.##.030 Administration and Collection – Salutatory Compliance 3.##.010 Imposition of Sales and Use Tax for Affordable and Supportive Housing A. There is imposed a sales and use tax as authorized by RCW 82.14.540, upon every taxable event, as defined in RCW 82.14, occurring within the City of Pasco. The tax shall be imposed upon and collected from those persons from whom the State sales tax or use tax is collected pursuant to RCW 82.08 and 82.12. B. The rate of the tax imposed by this chapter shall be 0.0073 percent of the selling price or value of the article used. C. The tax imposed under this chapter shall be deducted from the amount of tax otherwise required to be collected or paid to the Department of Revenue under RCW 82.08 or 82.12. The Department of Revenue will perform the collection of such taxes on behalf of the City of Pasco at no cost to the City. D. The Department of Revenue will calculate the maximum amount of tax distributions for the City of Pasco based on the taxable retail sales in the City beginning in fiscal year 2019. The tax imposed under this chapter will cease to be distributed to the City of Pasco for the remainder of any fiscal year in which the amount of tax exceeds the maximum amount of tax distributions for the City as properly calculated by the Department of Revenue. Distributions to the City that have ceased during a fiscal year shall resume at the beginning of the next fiscal year and in any event shall continue for each successive year as provided by RCW 82.14.540 as it exists or as it may be amended in the future. 3.##.020 Purpose of Tax A. The City may use the moneys collected by the tax imposed under this chapter only for the following purposes: Page 237 of 252 Ordinance – SHB-1406 - 3 1. Acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing, which may include new units of affordable housing within an existing structure or facilities providing supportive housing services under RCW 71.24.386; and 2. Providing the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or supportive housing; and 3. Providing rental assistance to tenants. B. The housing and services provided under this chapter may only be provided to persons whose income is at or below 60 percent of the median income of the City. C. In determining the use of funds under this chapter, the City must consider the income of the individuals and families to be served, leveraging of all the resources made available, and the housing needs within the City. D. The City must report annually to the Washington State Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Departments’ rules, on the collection and use of the revenue from the tax imposed under this chapter. E. The tax imposed by the City under this chapter will expire 20 years after the date on which the tax is first imposed unless extended by state law. 3.##.030 Statutory Compliance The administration and collection of the tax imposed by this chapter shall be in accordance with the provisions of RCW 82.14.540. Section 2. The Finance Director is authorized to provide any necessary notice to the Department of Revenue to effectuate the tax enacted by this ordinance and to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Pasco, any necessary agreement with the Department of Revenue for the collection and administration of the tax enacted by this ordinance. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdictions, such invalidity or unconstitutionally shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. Section 5. CORRECTIONS. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener’s/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Page 238 of 252 Ordinance – SHB-1406 - 4 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington and approved as provided by law this ______ day of ______________, 2020. ________________________ Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ __________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Page 239 of 252 RESOLUTION NO. 3937 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DECLARING THE INTENT TO ADOPT LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A PORTION OF THE SALES AND USE TAX FOR AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1406 (CHAPTER 338, LAWS OF 2019), AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, in the 2019 Regular Session, the Washington State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, Substitute House Bill 1406 (Chapter 338, Laws of 2019) ("SHB 1406"); and WHEREAS, SHB 1406 authorizes the governing body of a city or county to allocate a portion of the local sales and use tax for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing or facilities providing supportive housing, and for the operations and maintenance costs of affordable or supportive housing. The City of Pasco has a population less than 100,000, which makes rental assistance another eligible expense; and WHEREAS, the tax will be credited against state sales taxes collected within the City of Pasco, Washington and, therefore, will not result in higher sales and use taxes within the City of Pasco, Washington, and will represent an additional source of funding to address housing needs in the City of Pasco, Washington; and WHEREAS, the tax must be used to assist persons whose income is at or below sixty percent of the City of Pasco median income; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has a need to provide a range of affordable and supportive housing and has determined that imposing the sales and use tax to address this need will benefit its citizens; and WHEREAS, in order for a city or county to impose the tax, within six months of the effective date of SHB 1406, or January 28, 2020, the governing body must adopt a resolution of intent to authorize the maximum capacity of the tax, and within twelve months of the effective date of SHB 1406, or July 28, 2020, must adopt legislation to authorize the maximum capacity of the tax; and WHEREAS, this resolution constitutes the resolution of intent required by SHB 1406; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council now desires to declare its intent to impose a local sales and use tax as authorized by SHB 1406 as set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, Resolution - 1 Page 240 of 252 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: Section 1. Resolution of Intent. The City Council of the City of Pasco declares its intent to adopt legislation to authorize the maximum capacity of the sales and use tax authorized by SHB 1406 within one year of the effective date of SHB 1406, or by July 28, 2020. Section 2. Further Authority, Ratification. All City officials, their agents, and representatives are hereby authorized and directed to undertake all action necessary or desirable from time to time to carry out the terms of, and complete the actions contemplated by, this resolution. All acts taken pursuant to the authority of this resolution but prior to its effective date are hereby ratified. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington on this 21" day of January, 2020. Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Barham, CMC City Clerk Resolution - 2 Attorney Law, PLLC Page 241 of 252 Page 242 of 252 .444. the sales and use tax and will impose a qualifying local tax,the maximum capacity is a .0073 percent. Section 2.A licabilit of Tax The tax shall be imposed upon and collected from those persons from whom the state sales or use tax is collected pursuant to Chapters 82.08 and 82.12 RCW.The rate of tax imposed by this ordinance shall be applied to the sellingprice in the case of a sales tax or the value of the article used in the case of a use tax. Section 3.Administration and Collection The tax imposed by this ordinance shall be administered and collected in accordance with Chapter 82.14.050 RCW.The Chair of the Board of the Franklin County Commissionersis hereby authorized to and directed to execute and sign contracts with the Washington State Department of Revenue that may be necessary to provide for the administration or collection of the tax. Section 5.Use of Funds. Monies collected shall be used for allowable expendituresauthorized by 82.14 RCW as intended by Substitute House Bill 1406. Section 6.Administration of Fund Monies collected under this ordinance shall be deposited with the Franklin County Treasurer in a separate fund named “Affordable Housing for All”shall be administered through the County Adminis11ator’so?ice upon coordinationwith the Benton FranklinDepartmentof Human Services. Section 7.Effective Date. This ordinance is effective the date of signing. Section 8.Severabilit . If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of this ordinanceor the application of the provisions to other person or circumstancesis not affected. Page 243 of 252 on PFe‘.1 (ASAgendaS-"“"“'V ' Page 244 of 252 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 9, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 7/13/20 FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Presentation - ACS Parks Project and Maintenance Update I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation will be available at the Workshop II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: No Action Requested III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Director Ratkai will review upcoming Parks capital projects currently in the design phase, as well as the maintenance frequency and schedule for City of Pasco Parks, Boulevards, and Public Lands. Page 245 of 252 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 8, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Remote Workshop Meeting: 7/13/20 FROM: Eric Ferguson, Attorney Executive SUBJECT: Renewal of Prosecutorial Services Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Renewal of Agreement for Prosecutorial Services II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: The total fiscal impact for four years is $994,164 inclusive of annual salary increases (noted below), which account for $18,444. This Agreement is for the term from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. Thereafter, this agreement will automatically continue until either party provides 60 days’ notice of termination. The contract rate of pay will increase annually by 3% starting on July 1, 2024. Said 3% increase shall remain in place until such time as a successor agreement is negotiated between the parties. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City has contracted with private attorneys for prosecution services since 2002. Each agreement has typically been for a two-year term and more recently a four-year term. Bell, Brown and Rio, PLLC has provided the City Municipal prosecution services since 2009, and their current agreement with the City expired on June 30, 2020. V. DISCUSSION: All other provisions of the proposed agreement are the same as in the prior agreement Page 246 of 252 with the exception of the Court/Prosecutor schedule as Exhibit “A,” the new term, as referenced above, and a provision for quarterly meetings with the City Manager to review issues dealing with prosecution of crimes in the City of Pasco. Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Page 247 of 252 AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTORIAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF PASCO, hereinafter referred to as “Pasco,” and Bell, Brown & Rio, PLLC, hereinafter referred to as “Prosecutor,” for the purpose of providing prosecutorial services for the City of Pasco. 1. PROSECUTOR SHALL: A. Provide complete municipal misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, and civil infraction prosecutions for all cases filed in the Pasco Municipal Court and other related services including: 1. Arraignment Docket representation 2. Incarceration Docket representation 3. Negotiation of sentences and forfeiture orders of the Court 4. Bench Trials and hearings 5. Pre-trial hearings 6. Jury Trials and Trial Readiness Hearings 7. Post-trial motions and hearings 8. Appeals 9. Police Department day to day counsel and training as needed. (Prosecutors will e-mail the Police Chief and Patrol Captain with any concerns relating to police duties or functions. The Patrol Captain or Police Chief shall contact the Prosecutors if they would like to meet to discuss these concerns or provide training to the police department.) 10. Response to criminal-related questions from the public that cannot be answered by administrative staff. B. Provide a full-time legal assistant which shall perform the following services: 1. Assemble and maintain civil infraction and criminal case files. 2. Answer administrative questions about civil infractions and criminal cases. 3. Prepare subpoenas, warrants, complaints and all other necessary legal documents and pleadings. 4. Prepare civil infraction and criminal cases for court hearings. C. Be prompt in attendance for all required dockets, hearings and trials as outlined on the attached Exhibit “A,” “Pasco Municipal Court Prosecutor Schedule.” Such schedule may be changed from time to time to meet the needs of the Court upon mutual agreement of the parties. D. Designate a contact who shall be responsible for: 1. Complaint review and response 2. Review and evaluation of quality of service 3. Periodic reports to the City administration Page 248 of 252 Prosecutorial Services Agreement – Page 2 E. Personally provide the prosecution services and divide the representation to ensure full-time coverage as well as substitute, conflict, and additionally required coverage to allow multiple actions to proceed when necessary. In the event Prosecutors wish to hire additional attorneys other than the signator to this Agreement to perform services, Prosecutors shall obtain advance approval from Pasco. This provision shall not apply in the event of unforeseen circumstances where Prosecutors are temporarily unable to perform. Prosecutors shall be responsible for assuring that qualified attorneys are present in Court at all times necessary. For the purposes of this section, attending court via SKYPE, ZOOM, or some other video conferencing service shall constitute an attorney present in court. F. Use established practices and policies to recommend utilization of alternatives to incarceration as appropriate. Such alternatives shall include but not be limited to electronic home monitoring, work crew, etc. Prosecutors shall obtain Pasco’s approval prior to implementing any program for alternate dispositions involving charitable contributions. G. Satisfy the minimum requirements for practicing law in Washington as determined by the Washington Supreme Court for continuing legal education. H. Provide at least one firm attorney, with supervisory authority, to attend quarterly performance review meetings with the City Manager for the City of Pasco. Quarterly shall be defined from fiscal year start in October 2019 for the first year of the contract and October of the following year for the remainder of the contract term. 2. PASCO SHALL: A. Pay all subpoena and service costs and costs of required reports for prosecution. B. Pay to Prosecutor a base amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) per month from July 1, 2020 through June 1, 2021. Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($20,400.00) per month from July 1, 2021 through June 1, 2022. Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Ten Dollars ($20,910.00) per month from July 1, 2022 through June 1, 2023. Twenty-One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Seven Dollars ($21,537.00) per month from July 1, 2023 through June 1, 2024. Payments shall be due on or before the 10th day following each calendar month. Payments shall be prorated for partial month. Renegotiation of the terms of this agreement upon the following occurrences: (1) there is a Washington Court Rule amendment that results in a procedural change in court proceedings, or (2) there is a change in Court Docket/Schedule as outlined in Exhibit “A.” In addition, Prosecutors shall be paid the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750) for each case appealed (except for any case noted for reconsideration at the trial court level). However, if a court of appeals grants the Prosecutor’s motion to dismiss for “Want of Prosecution,” then Page 249 of 252 Prosecutorial Services Agreement – Page 3 there shall be no charge to the City for the appeal. Prosecutors shall provide an invoice to Pasco upon completion of any appeal work. C. Pay to Service Provider any additional sum for postage which is required to be paid by Service Provider for correspondence necessary for the prosecution of criminal cases. D. Through the Pasco Police Department, provide two copies of each police report for each case filed, whether they be criminal or a civil infraction, to Service Provider. E. Through the Pasco Police Department, provide two copies of all videos which then exist for each case filed, whether they be criminal or a civil infraction, to Service Provider. F. Through the Pasco Police Department, provide two copies of all photos (in color) which then exist for each case filed, whether they be criminal or a civil infraction, to Service Provider. 3. TERM: This Agreement is for the term from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2024. Thereafter, this agreement will automatically continue until either party provides 60 days notice of termination. The contract rate of pay will increase annually by 3% starting on July 1, 2024. Said 3% increase shall remain in place until such time as a successor agreement is negotiated between the parties. 4. CASELOAD: In the event the workload (as indicated by number of case filings and number of represented cases) exceeds the prior year’s workload by fifteen percent (15%) or more, Prosecutors may request additional compensation. If no agreement is reached concerning said additional compensation, Prosecutors may terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) days written notice. 5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS: Prosecutors shall be independent contractors and not employees of Pasco. 6. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION: During the term of this Agreement, the Prosecutors shall maintain errors and omissions insurance coverage and shall include anyone else acting for or on behalf of the Prosecutors in the performance of this Agreement as an additional named insured on any such polic y. Such insurance shall be obtained from any insurance company authorized to do business as such in the State of Washington, and shall have policy limits of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) or more. At the time of commencement of the Page 250 of 252 Prosecutorial Services Agreement – Page 4 performance of services hereunder, the Prosecutors shall submit evidence that such insurance is in force and that such insurance will not be canceled without first giving thirty (30) days written notice to the City of Pasco. 7. TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated by either party upon sixty (60) days written notice, by registered mail or mailed to the other party at their usual place of business. In the event that the City terminates this agreement, the City shall pay Prosecutor for the work performed, an amount equal to the percentage of completion of work as mutually agreed upon between the City and the Prosecutor. In no event shall the amount owed for a partial month be less that the monthly base fee divided by the number of days that Prosecutor provided service in the month when the contact is cancelled. CITY OF PASCO Dave Zabell, City Manager Date PROSECUTOR Michael J Rio, Attorney at Law Date Bell, Brown & Rio, PLLC Page 251 of 252 Prosecutorial Services Agreement – Page 5 Exhibit “A” PASCO MUNICIPAL COURT PROSECUTOR SCHEDULE (Schedule is subject to change during term of Agreement) Monday Pre-Trials 8:30 am to 12:00 pm Pre-Trials 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm Tuesday Pre-Trials 8:30 am to 12:00 pm Arraignment 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm Wednesday In-Custody/Probation Docket 8:30 am to 12:00 pm Jury-Trials 8:30 am to 5:00 pm even days Thursday Infraction Docket 8:30 am to 12:00 pm Friday Trial Readiness 9:00 am to 12:00 pm odd days Motion 9:00 am to 12:00 pm even days Page 252 of 252