HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.08.23 Council Workshop Packet
AGENDA
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, August 23, 2021
City Council Chambers & GoToWebinar
Page
1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - 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.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call (213) 929-4212 and use access code
398-399-253.
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
4. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
5. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
3 - 10 (a) Broadband Access within City Limits
Scott Rhees, General Manager and Ben Hooper, Broadband Services
Manager, with Franklin Public Utility District, will present the updates
of broadband within City limits.
11 - 16 (b) Update American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
17 - 81 (c) Ordinance - PMC Amendment: Street Connectivity (MF#CA2019-
013)
82 - 92 (d) Impacts of COVID-19 on the Pasco Fire Department
93 - 104 (e) National Community Survey
Page 1 of 152
105 - 118 (f) Resolution - 2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Annual Work Plan and Allocations
119 - 126 (g) Resolution - 2022 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation (MF#
BGAP 2021-004)
127 - 131 (h) 2021-2022 Biennium Financial Update
132 - 146 (i) Resolution - Change Order No. 2 to Columbia East Force Main
Project
6. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
9. ADDITIONAL NOTES
147 - 152 (a) Adopted 2020-2021 Council Goals (Reference Only)
(b) REMINDERS
• Monday, August 23, 4:00 PM: Hanford Area Economic
Investment Fund Advisory Committee Meeting – Ben
Franklin Transit Main Conference Room
(COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Rep.)
• Thursday, August 26, 5:30 PM: Benton Franklin Community
Action Connections Board Meeting – 720 Court Street,
Pasco (COUNCILMEMBER ZAHRA ROACH, Rep.; MAYOR
SAUL MARTINEZ, 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 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 20, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Broadband Access within City Limits
I. REFERENCE(S):
PowerPoint Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Scott Rhees, General Manager and Ben Hooper, Broadband Services Manager,
with Franklin Public Utility District, will present the updates of broadband within
City limits.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
N/A
V. DISCUSSION:
Presentation by Franklin County PUD regarding availability/adequacy of
broadband services in the community. Broadband improvements are a potential
use for ARPA funds the presentation is intended to inform the City Council on
this issue.
Page 3 of 152
Broadband Update City of Pasco, City Council Meeting August 23, 2021Presented by:Ben Hooper, Broadband Services ManagerFranklin PUDPage 4 of 152
About Franklin PUD•Started Broadband in 2002•Serve all of Franklin County•Currently:oFranklin PUD is Wholesale Service Provider o33 Retail Service Providerso875 Customerso350 Miles of fibero59 Wireless Access Pointso11 Points of Presence•Wholesale Services:oDark FiberoInternetoWiFioCollocation oLit ServicesPage 5 of 152
Activity to DateYear 2019 2020 2021 to DateFiber Accounts 54 59 49Connell Wireless 32 79 27Fixed Wireless 32 56 26Collo 4 1 2Renewals / Amendments 26 40 13Fiber to the Home 3 4 1Totals 148 235 1183Page 6 of 152
Franklin PUD Fiber Network Pasco, WAPage 7 of 152
Broadband Providers in Pasco, WA●Currently there are 2 major private providers in PascooLumen (formerly Century Link)oDigital Subscriber line over copper linesoFiber Optic●Spectrum/CharteroHybrid Coax / fiber network●One Public entity – Public Utility District #1 of Franklin CountyoWholesale onlyoFiber networkoSmall WiFi footprint●LS Networks is a private carrier with some service in Pasco●Several Wireless Internet Providers (WISP)oPocketiNetoZyteloDesertwinds WirelessoTelco Wiring & Repair5Page 8 of 152
Broadband Concerns●Pockets of Pasco are not served adequately○Lack of service○Infrastructure age / type○Reliability○Inconsistent internet speeds●Providers are overbuilding each other in many areas and choosing not to enter others●Lack of coordination on residential / commercial developments to ensure that all broadband infrastructure needs are addressed○Conduit○Fiber○Etc.●Continued population and commercial growth6Page 9 of 152
QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONScott Rhees Ben HooperGeneral Manager Broadband ManagerGeneralmanager@franklinpud.com Broadband@franklinpud.com
Page 10 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 16, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Update American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Summary Guidance from United States Department of Treasury on ARPA Funds
ARPA Program List
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
As background, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA, HR 1319) to provide federal funding
relief for American workers, families, industries, and state and local
governments. The Act provides over $350 billion to states, counties, tribal
governments, territories, and cities, with a total of $17,464,312 allocated to the
City of Pasco in two equal installments during the calendar years 2021 and 2022.
The City received $8,732,156 as the first allocation on June 8, 2021, with the
remainder of funds to be dispensed within the next 12 months with specific
guidance as to its use and the eligibility requirements for sub -recipients lagging
significantly. ARPA funds must be utilized or obligated prior to December 31,
2024, and if obligated in a timely manner, utilized by December 31, 2026.
Through prior action, the City of Pasco Council has initiated utility assistance for
electric, water, sewer, stormwater, irrigation, ambulance, and waste collection
services provided by the City of Pasco, Franklin PUD, and Basin Disposal Inc.,
Page 11 of 152
as well as a business assistance program for those businesses adversely
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Act itself highlights areas of focus, (see attachment, "Summary Guidance
from United States Department of Treasury on ARPA Funds") which allow for
assistance to residents, businesses, and governments impacted by the
pandemic in various forms. Requirements to show that the grants are disbursed
by the City for COVID-19 related activities are clear, though details on standards
to which the City will be held in an audit remain limited. To facilitate discussion
an an as provided is projects list eligible of preliminary updated public
attachment.
As different jurisdictions move to assist residents and businesses with nearly
$99 million of COVID-related aid among the City and other agencies impacting
Franklin County and Pasco, it is important to devise a coordinated plan to
connect the residents in need with the right pool of fundi ng. The involvement of
multiple agencies with different criteria has proven to be confusing and a
deterrent for residents. Furthermore, small businesses have struggled with
accounting and legal standards required to meet federal grant criteria. APRA
anticipates these issues and allows funding of public benefits navigators to assist
community members with navigating and applying for available Federal, State,
and local public benefits or services. From a programmatic standpoint, the Act
provides flexibility to help community members navigate the many forms of
assistance available. The effort to provide a resource to guide or navigate
community members or businesses to available assistance provided by the City
or other agencies has been viewed favorably by the Council and as indicated
below, one on which staff has made progress.
V. DISCUSSION:
The discussion this evening continues a process of informed deliberations on
the part of the City Council on how best to utilize these funds to the greatest
community benefit.
As previously mentioned, City has made allocations to certain programs such as
business support, utility assistance, hiring of a Community Resource Specialist,
staffing for Small Business Development Center, and Travel Blog Exchange
(TBEX) event organized by Visit Tri-Cities. These allocations total approximately
$2,774,000.
Staff has been working through Council's priority programs to be funded by the
ARPA funds and coordinating with other agencies to find opportunities to partner
to ensure that efforts are not duplicated. The preliminary ARPA projects list
(attached) provides a quick glance update of those programs. Programs on the
list are in various stages with some in mid-implementation, some still in the
Page 12 of 152
analysis phase, while others in the beginning phases of planning. Below are
some major programs to highlight:
1. Travel Blog Exchange (TBEX) - Completed.
1. Business Assistance - In-progress. Applications opened on August 16.
2. Utility Assistance - In-progress. Applications opened on July 28.
3. Community Resource Specialist - In-progress. Recruitment ongoing.
4. Small Business Development Center - In-progress. Staff working with
SBA, WSU, and local agencies on a regional partnership.
5. Community Health Program - Under review.
6. Two Rivers Behavioral Health - In-progress. Staff is working with regional
partners on the feasibility study and capital investments required by each
party.
7. Broadband - In-progress. Franklin PUD will be presenting to the Council
on the needs of the community at this time.
8. Life Safety - Life safety preservation program to upgrade high occupancy
buildings to Internal Fire Code standards to reduce risk of life and other
properties. Staff is working with the legal team on qualifying program
guidelines. Under review
9. Martin Luther King Center and Boys and Girls Club Building - In-progress.
Staff is estimating the need and cost of the projects and the portions of
the building used for child care and education.
10. Internal City Projects - Drinking Water State Revolving fund qualifying
utility projects, generators, equipment, software, etc.
The cost of some significant projects has yet to be estimated; however, if fulfilled,
adds up to nearly $32.4M - a sum much greater than the total $17.4M allocation.
It is important for the City to have plans in place to accomplish large qualifying
projects with the grant in the event that some of the higher priority projects do
not meet the grant deadline. Staff will update Council with the most current
information on a monthly basis.
Staff requests Council discussion and feedback on further prioritization or
expansion of the list.
Page 13 of 152
The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide a
substantial infusion of resources to help turn the tide on the
pandemic, address its economic fallout, and lay the foundation for
a strong and equitable recovery.
The American Rescue Plan will deliver $350 billion for state, local, territorial, and
Tribal governments to respond to the COVID-19 emergency and bring back jobs.
Eligible Jurisdictions & Allocations
Direct Recipients
•States and District of Columbia
($195.3 billion)
•Counties ($65.1 billion)
•Metropolitan cities ($45.6 billion)
•Tribal governments ($20.0 billion)
•Territories ($4.5 billion)
Indirect Recipients
•Non-entitlement units ($19.5 billion)
Funding Objectives
•Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to
decrease spread of the virus and bring the pandemic under control
•Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital
public services and help retain jobs
•Support immediate economic stabilization for households and
businesses
•Address systemic public health and economic challenges that
have contributed to the inequal impact of the pandemic
Address Negative Economic Impacts
Respond to economic harms to workers, families,
small businesses, impacted industries, and the
public sector
Premium Pay for Essential Workers
Offer additional support to those who have and
will bear the greatest health risks because of their
service in critical infrastructure sectors
Replace Public Sector Revenue Loss
Use funds to provide government services to
the extent of the reduction in revenue
experienced due to the pandemic
Support Public Health Response
Fund COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical
expenses, behavioral healthcare, and certain
public health and safety staff
Broadband Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to provide unserved
or underserved locations with new or expanded
broadband access
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Make necessary investments to improve access
to clean drinking water and invest in
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure
Page 14 of 152
Example Uses of Funds
Page 15 of 152
ARPA LIST$32,463,265ID# Name Assigned to Agency Amount Contact Initiated Accepted Notes Completed? Revenue Replacement?Council or CM Suggested By1 Business Assistance Richa SigdelChamber of Commerce$1,000,000 Yes Yes Contract executed Done NoCouncil ApprovedCouncil2 Utility Assistance Richa SigdelFranklin PUD/City of Pasco$1,000,000 Yes Yes Program started Done NoCouncil ApprovedCouncil3 Utility Assistance Richa Sigdel BDI $110,000 Yes Yes Contract executed Done NoCouncil ApprovedCouncil4 Utility Assistance Richa Sigdel Big Bend Electric $2,700 Yes No Minimal, no interest in program Done No No Need Council5 Downtown Master Planning Jacob Gonzalez City of Pasco $119,000 Yes Yes Contract executed Done NoCM ApprovedCouncil6 Job Training Richa SigdelColumbia Basin CollegeNA Yes Yes All federal funds, awaiting refusal via email Done No No Need Council5Small Business Development CenterAdam Lincoln SBA/WSU $70,000 Yes Yes Discussion with partners ongoing In Progress NoCM ApprovedCouncil6 TBEX Adam Lincoln Visit Tri-Cities $25,000 Yes Yes Contract executed In Progress NoCM ApprovedCM6Community Resource SpecialistAngela Pashon City of Pasco $450,000 Yes Yes Position closed, hiring process started In Progress NoCM ApprovedCouncil7Mobilee Outreach ProfessionalKen RoskeLourdes/City of Pasco$250,000 Yes YesIn Progress No Council8Martin Luther King ConstructionZach Ratkai City of Pasco $4,000,000 Yes Yes Need to justify education and childcare related construction costs In Progress No Council9 Behavioural Health Care CM OfficeTwo Rivers Behaviroural Health $1,000,000 Yes In Progress CM Office working with other jurisdictions In Progress No Council10 Life Safety CM Office City of Pasco NA No In Progress Program criteria in progress In Progress Depends on QCT or not Council11 Community Health Program Bob Gear City of Pasco $5,556,565 Yes No Proposal submitted to CM In Progress No Council12 Broadband Service Richa Sigdel Franklin PUD NA Yes NoQualification as underserved is <300MB. No areas in the City where it is unserved. Richa to ask PUD to present the details to staff and Council.In Progress No Council13 Street Eatery Zach Ratkai City of Pasco NA Yes In Progress None In Progress No Council14 Boys & Girls Club Building Zach Ratkai Boys & Girls Club NA Yes No ACS working on estimates Not Started No Council15Generators at Police HQ & City HallZach Ratkai City of Pasco $600,000 Yes No None Not Started Yes Staff16Replacement of Council EquipmentJon Funfar City of Pasco $80,000 Yes No CC and other equipments Not Started Yes Staff17Project: Zone 3 Transmission ProjectSteve Worley City of Pasco $3,000,000 Yes No None Not Started No Staff18Project: Zone 3 Reservoir Storage TankSteve Worley City of Pasco $11,700,000 Yes No None Not Started No Staff19Project: West Pasco Water Treatment Plant Expansion - Steve Worley City of Pasco $3,500,000 Yes No None Not Started No StaffV:\~ New Sharedrive\GRANTS\COVID\ARPA\[ARPA List 7.26.2021.xlsx]ARPA ListPage 16 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 18, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance - PMC Amendment: Street Connectivity (MF#CA2019-013)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Attachment 1 - Agency, Public, and Organization Comments
Attachment 2 - Code Amendment Comparison Table (July 2021)
Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The need to improve and assure connectivity within the City's transportation
system, specifically the development of an integrated transportation network,
has been reflected in City Council Goals dating back to 2010. The importance
of such connectivity was identified as early as the West Pasco Traffic Analysis
Study from 1992 and the Interstate I -182 Sub-Area Report from 2003. Since
that time and as the City has continued to rapidly grow, the need to address
connectivity at a policy level has continued to be on the minds of the City Council,
community members, and staff.
The current and most meaningful effort in this regard arose from the City Council
Goals 2020-2021, specifically;
• Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization
of its recommendations to develop policies, regulations, programs,
and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic
Page 17 of 152
investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency
and safety.
Earlier this year the City Council received a presentation from the Community &
Economic Development Department (CED) at the City Council Workshop
meeting on on provided an staff introduction at 2021, March 15, which
transportation planning efforts in progress, and also a follow-up discussion on
the Street Connectivity proposal at the City Council's May 10, 2021 Workshop
meeting.
Background on Street Connectivity and Mobility
Connectivity refers to the degree to which the transportation system provides
access to destinations. The origin and destination of a trip can vary due to
various factors including time of day and mode, the surrounding land uses
(residences, commercial areas, etc), and the route itself. Each factor heavily
influences each trip made, whether that trip is to work, school, grocery store, or
public park. Three important factors influencing trip choices are:
Accessibility: the quality of travel and takes place at the community and
individual level. It focuses on travel time, travel cost, travel options, comfort, and
risk while addressing the needs of all within the community.
Connectivity: the relative location of an object to the destination centers
Mobility: the ability and level of ease of moving goods and services
A well-connected transportation network reduces the distances traveled to reach
destinations, increases the options for travel, and can facilitate multi -modal and
non-motorized travel. Even in areas with segregated land uses, a connected
transportation direct. integrated The more that are routes offers network
transportation system also provides municipal services, including utilities and
emergency response times with the ability to efficiently serve properties.
The United States Department of Transportation identifies the following
strategies to improve connectivity :
• Short block lengths
• Complete Streets Policy
• Bicycle/Pedestrian outlets for cul-de-sacs and dead ends
• Prioritization of multi-modal access to public transportation
• Safe and visible bicycle-pedestrian facilities
Policy Guide and Plan Guidance
The proposed revisions to the PMC implement established p lans, goals, and
policies of the City, in addition to regional, state, and federal guidelines. A
shortened version of these is listed below for reference.
Page 18 of 152
Resolution No. 3985 - Establishment of Primary Council Goals for Years 2020-
2021
Community Transportation Network: Promote a highly-functional multi-modal
transportation system through:
• Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and
access.
• Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization of its
recommendations programs, regulations, and develop to policies,
investment, projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic
mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency, and safety
Ordinance No 4537 - Adoption of the 2018-2038 Pasco Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Policy 4-A: Reduce the dependency on vehicle travel, and encourage
pedestrian and multi-modal options by providing compatible land-uses in and
around residential neighborhoods.
Land Use Policy 4-E: Encourage the orderly development of land by
emphasizing connectivity and efficiency of the transportation network.
Economic Development Policy 3-C: Provide appropriate access through a
combination of pathways, sidewalks, non-motorized travel lanes, and parking.
Transportation Policy 1-A: Participate in the metropolitan and regional
transportation planning efforts of the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments.
Transportation Policy 1-B: Require transportation and land use planning efforts
and policies that meet the needs of the community and the objectives of this
plan.
Transportation Policy 1-F: Develop an interconnected network of streets, trails,
and other public ways during the development process while preserving
neighborhood identity
Transportation Policy 1-I: Require developments to meet the standards of the
Pasco Complete Street Ordinance.
Implementation Policy 2-D: Ensure that all plans and studies shall be consistent
with the goals, policies, and proposals of this comprehensive plan.
Page 19 of 152
Implementation Policy 4-A: Coordinate with other governmental units in
preparing development regulations.
The staff proposal is also consistent with the following local plans and/or policies:
• 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (Resolution No. 3021)
• City of Pasco Complete Streets Policy (Ordinance No. 4389)
• Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Resolution No. 3853)
The staff proposal is also consistent with the following regional and state
guidance from the following:
• Ben Franklin Transit
• Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
• Washington State Department of Transportation
• Washington State Growth Management Act
Benefits
A well-connected transportation system is wide-ranging as so much is
dependent on the reliability and consistency of accessible routes. A primary
benefit being that such a system promotes efficient travel patterns. If local streets
are poorly connected, local trips are forced to use the arterial system which is
designed longerfor transportation promotes connectivity trips. Increased
choices for all residents, businesses, and emergency responders within the City
by allowing non-motorized (or shorter vehicle trips) to take place along more
direct or parallel routes. It inherently increases the opportunity for walking,
bicycling, and public transportation usage by linking sidewalks and streets to
destinations such as parks, schools, and neighborhood stores.
• Orderly Development for Utilities
o Street connectivity promotes orderly development that meets
various local, regional, and state policies. This is a benefit for travel
circulation and City utilities, such as water and sewer, as locations
and placement typically follow street alignments. If there is an
awareness of how the future transportation network will develop,
forecasting for utility improvements can be more easily identified
including the forecasting of future system need when coupled with
land-use assumptions.
• Community Access
o Street connectivity promotes and enhances accessibility within the
community by creating a network of routes that allow residents a
variety of choices. Accessibility is improved due to the availability
of route choices and with appropriate land use plannin g supports
walkable, multi-modal communities. Accessibility is improved for
all users by any mode including walking, bicycling, vehicle and
transit. Cut-through traffic is reduced as there are a greater number
of options for drivers.
• Safety
Page 20 of 152
o Connected transportation systems also benefit community safety
and increase emergency response (police, fire, medical). Often
overlooked, is the impact of street connectivity (and/or lack of) on
emergency access including evacuation. Single or limited -point
access can create challenges and constraints for first responders.
o The 2020 Pasco Fire Department Performance Report indicated
that significant portions of the residential neighborhoods north of I -
182 have an increased response time and are on the cusp of
compliance due to the lack of a well-connected transportation
system.
o The US Environmental Protection Agency has conducted
extensive analysis working with Fire Service representatives on
smart growth issues related to connectivity with their research
concluding:
▪ That network street neighborhood connected a highly
provides health benefits by increasing pedestrian activity.
▪ Increased street connectivity improves emergency
responders' access, offering multiple route options for
answering emergency calls.
▪ Compared to systems dominated by cul-de-sacs, highly
connected street networks shorten the physical distance
emergency responders have to travel.
▪ As most emergency response calls are for medical events
rather improvements access can fires, than these
significantly enhance the community's overall health and
safety.
• Environment
o Neighborhoods with increased transportation access and
connectivity may also lessen environmental impacts. Increased
mode options become more reasonable as routes that are more
direct Tavailable. are lessens choice mode of he addition
dependency on automobile use for every trip purpose.
o Locally, air quality has become an increasing topic of concern and
the region is undergoing an Ozone Precursor Study (T-COPS). Air
quality managers have been evaluating the Tri-Cities area since
2013 after the predictive air quality forecasting models operated by
the region the that State University Washington indicated
consistently showed elevated ozone. If air quality is not improved,
the region may be at risk of being designated as a Non-Attainment
by the Environmental Protection Agency, meaning the air quality
does not meet national standards. This designation would have a
significant impact on the permitting process of each development
in the region.
• Equity
o Transportation planning decisions often have significant equity
impacts. Equity refers to the fairness with which benefits and costs
Page 21 of 152
are distributed across a community. Examples of transportation
equity quality the include of street to relevant connectivity
transportation services available facilities, such as public transit
frequency and roadway (congestion) conditions; user costs such
as vehicle ownership and maintenance; and external factors
including environment such as emissions, pollution, and noise.
o Transportation options are severely limited when development
patterns limit mobility options. The American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP) identified that mobility (mode) options are a
critical factor for livable communities.
o The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a toolkit in
2017 that encouraged transportation alternatives to support low-
income and over-burdened communities. The toolkit presented
three approaches to expanding options for communities that
included access to public transportation, street design standards,
and transit-oriented development. When these three strategies are
coordinated and implemented, neighborhoods can result in more
accessible amenities and services regardless of income or age.
• Costs per Household
o The pattern and design of neighborhoods also have an impact on
the costs to households. The portion of household expenditure
spent on transportation in the United States is often a larger portion
than that spent by many throughout the world. Data shows that
Americans expenditure on household 13% of spend their
transportation. This amount is almost 2x higher in Pasco according
to the American Community Survey and Census Bureau.
Existing System Connectivity
In Central and Downtown Pasco, the existing roadway network is largely oriented
on the traditional grid layout. Within this area, the functional classification system
establishes standard urban arterial and collector streets that distribute traffic to
and from neighborhoods, commercial areas, and travel corridors. This differs
from traffic distribution in neighborhoods west of US-395, and in residential areas
developed north of Interstate I-182, which have limited capability (and feasibility)
for developing a proper functional arterial and collector street system . The road
network is constrained by the development patterns that feature longer block
lengths and limited access points. South of I-182, the constraints are due to prior
platting practices that have often left streets that end in front of homes or
structures where normally they should continue.
Additional barriers include I-182, the Franklin County Irrigation Canal, the
Pasco/Tri-Cities Airport, and other geographic/topographic features that prohibit
the development of an integrated transportation networ vehicles, k for
pedestrians, and bicyclists. The lack of connectivity in the areas identified above
was confirmed during the existing conditions analysis of the Transportation
System Master Plan ("TSMP").
Page 22 of 152
The following data points are intended to provid e Council with a high-level
overview of existing baseline conditions for street connectivity and accessibility.
The indicators compare Pasco with the 20 largest cities in Washington (2019
population estimates).
#3: Pasco residents have the third-highest transportation costs as a percent
of household income
#3: Pasco residents have the third-highest combined housing and
transportation costs as a percent of household income
#2: Pasco residents have the second-highest vehicle mile traveled, and cost
per vehicle mile traveled per household
#2: Pasco residents emit the second-highest greenhouse gas per household
#1: Pasco has the largest block perimeter of the twenty largest cities in
Washington
#1: Pasco has the lowest intersection density of the twenty largest cities in
Washington
The average residential block perimeter in Pasco is 2,618 feet. This includes
blocks as small as 756 feet up to 18,528 feet.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Street Connectivity proposal was subject to eight Planning Commission
meetings, of which six were public hearings allowing comments from the public.
Throughout the meetings, staff provided various data summaries, policy
guidance, best practices, and updates to the Planning Commission and the
public. The proposal before City Council tonight underwent revision, discussion,
public agency, stakeholder, and public comments before a final recommendation
was made.
On October 15, 2020, the Pasco Planning Commission closed the public hearing
and recommended that the proposed amendment for Street Connectivity be
forwarded to the City Council.
City Council Council Workshop (May 10, 2021)
Staff prepared a staff report and presentation t o the Pasco City Council on this
proposal at the May 10, 2021 Workshop. At that meeting, several comments
supporting and opposing the proposal were mentioned. A summary of comments
expressing concern include:
Page 23 of 152
• Limited outreach to the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities
• Impacts on development and housing affordability
• Considerations for geographic or variable requirements
• Limitations on creative neighborhood designs via Planned Unit
Developments
• Safety concerns with increased access
• Increased maintenance costs
Following the previous presentations to City Council, staff has met (virtually) and
in-person with representatives and members of the Home Builders Association
of the Tri-Cities (July 15 and August 13, 2021). Staff also provided an update on
additional alternatives being considered during a monthly developer outreach
meeting, which took place on August 5, 2021.
Staff recognizes the magnitude of change this proposal represents, however,
emphasize are that practices best of is proposal the that reflective
overwhelmingly supported by local, regional, state, and federal agencies. A
summary of the Planning Commission's recommendation from October 2021
and two additional alternatives are provided in the Discussion Section of this
report.
V
.
DISCUSSION:
The initiation of the proposed amendments is necessary as current regulations are
not aligned or consistent with established Council goals, Comprehensive Plan
policies, and objectives, and soon-to-be-completed Transportation System Master
Plan. The following section summarizes the proposed revisions based on those
factors.
Policy Recommendations & Alternatives
City staff has provided references to the recommendations from the Pasco
Planning Commission, and two additional alternatives for consideration. The
recommendation from Planning Commission (October 20, 2020) derives from the
initial recommendations identified in the Transportation System Master Plan
(TSMP), expected to be completed this Fall. The two alternatives are deviations
from the TSMP, with broader and more flexible standards while still aligning with
established Council Goals and industry best practices.
Recommendatio
n
Max
Block
Length
Max
Block
Perimete
r
Connectivit
y to
Abutting
Lands
Public
Accessways/Connectio
ns
Intersectio
n
Distances
Pasco Planning
Commission
(Oct 2020)
Citywide:
660'
Riverview
: 1,000'
Res:
1,880'
C-1:
2,800'
Yes
w/street
stub
placement
Required where block
length/perimeter
standards are exceeded
and where a cul-de-sac
AASHTO /
FHWA
Page 24 of 152
(within the
site)
is within 1,320' of a
planned public facility
Recommendatio
n
Max
Block
Length
Max
Block
Perimete
r
Connectivit
y to
Abutting
Lands
Public
Accessways/Connectio
ns
Intersectio
n
Distances
Staff Alternative
#2
Citywide:
990'
Res:
2,640'
C-1:
3,690'
Yes
w/dedicatio
n of Right-
of-Way
(within the
site)
Required where block
length/perimeter
standards are exceeded
and where a cul-de-sac
is a of 1,320' within
planned public facility
AASHTO /
FHWA
Staff Alternative
#3
Average
Max
Citywide:
690'
Riverview
: 1,000'
Res:
3,300'
C-1:
3,690'
Yes
w/dedicatio
n of Right-
of-Way
(within the
site)
Required where block
length/perimeter
standards are exceeded
and where a cul-de-sac
is within 1,320' of a
planned public facility
AASHTO /
FHWA
Maximum Block Length & Perimeter
• Specifies the maximum length of a block or block perimeter (the area
surrounding a block) as measured by the street centerline
• Shorter block lengths provide direct routes, help reduce vehicle speeds, and
provides additional access for our Fire and Emergency responders
• Maximums are not required for Planned Unit Developments, Multi-family
with 20 or more units or the C-2, C-3, and Industrial lands
Future Street Plan
• Clarifies existing future street plan requirements of PMC 21.15.010(1) to
identify if a proposed street layout precludes future connections
Public Accessways/Non-Motorized Connections
• The proposal requires the dedication or requires that a non -motorized
connection is not precluded when the block length and perimeter standards
are exceeded, or where a cul-de-sac is within 1,320' of a public facility, such
as parks, schools, or public transportation routes.
• This requirement ensures that the public will have some form of direct
access to destinations in circumstances where the transportation network is
limited due to a specific feature.
Intersection Distances
• The proposal replaces the existing minimum requirement of 125' with the
Stopping Sight Distance guidelines developed by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the Policy of
Geometric Designs of Highways and Streets
Page 25 of 152
Support and Collaboration
The Pasco Planning Commission received letters of support from the state, regional
and local agencies, and several organizations in support of this proposal. This also
included public input at the Pasco Planning Commission from the Pasco Fire
Department and Public Works Department, the Washington State Department of
Transportation's Multi-Modal Planning Office.
The following agencies and organizations have provided support for this proposal:
• Ben Franklin Transit
• Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
• Washington State Department of Transportation
• Visit Tri-Cities
• Bike Tri-Cities
• Alliance for a Livable and Sustainable Tri-Cities
Staff Summary
City staff acknowledges and understands the concerns raised on the proposal. The
proposed amendments represent significant changes to the Pasco Urban Area
Subdivision Regulations, however, staff notes that the changes reflect best
practices widely supported by transportation agencies and organizations tasked
with oversight and funding for projects across the country.
The benefits of the proposed amendments are evident through the amount of
support received from public agencies, and members of the general public. In
addition, guidance and research from a variety of organizations and research
institutions have identified transportation accessibility as a positive impact on the
quality of life in our communities. This includes the Urban Land Institute, The
National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Home Builders.
The Washington Association of Realtors published a community development
toolkit that specifically mentions the economic benefit of transportation choices and
options of walking, biking, and driving.
Presentations to the Pasco Planning Commission have also referenced guidance
from a variety of Federal Agencies including the Federal Highway and Tr ansit
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and a 2016 Publication from the White House on Housing
Affordability that again, specifies accessible transportation as key need within our
communities.
Further, staff would like to highlight the hundreds of comments received on prior
efforts from members of the community stating the need for better transportation
planning. This input has come in multiple settings, e.g. the development of the;
Land Use Comprehensive Plan Update, Broadmoor Master Plan, Transportation
System Master Plan, countless verbal, print and electronic communications to the
City Council and City staff. As the City expects to grow well above 120,000 people
Page 26 of 152
in the coming decades, setting the stage now for coordinated land use and
transportation planning is critical.
Finally, not inconsequential is the fact that considerable formal public outreach was
undertaken by the Planning Commission on this proposal - over eight (8) Planning
Commission meetings, of which six (6) were public hearings allowing for public
comment. Through this process the proposal evolved into the Planning
Commission’s final recommendation. Subsequent to the aforementioned City
Council presentations developmeand Commission's Planning the nt of
recommendation, staff has met with specifically with representatives and members
of the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities (July 15 and August 13, 2021) as
well as an update on additional alternatives being considered during a monthly
developer outreach meeting, which took place on August 5, 2021 to discuss and
seek input on Planning Commission recommendation, and later the two alternative
proposals. From these discussions and others with stakeholders, Alternatives #2
and #3 were developed.
CED staff welcomes comments about the proposals: the Planning Commission
recommendation from October 2020 and Alternatives #2 and #3. The two staff
alternatives additional for options with intended provide to are Council
consideration to increase transportation access and mobility in our community. As
the two alternatives were developed subsequent to the Planning Commission
recommendation, Council will note from the attachments that little exists in the
record on the public's reaction to Alternatives #2 and #3.
Upon receiving comments, staff anticipates there will be a need for subsequent
evaluation and discussion on the proposals, in this regard it seems appropriate to
return the matter to the Planning Commission to allow them the opportunity to
consider subsequent of result the as staff alternatives two the (developed
discussions with one of the stakeholder groups), take further public input on this
matter, and to develop an updated recommendation with the benefit of this new
information for further consideration by Council. In the alternative, the City Council
may elect to conduct an additional workshop(s) on this matter to receive and
evaluate further public comment and formulate a final policy on this matter.
Staff welcomes feedback from the Council on the subject policy proposals and
thoughts on a path forward to finalize this effort.
Page 27 of 152
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 28 of 152
Page 29 of 152
Page 30 of 152
Page 31 of 152
Page 32 of 152
Page 33 of 152
Page 34 of 152
RECEIVED
JUN 1 8 2020
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
External Email \\'arning! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not
click links or open attach ments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Pasco Planning Commission,
I work at Kadlec hospital and until fairly recently lived in West Pasco. I regularly commuted by
bike or by bus from my home near Argent Road and Road 68 to Kadlec in Richland. However,
getting to a grocery store or shopping are or even to a friend's home within West Pasco was often
quite difficult due to the lack of street connectivity. I remember trying to bike to the home of a
family member at the subdivision near Road 100, south of the freeway. That neighborhood is
almost completely sunounded by privacy fencing and has few entry points so I could not reach
the home in a direct manner and had to travel a long circuitous route on a sweltering summer
day. A connected street grid would have made this trip much more efficient.
I encourage you to please consider designing any future neighborhoods in traditional street grids
with shorter block lengths so that people are not discouraged from traveling by bike, transit or on
foot within the city of Pasco. I struggled with this as a resident of West Pasco and it was
ultimately a main factor in my decision to move away.
Sincerely,
Maricela Sanchez
From: Maricela Sanchez <maricela.sgr@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:36 PM
To: Kristin Webb <webbk@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Street Connectivity
Page 35 of 152
I-�;\1i; _; ••, • '� ' • • l : • ' • IA I
··,:-:·:' '�,-�...
-,:,, �
Jacob Gonzalez
Senior Planner
Community and Economic Development Department
City of Pasco
525 N. Third Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
RECEIVED
AUo 1 9 2020
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RE: Comments Regarding MF# CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity, August 20, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting
Dear Mr. Gonzalez:
On behalf of Big Sky Developers LLC, we have reviewed the proposed street connectivity code
amendments and determined there are significant (potentially unintended) negative consequences that
need more vetting by the development community and City staff before the public comment period is
closed on this item. We ask that the proposed motion to close the public hearing be removed and
replaced with a recommendation to continue the public hearing to the September 17, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting.
We agree that continual review and improvements of development standards is necessary. Specifically,
we agree improvements to vehicle and pedestrian connectivity can and should be made. For these
improvements to be made successfully, input from all stakeholders needs to be sought. A substantial
amount of information has been provided in support of the street connectivity amen dments, but no
information was found discussing the inherent negative tradeoffs.
As the attached exhibit shows, input from the development community is crucial to providing well
thought out improvements to the code in order to achieve the desired end state of increased connectivity.
The current proposal will decrease density, drive up the cost of new housing, and limit the development
potential of undeveloped property. These three items are significant and can be properly mitigated.
We hope you and City staff will consider our request reasonable and recommend the Planning
Commission continue the public hearing. We also encourage you to schedule a virtual meeting with local
developers and other members of our development community in order to get input and come up with
alternative connectivity solutions that work for everyone. Collectively we can provide the residents of the
City of Pasco a better comm unity to live in.
Sincerely,
Caleb Stromstad, PE
Principal Engineer
Aqtera Engineering
Enclosures: Exhibit A -Proposed Street Connectivity Impacts
Cc: Dave Greeno, Big Sky Developers, LLC
2705 St. Andrews Loop, Suite C I Pasco, WA 99301 I 509.845.0208 , ,�,. 1, I info@aqtera.com .r 1: I AQTERA.COM
8/19/20
Page 36 of 152
Page 37 of 152
Page 38 of 152
Jacob Gonzalez
Senior Planner
Home Builders Ass�ciation of Tri-Cities
Building the Tri-Cities since 1958
Community and Economic Development Department
City of Pasco
525 N. 3rd Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Subject: Public Hearing Submittal -Street Connectivity (MF# CA 2019-013)
August 20, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting
August 20, 2020
RECEIVED
AUu 2 0 2020
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (HBA), a non-profit trade association
representing nearly 600 members who employ over 6000 people in the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla areas,
I would like to submit our concern over the proposed street connectivity changes. We ask that the
proposed motion to close the public hearing be removed and replaced with a recommendation to
continue the public hearing to the September 17 1\ 2020 Planning Commission Meeting. The HBA
would like to host a Zoom meeting offering members the opportunity to have input on the proposed
changes.
In the past we have worked with the City of Pasco on many difficult decisions regarding development
changes. We understand the need for change in trying to accommodate one of the fastest growing
counties in the state. As the HBA will be one of the most affected stakeholders by this proposed change
it seems appropriate to have a meeting where we can invite the developers to make comments to be
sure it is properly vetted.
In the wake of what has been a very difficult year for the construction industry which is seeing further
shortages of labor and supply chain disruptions, adding more regulations now will make housing even
more un-affordable. The discussion we continue to hear is there isn't enough affordable housing
available, yet the proposed changes will only exacerbate a statewide problem by increasing lot prices to
every home buyer. This seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to help the housing crisis.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
.... -·---�-$--�
Jeffery Losey
Executive Director
Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities, WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick, WA 99336
(509) 735-2745 or (877) 842-8453 I Fax: (509) 735-8470 I www.hbatc.com
Page 39 of 152
11111 r■:1 ENGINEERINGl!a IIIIPLLC
From: 4;:::::::-John Fetterolf I r
To: City of Pasco Planning/ Planning Commission
RE: Proposed Street Connectivity code revision
nCl,tlVCU
AUG 2 7 2020
Date: August 27, 2020
As a private development engineer that has worked on projects in the City of Pasco for the past
18 years, I felt it important to provide feedback to the proposed revision to the PMC regarding
Street Connectivity.
Block lengths being required at a maximum of 660'. In brief, I am opposed to this revision.
1 . A block length of 660' obviously results in additional intersections. Each intersection
has an associated risk to the traveling public in the form of collisions with other vehicles
and creates additional points of vehicle/ pedestrian conflict and potential injury. This is
a life-safety issue, contrary to Pasco's Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-2.
2.Each additional cross street also results in additional impervious surfaces which
increases stormwater runoff and increases the heat mounding effect to the urban area.
Both items are a negative to our shared environment. This is contrary to Pasco's
Comprehensive Plan Goal LU-3.
3.Each additional cross street results in reduced net usable area for homes. The Tri
Cities is in a housing crisis with a shortage of SFR lots. This proposed code revision
does nothing to assist to resolve that issue and does little to improve the quality of life of
it's residences.
4.Intersections with collector and arterial roadways should be limited. To facilitate an
efficient transportation system, intersections to major thoroughfares must be restricted.
Multiple intersections along these routes create significant risk to the traveling public
and length travel times due to traffic slowing to turn in / out of the system.
Should increasing pedestrian mobility/flexibility be the goal, as an alternative I would suggest
intra-block pedestrian pathways.
Future Street Plan -In brief, I am opposed to this revision.
There are so many problems with this requirement, I hardly know where to start. To try and
require one development to prepare a layout on adjacent parcel or parcels "within 600 feet" of
their boundary is well intentioned but completely pointless, costly to implement, and unduly
burdensome on the applicant.
In my 27-year history of working on private development, I have never run into an instance
where a property could not develop due to conflict with a previous development layout.
7500 W Clearwater, Ste A • Kennewick, WA • 509.551.8174 • John@JFEngineering.pro
l!:llli
Page 40 of 152
Page 41 of 152
Page 42 of 152
Page 43 of 152
Page 44 of 152
Page 45 of 152
Page 46 of 152
Page 47 of 152
Page 48 of 152
Page 49 of 152
Washington State Department of Transportation
October 15, 2020
RECEIVED
Lil-·,· l 5 2020
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Planning Commissioners
South Central Region
2809 Rudkin Road
Union Gap, WA 98903-1648
509-577-1600 I FN< 509-577-1603TTY: 1-800-833-6388
www.wsdot.wa.gov
Bowers, Campos, Mendez, Jennings, Campos, Myhrum, Teel, Hendler, and Cochran
City of Pasco
525 N 3rd Ave,
Pasco, WA 9930 I
Re: Code Amendment (CA2019-013) Street Connectivity
Dear Commissioners; Bowers, Campos, Mendez, Jennings, Campos, Myhrum, Teel, Hendler,
and Cochran,
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) commends the City of Pasco
for your efforts to update the Pasco Municipal Code to integrate clear street connectivity
requirements. The changes will advance state policy goals (including those outlined in RCW
36.?0A.020 and RCW 47.04.280) as well as implementing long-established local goals and
policies as reflected in Pasco's Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan and the
upcoming Transportation System Master Plan. The proposed ordinance is exactly the type of
regulation that a growing number of cities have already adopted and is considered a model of
smart development regulations.
WSDOT's South Central Region has previously provided written comments in support of
Pasco's street connectivity ordinance and Transportation System Master Plan. This letter adds
to our previous letter to address the significance of these actions from a statewide perspective.
The state legislature has established duties for WSDOT, including developing strategies to
reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita, promoting integrated multimodal planning,
considering efficiency tools, balancing system safety and convenience for all users of the
transpo1tation system, and designing environmentally sustainable, context-sensitive
transportation systems.
The critical importance of network connectivity is well-established nationally and
internationally. This is reflected in guidance such as the US Department of Transportation's
Promoting Connectivity efforts, Federal Highway Administration's Guidebook for Measuring
Multimodal Connectivity, the National Association of City Transportation Official's Global
Street Design Guide, and numerous articles and guidance from the Urban Land Institute.
A connected street network is a smart investment in the financial future of Pasco and its
people. For most people, housing plus transportation are the two largest household expenses.
Connected networks lower transportation expenses by making more trips feasible by walking,
bicycling, and transit; sho11ening travel distances by car (reducing gas consumption and
vehicle wear and tear); and by giving household members who can't drive (or don't have
access to a car) greater mobility independence. By enabling more physical activity, connected
street networks can further reduce burdens on families by contributing to better health and
lower medical costs.
Page 50 of 152
Page 51 of 152
RECEIVED
Dear Pasco Planning Commissioner's,
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
I am a resident of Richland, but I understand that how neighborhoods in Kennewick, Pasco, and West
Richland are designed effects the entire Tri-Cities community as a whole. I live in Central Richland
because it's a great place to walk and bicycle. I fully support the changes to city code that your planning
department has proposed. I would hope that Richland would do the same.
Central Richland was designed in the 1940s with small block sizes on a grid with pedestrian and bicycle
access paths, neighborhood parks, neighborhood commercial hubs, and many duplexes mixed alongside
single family homes within medium density neighborhoods. This makes central Richland a fairly safe
and pleasant place to walk and bicycle as a form of transportation and recreation and a desirable place
to live.
I'm a mother and I know many other parents who prioritized walkability and bikeability when buying
their homes. Children need to be able to walk and bicycle safely to school, to the 711, and to the park.
Parents enjoy walking and bicycling to work. Lollipop suburban sprawl is not desirable to young people.
The alternative is not high density urban living. The alternative is medium density neighborhoods that
are accessible to people walking and bicycling, to transit, and to emergency vehicles.
Of course local developers want to keep building lollipop suburban sprawl because it's cheaper for
them. But it's more expensive for our cities in the long run and unsustainable ..
Residents have a right to walk and bicycle to schools, transit, grocery, pharmacies, community centers,
parks, and medical clinics. It is irresponsible of our cities to allow neighborhoods where driving is
mandated to be built. 1/3 or the population cannot drive. Driving vehicles is not an equitable form of
transportation. Our population is aging. It's important that we are well prepared for the baby boomer
generation to age in place, which means that they will need transportation options besides driving.
Growing up in Richland, I've come to know it's people. I know Dora, the 84yr old lady with dementia
who walks 3hrs a day around town with her walker. I know Robin, who is probably schizophrenic, and
walks Richland's streets talking and yelling to himself. I knew aunt Margaret, who did as well, until she
was killed by a car driver. These people grew up in Richland too and are a part of our community. We
have a responsibility to design neighborhoods to be safe and practical for all residents regardless of age
or ability.
Our current codes and zoning laws our outdated, relics of the autocentric 20th century. Pasco is
fortunate to have dedicated city planners cleaning up the mess and moving the city into the 21st century
and sustainable and equitable growth.
Sincerely,
Laila Krowiak
Richland
Page 52 of 152
RECEIVED .
Ut.. I 1 5 2020
COMMUNITY & ECONO MIC DEVELOPMEN T
Good evening Planning Commission and interested parties,
My name is Margaret Vincent, I am a resident of Kennewick. I come to you as a League of American
Bicyclists Certified Instructor who volunteers in the Pasco School District. The program I co-lead with an
educator is an afterschool bicycling program at the middle school level. This program includes learning
bicycle and traffic safety, learning to ride alone and in a group, and basic mechanics.
During the 3 years I have worked with this program teaching route planning and assisting the
participants with determining the safest routes to walk or ride to their intended destinations it has
become clear to me that active transportation (walk, bike, etc.) is a challenge for our community.
When participants in the program are handed the area wide bicycle map and asked to circle places they
would like to get to on their bike they consistently circle the Pasco Library, the Rec Center (swimming
pool), McDonalds, Fiesta Foods, the fishing pond in Columbia Park, and the river trails. All places we like
our youth to visit. I encourage you to put on your walker/bicyclist hat, grab that map, and find a route
to any one of these locations from your home or school safely and comfortably.
Unlike me many Pasco residents do not use active transportation by choice. Many are unable to get a
license to drive or are unable to afford a car. Having safe connecting routes provides them with
opportunities for transportation independence that are currently lacking. This in turn allows them
lifestyle and economic opportunities currently closed to them. Examples might include a job, the library,
the swimming pool, the senior center, a visit to family.
This is the reason I am writing you. Those who do not or cannot use a car to get to places must move
along very busy and heavily traveled streets. They must make crossings at confusing busy intersections
sometimes not marked and frequently out of the most direct route, often as far as¼ mile. The routes
may not have sidewalks even on those busy roads. The physical barriers to getting to the locations
identified by the bicycle club participants are many.
As a user and teacher of active transportation skills, I will affirm to you, the least expensive, safest, and
most desirable active transportation routes are through neighborhoods. The speeds are slower, the
number of vehicles is lower, drivers are more aware, and the path is frequently just as direct.
The proposal before begins to make an incremental difference for our youth, and others who do not
qualify for a driver license. Intentional traffic connectivity encourages people to use alternative
transportation via safe routes through neighborhoods to desirable locations. Being out of our cars
provides opportunities to engage with our neighbors and fosters a deeper sense of community.
As we continue to plan our quickly expanding communities, let us work in support of more connectivity
for active transportation and livability equity for all. I ask you to please approve these code changes and
get the sneakers walking and bikes rolling as transportation for all our community members.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you,
Triangle Corner Consulting & Training
Page 53 of 152
Home Builders Ass:,ciation or Tri-Cities
RECEIVED
Ul. I l 5 2020
Building the Tri-Cities since 1958 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jacob Gonzalez
Senior Planner
Community and Economic Development Department
City of Pasco
525 N. 3 rd Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Subject: Public Hearing Submittal -Street Connectivity (MF# CA 2019-013)
October 15, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting
On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (HBA), a non-profit trade association
representing nearly 600 members who employ over 6000 people in the Tri-Cities and Walla Walla areas,
I would like to submit our continued concern over the proposed street connectivity changes.
The proposed Street Connectivity Code Amendment has many negative consequences and some, not all,
are listed below:
•Increased Development Costs -Development costs will increase 10% to 20% due to the
proposed code amendments.
•Decreased Density -Additional streets caused by the reduced block length will decrease
achievable lot density by over 10%.
•Increased Legal Liability for City -Case law has proven that stubbing streets to adjacent
properties without proper justification places the jurisdictional authority in a vulnerable position
for a lawsuit. The City of Kennewick does not require stubbed streets for this very reason.
•Increase of Intersection Conflict Points -Intersections are by nature points of conflict.
Increasing the number of intersections by reducing block lengths increases the risk for
pedestrian-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts. These are significant safety consideration
that need to be properly vetted.
We appreciate the time you have spent on putting this code amendment together and we would like to
help get it over the finish line. Our committee has submitted proposed changes as of the last meeting.
Some of those concerns have been addressed and others go unanswered or un-addressed. We have
had one meeting to offer alternatives year to date. The last meeting was a presentation not a working
meeting as we just discussed what was being presented at tonight's meeting.
We are asking that this proposed code amendment be rejected in its entirety by the Planning
Commission, with the recommendation to work with the Development Community in coming up with
a street connectivity change that is prepared collaboratively.
Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities, WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick, WA 99336
(509)735-2745 or (877) 842-8453 I Fax: (509) 735-8470 I www.hbatc.com
Page 54 of 152
Page 55 of 152
Land
Property Size in Acres
16
16
Site Improvements
Lots
64
56
Hard and Soft Costs
Lots
64
56
Total Land Costs
Lots
64
56
Cost Impact to consumer
Lots
64
56
Additional cost impacts
Increased lumber cost
Wasington Engery Code
Dev Cost increases
$ per Ac
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
LF Steets
2,320
2,880
Land
$ 18,750
$ 21,429
Cost per lot
$ 48,000
$ 59,786
$ 16,000
$ 10,000
$ 11,786
Total cost for land
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
Cost per LF
$ 600
$ 600
Site Imp.
$ 21,750
$ 30,857
1500 SF
RECEIVED
Ul. I 1 5 2020
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Lot Yield Cost per lot
64 $ 18,750
56 $ 21,429
Additional Cost per Lot $ 2,679
Total cost
1,392,000
1,728,000
Additional Cost per Lot
H&S cost
$ 7,500
$ 7,500
Additional Cost per Lot
Addit ional Cost per Sale
Cost per lot
$ 21,750
$ 30,857
$ 9,107
Cost per lot
$
$
7,500
7,500
Cost per lot
$ 48,000
$ 59,786
$ 11,786
ASP
$ 275,000
$ 311,000
$ 36,000
$ 48,000
$ 30,000
$ 36,000
Grand Total cost passed to consumer $ 114,000
Page 56 of 152
Page 57 of 152
From: Sarah Dallosto <sarah_dallosto@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:01 PM
To: Jacob Gonzalez <gonzalezjb@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: Support the Pasco Connectivity Ordinance
External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jacob Gonzalez,
Dear Mr. Gonzalez,
I'm writing today to ask you to support street connectivity in Pasco and support ordinance Street
Connectivity MF# CA 2019-013.
This street connectivity ordinance will support a safe and equitable multi-modal transportation system.
There is a large disparity in access to safe, efficient transportation options in our community. US Census
Bureau data (2012-2016) indicates that in some places in Pasco, over 18% of households do not own a
vehicle, higher than the national average of 8.6% of households without a vehicle. Street connectivity
will improve safety, access to employment and amenities, and help our most vulnerable road users:
children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Pedestrians—in particular those with mobility issues and
children walking unaccompanied to school—require direct routes that do not expose them to fast
moving, high volume traffic.
Connectivity will help remove barriers to active transportation and will encourage an active lifestyle and
improve the health of our community. Additionally, connectivity will have a net economic value. People
living and visiting places with safe, pleasant biking and walking options consider these places more
“livable” and are more likely to frequent local businesses. Finally, encouraging active transportation is
good for the environment; motor vehicles, roads and parking facilities are a major source of air and
water pollution.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Sarah Dallosto
Tukwila, WA 98188
Page 58 of 152
People Place Prosperity Posterity
3555 Strawberry Lane, Richland, WA 99352
March 1, 2020
To: City of Pasco City Council
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director
Jacob Gonzales, Senior Planner
From: Executive Board of Sustainable Tri-Cities
Re: Comments on the City of Pasco Street Connectivity MF# CA 2019-013
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainable Tri-Cities works throughout the Tri-Cities to promote and advocate for livable and
sustainable principles and practices, bringing stakeholders together to create and maintain a
community-wide collaborative effort, improving quality of life for all residents, and building resilience in
the Tri-Cities region. We strive for mobility equity, safety measures for vulnerable road users and an
infrastructure encouraging active transportation. We support the City of Pasco street connectivity
amendments with revisions to the minimum intersection distance, maximum block perimeter, and
public accessways. We appreciate the City’s efforts to develop a safe, healthy, and equitable
transportation system.
We support an effective multi-modal transportation system for a variety of reasons. There is a large
disparity in access to safe, efficient transportation options and we encourage the cities to address the
inequities while addressing transportation needs. Access to a safe network of trails and bike paths
encourages an active lifestyle and improves the health of our community. People out walking and
bicycling are also more likely to frequent local businesses and often spend more money locally than
those who drive. Furthermore, street connectivity will help our most vulnerable road users: children,
seniors, and people with disabilities. Pedestrians—in particular those with mobility issues and children
walking unaccompanied to school—require direct routes that do not expose them to vehicles traveling
in excess of 20 mph or to high volumes of vehicles. We encourage local governments to prioritize
pedestrian accessibility, safety, and comfort by designing infrastructure that supports active
transportation on trips less than 2 miles from home. Desire lines between neighborhoods, transit stops,
and amenities (stores, parks, libraries, medical centers and places of employment) should be the
shortest and safest route alternative. Identifying and removing barriers along these routes is critical as
well.
We would like to thank the City of Pasco for the opportunity to comment on Street Connectivity MF# CA
2019-013 and recommend the Council approve the ordinance. This street connectivity ordinance will
support a safe and equitable multi-modal transportation system.
Sincerely,
James Wise
President
Page 59 of 152
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Amendments (CA2019-013) | Updated July 2021 Scenario Max Block Length Max Block Perimeter Connectivity to Abutting Lands Future Street Plan Non-Motorized Accessways Min Intersection Distance Other TSMP Recommendation 660' 1,400' Yes Yes Yes Variable Max Spacing: Principle: 1 – 2 mi Minor: 1 mi Collector: 2,640’ Neighborhood Collector: 1,320’ Local: 300-500’ Non-Motorized: 300’ Planning Commission Recommendation Citywide: 660' Riverview: 1,000’ Residential: 1,880’ Commercial: 2,800’ Industrial: Exempt Yes w/street stub placement Yes Yes (Required when max block length/perimeter exceed standards or where cul-de-sacs are within 1,320’ of public land use facility/amenity) AASHTO/FHWA Staff Alternative #2 Citywide: 990’ Residential: 2,640’ (1/2 mi) Commercial (C-1): 3,960’ (3/4 mi) C-3 and Industrial: ExemptPUDs: Exempt Yes w/dedication of ROW + no improvements Yes Yes (Required when max block length exceeds 600’ or where block perimeter exceeds standards or where cul-de-sacs are within 1,320’ of public land use facility/amenity) AASHTO/FHWA Max Spacing: Principle: 1 – 2 mi Minor: 1 mi Collector: 2,640’ Neighborhood Collector: 1,320’ Non-Motorized: 330’ Staff Alternative #3 Average MAX Citywide: 690’ Riverview: 1,000’ Residential: Average MAX: 3,300’ Commercial (C-1): 3,960’ (3/4 mi) C-3 and Industrial: ExemptPUDs: Exempt Yes w/dedication of ROW + no improvements Yes Yes (Required when max block length/perimeter exceed standards or where cul-de-sacs are within 1,320’ of public land use facility/amenity) AASHTO/FHWA Max Spacing: Principle: 1 – 2 mi Minor: 1 mi Collector: 2,640’ Neighborhood Collector: 1,320’ Non-Motorized: 330’ HBA-TC Proposal (09/17/2020) 1,320 No No No Required when Block Length exceeds 800’ 125’ No Change "55"$).&/5Page 60 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Objective:Meet established Goals & Policies
◦Pasco City Council Goals (2010-Current)
◦2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (Resolution #3021)
◦2018 Complete Streets Policy (Ordinance #4389)
◦2018 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Resolution #3853)
◦2020-2021 Pasco City Council Goals (Resolution #3985)
◦2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #7537)
◦In Progress: Transportation System Master Plan
➢To be completed September 2021Page 61 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
2020-2021 Pasco City Council Goals (Resolution 3985)
Community Transportation Network -Promote a highly-functional multi-modal
transportation system through:
◦Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access
◦Utilization and development of policies, regulations, programs and projects that provide
for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi-modal systems,
accessibility, efficiency and safetyPage 62 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
What is Street Connectivity?
The degree to which the transportation system
provides access to destinations
•Access: quality of travel (options, comfort, risks, time)
•Connectivity: routes that connect origins and destinations
•Mobility: ease of travel for moving goods, services, peoplePage 63 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Measuring Connectivity:
Strategies from United State Department of Transportation
•Short Block Lengths
•Intersection Density
•Multi-modal Prioritization
•Safe and visible bicycle/pedestrian facilities
•Complete Streets Policy
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
www.transportation.gov/mission/health/promoting-connectivityPage 64 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Connectivity Benefits:
•Traffic distribution and efficiency
•Orderly development of utilities
•Community access
•Safety
•Environmental
•Equity
•Costs
Source: Marshall & Garrick, 2010
Source: City of Pasco Street CenterlinesPage 65 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Existing Conditions:
•Safety Issues
•Burden Blvd
•Sylvester Street
•Court Street
•Lewis Street
•Congestion Issues
•Road 68
•Burden Blvd
•US 395 @ Sylvester and Lewis Streets
Source: Draft Transportation System Master Plan (August 2021)Page 66 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Existing Conditions:
Intersection Density: measures
intersections/nodes by area
•Central Pasco:
•High levels of density
•I-182/West Pasco
•Lower levels of density, with
increased cul-de-sac frequency
•East of Oregon Avenue
•Combination of characteristics
with un-defined pattern
49.05
(15.73)
115.65
(10)
68.23
(16.2)
121.39
(6.09)
41.50
(17.92)
45.62
(14.72)
52.75
(24.32)Page 67 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Existing Conditions:
Block Perimeter: the distance around
each block
•Central Pasco:
•Shorter block perimeters
•I-182/West Pasco
•Increased block perimeter distances
•East of Oregon Avenue
•Combination of short to medium block
perimeter lengths
Avg Residential Block Perimeter: 2,618’Page 68 of 152
Street Connectivity
Existing Conditions (Schools)
Source: Walkscore.com787673 72636160594836363531.827272017151413121010666320
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
WALKSCORE
Page 69 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Comparing Regulations
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Maximum Block Length (ft)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Average Block Perimeter (ft)
Source: Subdivision Regulations (Municipal Codes)Source: Center for Neighborhood TechnologyPage 70 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
How do we compare?
47%
Housing + Transportation
(PCT of Income)
#10
Sources: Center for Neighborhood Technology; Census American Community Survey (2018 5 -yr Estimates); Census LODES/LEHD
24%
Transportation
(PCT of Income)
#3 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Transportation Costs per Household (Percent of Total Income)Page 71 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Street Pattern Challenges
•Disconnected
•Limited continuity
•Lack of predictability
•No direct accessPage 72 of 152
Street Connectivity
Community Input (Sidewalks & Bike/Ped)
Sidewalk constraints identified from TSMP Survey (Spring 2020)Crosswalk and crossing constraints identified from TSMP Survey (Spring 2020)Page 73 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Policy Recommendations
Connectivity to Abutting Lands:
The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed to connect to existing, proposed, and planned
streets adjacent to the subdivision.
Future Street Plan
Demonstrate, pursuant to City standards, that the proposed development does not preclude future street
connections to adjacent lands.
Intersection Spacing
Based Guidelines from American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO )Page 74 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Policy Recommendations
Cul-de-sacs
The cul-de-sac shall provide, or not preclude the opportunity to later install, an accessway connecting to adjacent
developments, or adjacent developable lands.
Non-Motorized Accessways
Constructed between lots to minimize travel distance between subdivisions, parks, schools, and collector or
arterial streets.
A reasonably direct connection is a route that minimizes out of direction travel for people likely to use the
connection considering terrain, safety and likely destination. Page 75 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Pasco Planning Commission Recommendations (Oct 2020)
Land Use Maximum Block
Length
Maximum Block
Perimeter
Maximum Cul-de-Sac
Length
Residential 660’1,880’600’
Commercial (C-1)660’2,800’600’
“Riverview / West Pasco”1,000’N/A 600’
Speed Minimum Intersection Distance (ft)
25 155
30 200
35 250
40 305
45 360
50 425
55 495
Exemptions:
•Planned Unit Developments
•MF 20 + Units
•Government/Public/Civic Uses
•Cul-de-sac pathways required within 1,320’ of public land
use or facility (parks, schools, public transportation)Page 76 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Support & Collaboration
Page 77 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Addressing Concerns
Staff held three separate meetings with the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities (HBA-TC)
•September 10, 2020
•October 12, 2020
•August 13, 2021
•Concerns:
•Limited outreach
•Timing
•Increased costs
•Staff met (virtually) with the Tri-Cities Association of Realtors on November 18, 2020Page 78 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Proposal Max Block
Length Max Block Perimeter Connectivity to
Abutting Lands
Future Street
Plan
Non-Motorized
Accessways
Min
Intersection
Distance
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Citywide: 660'
Riverview: 1,000’
Residential: 1,880’
Commercial: 2,800’
Industrial: Exempt
Yes w/street stub
placement Yes Yes AASHTO/FHWA
Staff Alternative #2 Citywide: 990’
Residential: 2,640’ (1/2 mi)
Commercial (C-1): 3,960’ (3/4 mi)
C-2, C-3 and Industrial: Exempt
PUDs: Exempt
Yes w/dedication of
ROW + no
improvements
Yes Yes AASHTO/FHWA
Staff Alternative #3
Average MAX
Citywide: 690’
Riverview: 1,000’
Residential: Average MAX: 3,300’
Commercial (C-1): 3,960’ (3/4 mi)
C-2, C-3 and Industrial: Exempt
PUDs: Exempt
Yes w/dedication of
ROW + no
improvements
Yes Yes AASHTO/FHWAPage 79 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Street Connectivity (Code Amendment 2019-013)
Key Themes
•Access
•Collaboration
•Connectivity
•Efficiency
•Mobility
•Multi-modal
•Safety
Benefits
•Addressing Community Input
•Implementation of Recommendations & Best
Practices
•Compliance & Consistency
•Dependable development pattern
Impacts
•Increased Regulations
•CostsPage 80 of 152
CA2019-013 -Street Connectivity
Questions?Page 81 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 20, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Bob Gear, Fire Chief
Fire Department
SUBJECT: Impacts of COVID-19 on the Pasco Fire Department
I. REFERENCE(S):
PowerPoint Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Presentation and Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Ongoing impact of operational budget as previously reported.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On January 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
and Washington State Department of Health announced the first case of 2019
Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States and in Washington State.
From that period to the current time, COVID-19 has had a significant impact on
day-to-day operations for the Pasco Fire Department. From increased use of
personal protective equipment (PPE), cleaning, social distancing to standing up
and managing both a testing site and vaccination site, the challenges have been
met by Pasco Fire Department (Pasco Fire) personnel, both current and utilizing
retired Pasco Fire personnel to bolster resources. While progress was being
made with case counts decreasing and the region making good progress, the
latest Delta variant of COVID-19 has forced Pasco Fire to respond to another
surge of patients resulting in additional workload for Pasco Fire and area
hospitals.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 82 of 152
The initial impact of COVID-19 was a procedural change in operations with
increased use of PPE and additional cleaning of apparatus and stations. The
local EMS agencies worked with the Medical Program Director (MPD), Dr.
Hodges to establish protocols for handling COVID positive or presumed positive
patients. This led to changes in how Pasco Fire staff approached patients and
allowed some ability to advise stable patients to remain home to avoid
overwhelming hospital and clinic resources.
The overall number of transports for 2021 is up compared to both 2019 and
2020. During the early part of 2020 at the beginning of the pandemic, transports
actually decreased, as people were staying at home and following the CDC
guidelines for avoiding infection. This year, the transports have not dropped off
with the exception of July, and that was a minor drop compared to the overall
trend.
In tracking the number of COVID positive or presumed positive patients, the peak
number of transports was in July and December of 2020 (138, 151, respectively).
During that same time frame, there was a steady percentage of the patients that
were not transported, which increases the overall contact with patients with
symptoms.
Tracking the number of patient conta cts was key to the National Fire Incident
Reporting System (NFIRS) as part of the United States Fire Administration
(USFA). Early in 2020, each incident was categorized as being impacted by
COVID or not. With each “Yes” answer, documentation of who had a c ontact
was done. This documentation has shown 1,469 contacts since early 2020 that
Pasco Fire personnel have had. While not each contact is linked to a specific
COVID positive case for Pasco Fire personnel, it was assumed that if a firefighter
tested positive, it would be considered work related. To date, Pasco Fire
Department has had 17 staff diagnosed as COVID positive. None of them have
had any identified lingering effects as of now.
The continued contact with COVID positive patients and resulting amount of
cleaning and decontamination has resulted in both physical and mental impacts
on Pasco Fire staff. As part of the USFA study noted earlier, there are many
areas of impact that are being studied as part of the report. Part of the reason
for conducting and participating in the data gathering is to determine how to
maintain first responder resilience and keep Pasco Fire Department's employees
healthy and engaged, both physically and mentally.
Due to the amount of time lost for personnel being either out sick or isolated due
to potential exposures, overtime to backfill minimum staffing is becoming
increasingly hard to fill. With the support of the COVID test site and the mass
vaccination site (both discussed below), the will to work extra hours, potentially
risking exposure of self and families, resulted in several occasions of forcing on-
duty staff to fill overtime.
Page 83 of 152
As part of the larger community response to the pandemic, the City of Pasco
stepped up and established or supported two different aspects of the response:
1) a testing site; and 2) a mass vaccination site.
The Pasco COVID test site was implemented using an unoccupied Columbia
Basin College building and the surrounding parking area that allowed for good
flow. The site was managed using retired Pasco Fire Department personnel who
willingly came back to assist in helping the site be successful. This allowed on
duty crews to remain in service. Pasco worked very closely with Benton Fran klin
Health District, Health Commons, Columbia Safety and the University of
Washington to facilitate the free testing site, with test results being returned in
less than 24 hours. The testing site continues to operate today and is currently
meeting and/or exceeding the daily number of tests conducted compared to
earlier in the year.
When Washington State indicated that Kennewick would be a mass vaccination
site, Pasco Fire personnel also assisted in standing the site up and making it
one of the most efficient vaccination sites in the state. In order for the site to be
successful, several of the fire agencies provided EMS standby using overtime
staffing, as well as staffing various positions within the Incident Command
System. This had some impacts on Pasco Fire Department's staffing, as there
were occasions where on duty crews were used due to lack of personnel on
certain days. 81,237 vaccine doses were delivered by the site (or associated pop
up sites).
Both efforts resulted in additional work by Pasco F ire staff and included the
following number of hours for each site:
• Testing site: 212.25 regular hours; 248 overtime hours
• Vaccination site: 1,216 regular hours; 1,677.5 overtime hours
As the latest surge related to the Delta variant continues on, additional
requirements outlined and required by Washington State include: health care
providers being fully vaccinated by October 18, 2021. Pasco Fire Department
was expecting this action to occur at some time. Pasco Fire staff began getting
vaccinated in January 2021 and currently, 73.5% of staff are fully vaccinated.
That leaves about 23 staff that need to be fully vaccinated by the cutoff date.
Options for employees getting vaccinations have been provided to them to meet
the deadline. Those that wish to file for religious or medical exemptions, as
allowed by the process, will be directed to Human Resources to work through
the process.
Page 84 of 152
Pasco Fire Department
COVID -19 ImpactsPage 85 of 152
COVID Impacts
◦Increased use of PPE
◦Longer times for return to service –decontamination of transporting unit and personnel
◦This results in other stations responding to other stations area –longer response times
◦Increased costs
◦Exposure of personnel with resulting positive COVID tests
◦17 personnel tested positive (20%)
◦1469 contacts to date
◦Both mental and physical impacts to staff
◦Dealing with unknown disease that is highly transmissible
◦Variants that continue to evolve
◦Unknown future health effects of those that have tested positive
◦Becoming more difficult to backfill positions
◦USFA is currently researching impacts with emphasis on developing resilience of responders
◦Currently experiencing constant hospital diversion notifications
◦high patient load
◦lack of staff to support patientsPage 86 of 152
Call Volume Comparison
Page 87 of 152
Ambulance Transports
•August 2021 –167 Total
transports through 17th
(on track for ~300 for the
month)
•71 of those are COVID
related
•Percentage of overall
transports (43%)
matches higher months
•Continue to remind
stable patients that
remaining home is a
valid option (per medical
protocols)Page 88 of 152
Community Actions
◦Support of CBC Test site during vaccination clinics
◦Overtime or use on duty crew
◦Regular hours –215.25 hours; Overtime hours –248 hours
◦Support of Kennewick Mass Vaccination site (January 2021 to May 2021)
◦Overtime for EMS standby (including on duty ambulance when OT not filled)
◦Assignment of personnel from normal assignments
◦Regular hours –1,216; Overtime hours –1,677.5
◦81,237 doses deliveredPage 89 of 152
Tests by Week of Year
May June July AugustPage 90 of 152
Vaccination Status
◦WA DOH requiring health care workers to be fully vaccinated by October 18, 2021
◦Firefighters (EMT) and Paramedics are health care workers
◦73.5% fully vaccinated
◦23 personnel have not been vaccinated
◦Working with Human Resources to address requirements and implications
◦Employee can request religious or medical exemptionPage 91 of 152
QuestionsPage 92 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 18, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: National Community Survey
I. REFERENCE(S):
Prior Community Survey Policy Questions
Possible Policy Question Topics
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
General Fund - $18,500 budgeted for this effort.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In anticipation for Council's biennial goal setting effort, the City has contracted
for a community survey to be completed since 2005. Staff is in communication
with the National Research Center (NRC) to conduct the National Community
Survey (NCS) in Pasco consisting primarily of standard questions regarding the
availability and quality of municipal services.
The results of this statistically valid survey have served as a va luable tool for
Council in goal-setting efforts and decision making with respect to public policies,
investment and programmatic focus areas. With several cycles of experience,
Council, staff and the public can identify trend lines where the city is making
progress in the opinion of respondents, where we are not, and fine tune efforts
to be more effective. The survey results and subsequent analysis provides
policy-makers with reliable information on which to make decisions in the public
interest and how Pasco compares in terms of performance with other similar
cities utilizing the NCS as a tool. Historically, the City has conducted the NCS in
Page 93 of 152
the fall so that the information is available for the Council's post -election cycle
goal-setting retreat, in this case, in early 2022.
In addition to the questions specific to the major services the City provides, the
Council may add up to three "policy" questions to the survey without additional
cost. Each of the City's previous NCS efforts included policy questions. In order
to have the policy questions included in the survey this fall, NRC will need our
finalized questions to them by early-October. Attached is a comprehensive listing
of supplemental questions and results dating back to 2005.
The 2019 yielded 207 responses from a sample of 1,700 households with their
traditional mailing approach. NRC recommends a hybrid approach, 1,200
households to receive traditional mailed surveys and another 1,500 households
to receive information to complete survey online only, to achieve a margin of
error of +/- 5% for the 2021 survey. The database utilized to generate the
households is from the City's utility billing data.
In addition to responding by mail, sample households have the option to respond
to the survey online. The City has opted to include survey enhancements
including a Spanish-only survey online and survey results geographically (City
Council voting districts) in previous surveys.
The City has also invited the community to submit survey responses online
(results to be kept separate to maintain the scientific results of the base random
survey) in previous years. An additional 289 responses were received in 2019
with this option.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends continuation of the Spanish -only online response option and
results by geographic areas in the 2021 survey. The total cost of the survey is
estimated at $18,500.
In an effort to stimulate discussion, staff offers possible policy topics which
represent some of the policy issues that Council has confronted, or may confront
in the future, for Council's consideration.
Staff encourages Council to consider the proposed policy topics; if Council has
ideas that members would like to see further discussed or developed, it would
be helpful to identify them at the meeting. With the potential for hundreds of
households to participate and provide input to their City government, the NCS is
one of the City's largest interactive community outreach efforts in terms of
numbers involved.
Page 94 of 152
To assist initial discussion, staff has attached possible topics for Council
consideration and looks forward to Council deliberation and direction on this
matter.
Page 95 of 152
2019
Funding Public Art: 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?
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?
Interest in Downtown: How likely, if at all, would each of the following be to bring you to downtown more often?
Page 96 of 152
2017
Code Enforcement: Responding to resident
complaints about trash, weeds, loud noise and
barking dots, the City handles approximately 3,000
code violations per year. Would you like to see code
enforcement in Pasco increase, decrease or stay the
same?
Fire Stations: Two fire protection and emergency
medical response facilities need to be replaced
and/or relocated to better serve the community with
improved response times and space for staffing and
modern equipment. To what extent would you
support or oppose a property tax to fund a new
fire/EMS facility?
Community Center: If a new community recreation center were to be constructed, it could
support a number of different recreation interests. Please indicate your household’s likely level
of interest, if any, in each of the following types of recreation categories:
Page 97 of 152
2015
Recycling and Yard Waste
Services: The City is
considering proving curbside
container recycling and yard
waste services. To what
extent would you support or
oppose these services being
offered:
Traffic Cameras: In order to reduce the rate of serious
traffic accidents at major intersections, the City is
considering installing cameras to increase red light
compliance. To what extent do you support or oppose the
installation of traffic cameras at select intersections in
Pasco?
District‐based Voting in General Elections: Of the seven members of City Council, five
members are district‐based, with only residents within the district able to run for election and
only voters residing within the district voting on district candidates in primary elections and
city‐wide voting in the general (final) election. The method of voting for district‐based
candidates (district‐based voting at the primary level and city‐wide voting in the general
election) is dictated by state law. The City is considering whether to push to change the law to
allow for district‐based voting in the general election in communities that choose this approach.
To what extent do you support or oppose…
Page 98 of 152
2013
Ambulance Fees in Fire District #3: The “donut hole” area surrounded by Pasco has received
ambulance service from the Pasco Fire Department paid by Fire District #3 at an equivalent fee
of $1.00 per household per month (compared with Pasco residents’ fee of $6.25/month). If the
City continues to provide the same paramedic ambulance service to
Fire District #3 that it provides to City residents, to what extent do
you support or oppose altering the contract so that District residents
pay at least the same fee as Pasco residents?
Funding Large Projects: Funding large projects, such as a convention center, performing arts
center, aquatics facility or museum in Pasco can be done in a number of ways. Partnering with
the Regional Public Facilities District (with the approval of Tri City voters) can finance projects of
$35 million or more. The Pasco Public Facilities District (Pasco only) could finance a project of
about $10 million. To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Partnering with the RPFD on large projects that can be
approved by the voters of the three cities
44% 35%
Working independently with the PFD to identify a small
project for Pasco
27% 48%
Abandoning efforts to consider future facilities 7% 24%
Pasco Senior Center: Use of the Pasco Senior Center by seniors has continued to decline over
time, but still requires increased funding to remain open. To what extent do you support or
oppose transitioning the Pasco Senior Center into a “community recreation center” with the
following programming options?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Create a community recreation center with
programming for all ages and maintain the current
amount of programming for seniors
38% 41%
Create a community recreation center with
programming for all ages and decrease programming
for seniors
31% 30%
Leave Pasco Senior Center as is; do not create a
community recreation center
11% 25%
Strongly Support 70%
Somewhat Support 16%
Somewhat Oppose 7%
Strongly Oppose 6%
Page 99 of 152
2011
Impact Fees: Impact fees are assessed on all new housing construction to help pay for related
public infrastructure (like roads and parks). To what extent do you support or oppose a change
to reflect the city’s “ability to pay”?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
42% 37% 11% 9%
Labor Negotiations and Arbitration: The City of Pasco is considering asking the state to change
the process arbitrators use in organized‐labor negotiations to ensure that an individual city’s
budget or “ability to pay” is factored into the arbitration decisions. To what extent do you
support or oppose a change to reflect the city’s “ability to pay”?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
27% 39% 22% 12%
District Based Voting: There are seven members of the City Council; five positions require a
candidate to reside within a geographical district within the City and two positions are elected
“at large” without regard to district residency. The purpose of having some districts is to assure
reasonable geographic representation of Council members throughout the city. Please indicate
which of the following best reflects your view:
Favor the current system as described
above
70%
Prefer fewer at large representatives 16%
Prefer more at large representatives 7%
Page 100 of 152
2009
Curbside Recycling: To what extent do you support or oppose establishing curbside recycling
service, if it requires an increase to your garbage pickup service cost of $4 to $5 per month?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
35% 28% 18% 19%
Fluoride: To what extent do you support or oppose the City continuing to add fluoride to the
City’s drinking water system?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
73% 30% 12% 16%
Regional Centers Sales Tax: A committee, consisting of representatives of the cities of
Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, has been studying the feasibility of developing regional centers
(e.g. aquatic center, performing arts center, etc.) that could be used by all residents in the
region and considering voter approved sales tax and property tax options to finance them.
Because a sales tax would be paid by visitors as well as residents and would be paid in much
smaller increments throughout the year, among other reasons, the committee has tentatively
concluded that a sales tax increase would be preferable to a property tax increase. To what
extent d oy agree or disagree with this conclusion?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
30% 47% 15% 9%
Page 101 of 152
2007
City’s Role in Downtown Business: To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking a
more active role in working to improve downtown business area?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
54% 38% 6% 2%
Corridor Landscaping: To what extent do you support or oppose the City installing and
maintaining landscaping along select major street corridors to improve the appearance of the
community?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
57% 32% 10% 1%
Aquatics/Water Park: As you may know, the three public pools in Pasco are in need of
complete renovation. As an alternative, to what degree would you support or oppose the City
building a new water park (including a pool slide and other water features) that would replace
on (or possibly two) existing swimming pools?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
48% 30% 13% 8%
Page 102 of 152
2005
Chiawana Park Costs: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
“The City of Pasco should assume all the cost of maintaining and operating Chiawana Park?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
35% 43% 14% 8%
Aquatics Center Sales Tax: To what extent do you support or oppose an increased sales tax of
1/10 of one percent (one extra penny on each %10 purchase) to have a regional aquatic center
in the Tri‐Cities?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
32% 31% 17% 20%
Funds for Pasco School District Programs & Facilities: The City has a history of supporting
Pasco School District programs and facilities with City funds. To what extent do you support or
oppose the City of Pasco continuing to support Pasco School District programs and facilities
with City funds?
Strongly
Support
Somewhat
Support
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
63% 27% 3% 7%
Page 103 of 152
Policy Topics for Consideration
• Level of support for short term rentals
• One-tenth of one percent sales mental health sales tax
• Industries for the city to recruitment (examples: technology, tourism, healthcare, arts and
entertainment, restaurants and food service, professional offices, etc.)
Page 104 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 16, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Resolution - 2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual
Work Plan and Allocations
I. REFERENCE(S):
Draft Resolution
Commission Minutes Dated: 06.17.2021 & 07.15.2021
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
CDBG Entitlement for 2022 is estimated at $750,000
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The City of Pasco receives an annual entitlement grant from the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program authorized by Title 1 of the Housing
and Community Redevelopment Act.
The City's grant allocation process is guided by Resolution No. 1969, approved
in 1991, which designates the Planning Commission as the Block Grant advisory
committee and addresses several community needs for which the CDBG
program will provide funding. The resolution places the highest priority on bricks
and mortar physical improvements and specifically excludes social service
programs carried on by non-profit organizations and governmental agencies
designed to provide health, welfare, and educational activities for individual
persons. Recreation programs operated by the City do not fall under this
definition of social service programs.
Page 105 of 152
A "Request for Proposals" for 2022 CDBG funds was published in the Tri-City
Herald and Tu Decides newspapers in May. Eleven (11) requests for grant
funding were considered totaling $ 1,171,250.00
The Planning Commission held public hearings and discussion at the June 17
and July 15, 2021 meetings. The public hearings solicited public comment on
any application for funding, or reallocation for the City of Pasco 2022 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. At the public hearings, eleven (11)
presentations were made relating to proposed activities.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff presented recommendations for funding at th e July 15, 2021 Planning
Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
funding recommendations as presented in the proposed Resolution.
There is always some question regarding funding levels approved by Congress.
Actual available funding for these FY 2022 activities will remain in question until
the early part of 2022 when the award is made. Staff recommends all projects
not recommended for whole or partial funding be put in the 2022 CDBG Annual
Action available. become funds should An contingency as Plan projects
allocate amendment to the Annual Action Plan would be necessary to
unobligated funds to any project not in the plan. If funding levels are higher or
lower than estimated, activity funding will be proportionately adjusted prior to
submission of the plan.
Page 106 of 152
Resolution – 2022 CDBG Allocations - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO APPROVING THE
PROGRAM YEAR 2022 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ALLOCATIONS AND ANNUAL WORK PLAN.
WHEREAS, staff has prepared the Program Year 2022 Annual Work Plan for activities
totaling $750,000.000 from estimated entitlement, program income and prior year reallocation
funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves the Annual Work Plan as follows:
Activity Funding
CDBG Program Administration $140,000.00
Civic Center – Youth Recreation Specialist $20,000.00
Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist $20,000.00
Senior Citizen’s Center Recreation Specialist $20,000.00
Martin Luther King Recreation Programs $20,000.00
Therapeutic Recreation Programs Scholarship $5,000.00
Recreation Scholarship Program $4,000.00
Code Enforcement Officer $100,000.00
Pasco Neighborhood Business District (additional funds) $221,000.00
DEBT REPAYMENT – SECTION 108 LOAN $200,000.00
**Contingency: DPDA Pasco Specialty Kitchen
**Contingency: DPDA Façade Improvement Program
TOTAL $750,000.00
Section 2. That the Pasco City Council hereby approves unfunded and partially funded
projects above as contingencies in the annual action plan; and
Section 3. If entitlement funds are less than estimated, program administration and public
services will be reduced to do not exceed limits, City projects may be voluntarily reduced, and all
projects will be proportionately reduced; and
Section 4. That the city Manager or his delegate is authorized to sign all agreements in
accordance with the 5-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual action Plan Supplements previously
approved by Council.
Page 107 of 152
Resolution – 2022 CDBG Allocations - 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ____ day of ___________,
2021.
_____________________________
Saul Martinez
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 108 of 152
Pasco
PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING MINUTES
City Hall -Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,JUNE 17,2021
6:30 PM
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Block Grant-2022 Communi Develo ment Block Grant Allocations F#
BGAP2021-003 Angie Pitman,Community Block Grant Administrator stated thank you,
tonight is the city CDBG grant cycle for our program,2022.Just as a brief history,the city
program was enacted in 1974 by Title one of the Cranston Gonzalez Act.It rolled eight
competitive grants into one community development grant that was awarded by formula.The
purpose of the grant is to preserve and develop viable urban communities by expanding
economic opportunities,providing decent housing and creating a sustainable living
environment.Part of the requirements for the CDBG program is that you have to have a HUD
approved ?ve-year consolidated plan.And then each year we do an annual action plan
supplement that lines out what we're going to carry out in that program year.This meeting
tonight is the beginning of that process to gather information and ?gure out what we're going
to work on for our program for 2022.
At the end of the program year,we also submit a consolidated annual plan evaluation report,
or Caper,that kind of measures our progress.Against what we said we were going to do in
the annual action plan and during this process,citizens participation is mandatory and
encouraged.So for 2020 through 2024,our goals are to increase and preserve affordable
housing choices,community,neighborhood and economic development,which covers pretty
much everything in the middle,and then housing or homeless interventions and public
services.So what is basically the physical residential improvements or in increases the rest
of its infrastructure,parks,buildings and then public services that are carried out at those
facilities.As the grantee,we can cany out this program in a number of ways,the city itself
can carry out the programs with employees and or contractors,and we can award grant funds
to sub recipient.And there's one organization.It's a CHBO.It's a specialized organization
that,as far as I'm aware of,that we don't have in our area at this time.So that kind of limits
us on who we can use.To select our activities for 2022,it has to meet a national objective of
primarily bene?ting low to moderate income persons in an census tract that's de?ned it 80
percent of our area,median income based on household size.It has to be an eligible activity
that's de?ned in 24CFR-75.
Meet one of the goals and in our consolidated plan,meet our local priority needs which are
de?ned in resolution 1969.And then we have to have a quali?ed applicant that demonstrates
capacity to carry out the activity.And then if depending on the complexity,we do some
underwriting to determine whether or not projects are feasible,if they can continue with
partial funding or if they have to have the whole block of funding in order to complete it,
because we don't want to give funds out and with no guarantee the prior activity will get
funded and then the project doesn't get completed.Resolution 1969 designated the Planning
Commission as the advisory board and establish council policy regarding CDBG funding
projects that were to be considered were housing parks,community sponsored recreation
infrastructure,basically focusing on the physical improvements,economic development and
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 109 of 152
n
u n _
.u
n
u
I
u
u |.
u
‘n
H
u =
1
‘I u
u :
u
n .1
.,7
I‘
n ‘
In.
.,
:4
-«
I1
removing substandard or hazardous conditions.It allowed for capital improvement of
facilities that house social agencies.So public facilities improvements are eligible,but
maintenance and equipment is not allowable.Social services such as health,education and
welfare are,according to this resolution,not allowable.So there were 11 proposals received
and that included one that we don't actually receive an application for and that is the 200,000
that is earmarked for repaying the Section 108 loan.And so that came to one point one seven
million approximately.So we have a de?cit about four hundred and twenty one thousand.
And the requests were categorized by our project types,administration is generally limited to
20 percent of our entitlement.Public services is limited to 15 percent,economic opportunities
we didn't receive any applications for that.We had one for affordable housing for sixty-seven,
?ve none for public facility improvements,which would be the buildings and parks code
enforcement,a hundred thousand community infrastructures,half a million.And then the
section 108 debt service,two hundred thousand.
And this is just a graph,breaking it down by project type.So the next steps are the application
deadline was May 28,so this is the first of two public hearings and then at the end,your
recommendations will be forwarded to city council workshop on the 9th of August and then
council action on the 16th.Then we'll open the whole plan up for a 30 day public review
period,and at the end of that,when we receive the actual allocation ?om HUD,the plan has
to be updated and then submitted.
Commissioner Cochran I want to clarify,so there's a four hundred-and twenty-one—thousand-
dollar de?cit.How do we typically address this just by narrowing down the number of
proposals in the ?nal mix.Because that's what we're here to do over the next month or two.
Angie Pitman stated yes,I actually will come back at the next meeting with a list of proposed
projects for funding.And narrow it down by what it available for funding.So this is the one
point one seven one million is the full list of applicants,and then we'll eventually narrow that
down to 750.
Commissioner Bowers stated so going back to the list that we just had up a minute ago,how
about we start with Habitat for Humanity?Your name and city of address for the record,
please my name is Natalie Curfman and the city address for our nonpro?t is 3131 Wellsian
Way,Richland WA.Thank you for the invitation to present this evening,I'm submitting
Pasco Home Affordability Project on behalf of Tri—CountyPartners Habitat for Humanity.I
am joined by executive director J ett Richardson.Please bear with my pace as I try to respect
the ?ve minute time recommendation for you.Next slide.This project will build in two
locations,Cedar Avenue and Elvina Street.There will be eight homes completed by
December of 2022.CDBG funds will be applied toward eight house trusses at thirty thousand
dollars,eight lumber packages at twenty ?ve thousand dollars and eight sidewalks at twelve
thousand ?ve hundred dollars for a total request of sixty seven thousand ?ve hundred dollars.
The project builds eight homes serving thirty two people,13 clients below 80 percent and 19
clients below 50 percent and 20 minority clients.The three criteria for Habitat‘s
homeownership program include falling within 30 to 80 percent.And the ability to pay the
appraised value of habitat home and willingness to partner through equity.
The current median house price in Pasco is approximately three hundred eighteen thousand
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 110 of 152
....I..I
''I II
I 'I"‘
I;..
‘H “I =.==
I .II ..
II I I II I I I
v;H I I I '‘
....H
I I '_-I I I
‘I .I .
|
I
‘I
II,,.u H
I ;
.--'I
I.;,.
II,;-_H __I 'II.
..
I I‘I‘I‘I ._.I
I
.._._.
._.,
I I -"'
I ''“-|'I II I'H
dollars,creating an estimated house payment of nineteen hundred dollars a month.I included
this Pearl Street example to show that these homes are not necessarily new or extravagant.
Federal government guidelines de?ne that greater than 50 percent monthly income toward
housing costs is considered a severe housing cost burden.Using the nineteen hundred dollar
a month mortgage estimate and 80 percent AMAI Pasco resident would pay ?fty two percent
of their monthly income on housing costs,falling directly into severe housing cost burden
shifting to a 50 percent AMI per Pasco resident.They would pay eighty three percent of their
monthly income on housing costs,creating a situation where the dream of homeownership is
unimaginable.Appraisal values are rising at insurmountable rates,and Pasco,this Habitat
home,had an appraised value in May of twenty nineteen at two hundred one thousand dollars.
Today's estimated appraised value is two hundred ?fty thousand dollars,creating a twenty
four point four percent increase on the very same Habitat for Humanity home.To recap,
affordable home ownership for 30 to 80 percent.And my residence is created to reasonable
mortgage payments are generated and three unreasonable home cost increases will be
addressed by the grant.one strategy,one objective to an outcome to next.This project is a
high priority ranking through neighborhood preservation and revitalization,elements of the
project include health,education,economic opportunities,beauti?cation,community and
safety.The project will meet successful benchmarks.Eight persons served per quarter.2022
construction scheduled targets met,eight homes built and a qualitative benchmark with the
number of smiles observed by new homeowners.Projected budget is two million twenty
thousand eight hundred dollars,with the CDBG funds joining in at sixty seven thousand ?ve
hundred dollars.Habitat maintains strong partnerships and funding streams.They are listed
below and you can look at those later.Pasco home affordability break cycles of generational
poverty by providing new affordable homes to low to moderate income residents in Pasco,
by combining Pasco's CDBG with Tri-County partners,Habitat for Humanity residents are
provided a remarkable ?ghting chance at owning the place where they live and calling it
home next.Thank you.
Commissioner Cochran stated yes,well,?rst of all,thanks for all you do and Habitat,it's a
great organization and I was curious about being one of the things that the sixty-seven
thousand dollars is going to go towards is trusses and lumber packages.And you're going to
try to do eight units with that.And is there built in in?ation or you've got commitments on
those or those eight lumber packages and truss packages end up being three in?ation and
lumber prices going up.Just curious of how you manage the outrageous cost.I think lumber
is 80 percent this year.A signi?cant portion of your thing is lumber.Just curious about how
you guys manage that.
Natalie Curfman stated so we just wanted to differentiate that it is applied toward.So those
amounts are just applied toward those things.De?nitely,eight house trusses are much more
than thirty thousand dollars at this point today.
Commissioner Mendez,I have a question so I read somewhere that the applicants need to be,I think,
US citizens or permanent residents.And I was just curious how you verify that if you're required to
verify,that would be the better question.Jett Richardson stated,we do verify that in the application
process for all of the Habitat homeowners that come through our program.It's not just a requirement
for our af?liate that habitat homeowners be permanent residents or citizens,but it's a requirement of
Habitat for Humanity International.So it's Veri?ed at the application at the time of application.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 111 of 152
(.
I
.
..
.''
‘f .=...
‘l
H
,.
L..
.
H‘-
.=..
..
I ill '4.
.
2.:II
.
Commissioner Mendez stated are your funds secured everything that you have in the budget.Are
those secured funds or do you have grand applications out for them already.Jett Richardson stated
we have grant applications out everywhere,we can ?nd opportunities,the costs of the lumber,the
materials cost is always something that we're concerned about and that are rising.But right now,we
have cash reserves on hand to cover the project at least,for the ?rst four houses,and then we'll
continue to raise funds for the rest.
My name is Jon Padovrac,and I'm here as a city employee,senior civil engineer,to talk about
the Lewis Corridor project from second to ?fth.It's a really interesting project for us.There's
a lot of work we've put into that downtown corridor recently,and this will be the last little
puzzle piece that will really complete an overall big picture.So,as you can see on the screen,
we've done some projects that I'm sure you've heard of our Lewis Street overpass project that
will be on the east side of this corridor.And then Peanut's Park is at 4th.So currently the city
will put about forty four million dollars between their funds and funds that they've secured
between the Lewis Street Overpass project and Peanut's Park.And the corridor between them
isn't improved yet.So it's there's ADA compliance issues.It's fairly old.So the sidewalks
aren't in great condition.And so we're what our hope is,is to connect the investment we've
made to the Lewis Street overpass and the investment being made at Peanut’s Park and
connect the dots and really clean up the rest of that corridor so that our two big investments
aren't kind of isolated in an area that's not improved,but it connects and really creates a
revitalized downtown all the way from Peanut's Park over to the overpass.
So we feel that there's been a lot of investment already in our project.Will be really important
in terms of tying together the themes of those making a safe,pedestrian friendly place that
people can exist downtown that's this pleasant and good to be at.And it'll also help local
businesses who have struggled through recent economic crises,especially then with the other
construction projects going on.There's some concern that would be detrimental in the short
term in terms of construction activity on the ?'ont,their business and such,that our hope is to
complete this project before the overpass is complete.
So when everything is back opened up,there's a beautiful new downtown in front of all these
shops that will really help them step up their game in terms of a number of people that they
choose to visit downtown Pasco.So currently,we have selected a consultant to do the design
work and we have secured funds for the design.I believe we have some secured funds for
construction as well.There's a few different concepts of what we would do downtown.
There's been an effort to do some master plarming of the downtown area,and when the
consultants were interviewed,some of them presented graphics of concepts that might be like
what we end up with.These haven't been through the stakeholder engagement process yet,
which will be a really key part of our project.But they show generally the sort of after pictures
that we might see in a few years.So there's a lot of things we can balance.There's all the way
from when there's a certain width of quarter we have to work with and we can give more
room to businesses for outdoor seating and such.
We can improve bicycle safety on the road.We can improve parking.There's a lot of
opportunities for not just,you know,kind of a facelift,but actually changing the infrastructure
to bene?t the community.So this is a rendering showing a fairly traditional multimodal
access.This is a more pedestrian and business friendly version where we shrink the road
down and have additional sidewalk area for businesses to have outside seating and for people
to have more outside enjoyment of that area.And then there's also a version that prioritizes
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 112 of 152
u -'I II -I u ''.‘I '"--
uuu I:..-un uu u -u "n
'u u ':u 'uu n n''
n n u u ‘I
u Iu ---I uu n‘I ‘un
I 5
u u
I
_u=n -,
I.‘u IZII un n 'I "nu uuu uu
:..uu _
nu -nu uu un u _-n
n uu rn uuu uuI '-u ..I nn nu-u un “‘
.|I .n ..=.=
II
I ,
"1'-u u I "‘--
__I _
I
..zuz _.
-uI
n _u u -u n -
A .-uI ’‘n u uu 'uu
Iu '"'i -'--u I
u -n ..u nu .I _uI u uu
“'nu 'n ;‘r “:I ='N '=
-.Iuu IIn u uu .-u v --.u
‘un -nuuu -un ‘u
,
u n 'n
I I ..I ,I .,u u =
_u -.u -Ii nunu uI nu Iuu
uu Iu ‘n ‘n v I u
u n-u Iu -u uuu n-n -u u v n u .n _
_
I I :uu.I I I
u
I
_
I
u:=n L _I
.I 7-;_n _I I
u n
.u ..n u 'n Inu I ‘n
I u 2.
"‘u I -1
u
I:
-.s.u -I\.--
_.I u _u ‘I _II..un u n I
:'I
I 'I
n uu In u:u u u -I
-nu ,.n '..u u ‘I
III -u
_‘
_u _u _u
n u uu :4 u u 1‘u n un .u -n nu u -
uuI u "n ‘:uu '
u _
I
n _n 'u -.uu -~
II I I '‘I ‘II II
II :
-nu.
I
u u I u _I :uI »._
II
II -u ..u n uuuu u
n uu ‘‘.:1 nu .'II n
u v.u I n -n uu uuu
bicycle safety.That's one of our priorities in terms of city planning,is connecting the dots
between small projects we've done that have bicycle safety elements so that we have more
continuous bicycle networks in the city.So we'll be looking at that as well in terms of how to
prioritize the project.And then regarding funding mechanisms,our project is also considered
a high priority project and that it's a revitalization project and it also addresses ADA access
issues for a lot of the stores downtown.And we're really excited about this.Our hope is that
it would be constructed next year,designed to happen this year that we constructed next year.
That's a current schedule.Do you guys have any questions about the project.Commissioner
Myhrum stated thanks for your presentation,really exciting to see the connection between
the Lewis Street overpass and Peanut‘s Park and your addressing of the access issues,I think
that's great.The other funds associated with this project,are they primarily secured by the
city or federal dollars or other governmental dollars.Jon Padvorac stated I believe I know off
the top of my head,but I'll double check really quick.So we have other development funds
as well as state funds and then some local funds from regions,our stormwater fund,and those
are secured.
Commissioner Hendler stated so what are your next steps,what are you seeking.I'm kind of
curious.What do you what how can we help you.Jon Padvorac stated the biggest thing for
us is funding right now.So now we have ?inding for a good portion of construction and our
design costs.And so we're moving into the design phase and pursuing additional funding,
moving into the design phase.We'll get a better sense for how much funding will be required.
We did a quick estimate before getting consultant on board just in House.And then we're
hearing from a couple of different consultants that we interviewed that,you know,there's a
cost to do a sidewalk and there's a cost to revitalize downtown.And revitalizing downtown
can be more expensive.And so we’re trying to ?nd additional funds so that we can do
something like these pretty pictures instead of just,you know,take a crack sidewalk and ?x
aid problems and basically put back the same thing that was there.We really want to have
the ability to give the citizens what they hoped for in terms of really providing a neat
downtown Pasco.And who is the consultant who was picked,MacKay Sposito.
Once again,covid-19 presents a real challenge that we ended up having close.Sorry.Thank
you.Steve Allen with the YMCA.We're also over here at the Pasco Martin Luther King
Center.We we're forced closed down during open like a lot of other programs.We are
actually reopening Monday.We opened this week to a special soccer camp trying to get kids
back involved,getting physically active again,out of the classroom,out of the home,outside
and playing again.The funding from the CDBG helps us to run this center hands down.This
program has started as a cooperation between the city,Pasco,United Way and the YMCA,
one of those legs that we withdrew from the funding.We try to do some fundraising with it.
But CDBG plays a real big part of this for us.It leverages about another fifty thousand a lot
of our internal funding because we believe in the program.We believe in the kids and we
believe in the neighborhood.And after being here myself for 18 years,it's been wonderful to
see East Pasco change in a positive way.We've seen a lot more home ownership,a lot of
families that are active,things like that.And one of the things that mark,this past week when
we did the soccer campus,we had a lot of non-Pasco community residents come over.And I
can tell you,my eighteen years running programs here,we've had a lot of resistance over the
years parents from Richland and Benton County.What I don't want to go there and surprising
even West Pasco this go round,we had a huge turnout,was seventy kids from a variety mix.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 113 of 152
I (I .I I II
.I .
'’
I .I II
:F '
I ~I_:I I.II I I u -I -I,III -,=.':I I 'I -‘II;-II '
I _I _I I
I
I .
I
-I I I I_I 'I‘
I
I I
.
I I.
I I I .I r-=
I
I I .
I .«4 —_-'II,-
I I.‘I -II I I II II I'.
I II I I II I.
_II I .I_II 7:__
I II I.I _E
I I __I .
:...I .-
I ;_I
.I I
:
-II II I —.III
N --I
’"
—II I .I
-‘
I I I _(
I
—
I I I 'A _
I I II 'I 1
'V ..I
II I .—I _‘I I I I I
I :I II
(4 ._I
.—.___.I ..-I ..‘
'EI 'I '_
:
I
I I ;<.I
_I I j I II '..
_I._.
a .I _
II
.I I =.I
III I .III I.II III
'
I '1'.-.-—I .\‘I .I
I 'i‘.I
‘.—II ;-II
I 'o I I r I "II‘''|‘.5
:
I I I I I I
-I ...
IA
--I n '-.I e
I IJ '|-I I I I Ix
.,.-'--I J ,-
I -.I I —I I I IN _
r I .I 'I ‘I I
'
I -I
_,
I
~II _I I ..v,~-I.-:I I -I.II I 'I .I
-I I
“
I
I II J I II I I I _'
-I—..
I II
.QR .
I-II I I --
V4 I‘.In II
_.;._.I
And that's really promising for us.But our focus is still the kids in that immediate
neighborhood.And so the funding from this allows us to open the center after schools have
it open in the summer as well as our athletic programs,things like that.The funding that you
guys have provided over the years has kept that door open with a minimal charge
Kids basically can join for ten dollars a year,come in and have unlimited access to that center
and by kids.It's not just the young kids,it's also high school age and college age as well as
families to be able to come in workout,use the facilities,use the recreational programs and
have that safe place after school enhancement park.Keep up the good work.Thanks.
I'm Donna Tracy and I'm from the arc of tri-cities I'm here on behalf of the ARC and the
Therapeutic Recreation Request.We serve individuals with developmental disabilities,
autism,cerebral palsy,Down syndrome,a variety of disabilities.The ARC serves
traditionally over a thousand individuals in a therapeutic year-round recreation service
delivery.And these dollars allow us to be able to help and give scholarships and reduce
costs to those who have little individuals who live in a group home.They are given sixty
dollars a month.That's for their bus pass.That's for their clothes.That's for,you know,to
go on out to McDonald's.They only get six dollars a month.So having low funding to be
able to help support them.During Covid,we shut down for about a month before people
were calling us up and people were stop eating and really families in crisis.And so we
started doing individual one on one service delivery and going to parks and feeding ducks
just to help people get out and have that recreation.When you have a cognitive disability or,
you know,sensory issues,sometimes you just require that routine and the families needed
help.So we're now getting more robust.We're serving ninety-six kids in its camps and
people are anxious to get out there and enjoying life.So,we're asking for your ?inding and
your support.Again,we appreciate you helping us and allows us to be able to give us some
money to help those who have little funds are the individuals we serve are designated as
recognizers,low income and disabled adults.We target and they come in a variety of our
services throughout the year.
Commissioner Bowers I actually have one question,do you I know you serve the tri-cities
as a whole;do you have any idea what percentage of your clients come from Pasco.Donna
stated I have to say,well,just I just got through doing numbers for my summer camp and a
third,so equal representation.Matter of fact,I would have to say that Pasco right now
exceeds Kennewick.So,I don't know why,but that a lot of people are comingioutin Pasco.
Rick White stated do you want to hear a brief rundown of the three four city applications,
they're very consistent with past years,of course,that three recreation specialists for the
Civic Center,the Martin Luther King Community Center,the senior center,and then the
fourth,the code enforcement of?cer.These are all people that are dedicated to the low to
moderate income census tracts.So their services are entirely in those tracks,meaning they
primarily bene?t low and moderate income people.So,again,consistent with last well,
consistent with almost every year that I've been here,except for the section 108.I think
we've talked about a lot.That was a 20 year long program actually approved by the
Planning Commission several years ago.This is the ?rst year that we have to start paying it
back.And then the CDBG program administration is a cost that isn't,of course,just salary,
but it's supplies.It's spread out because there's quite a bit of help that goes to Mrs.Pittman
and her efforts,including some of my time,some of Miss Webb's time in terms of
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 114 of 152
u?I—IF-‘—f -u'u'u-ul-u'—JI-I-—J|lIJ-2 -Iuuuzu?l-Inh
-I I'IIu"I I—'f ‘I I‘f
'£JlIuLI-—uII-III I Iu—'-In -'T"—uI'ZI'Z'Iu'Iu—u
'—'-1|.-—I I-I-'1':-—Iu'1'-'—I-n'1Ir-'—:
administrationsupplies and Various special service or professional service requests that are
required for the block grant program.
Again,no action tonight is needed by the commission other than conducting the public
hearing.This will return next month with a proposal from staff perspectives.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 June 17,2021
Page 115 of 152
Page 116 of 152
Pasco
(M
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETING MINUTE
SCityHall-Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,JULY 15,2021
6:30 PM
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Block Grant-2022 Communi Develo ment Block Grant Allocations F#BGAP2021-
Oi}Rick White,Director stated Angie Pitman is enjoying retirement,so she is not here.
This is the second of two public hearings.Every year we do this exercise.We get a set
amount from the federal government each year to use for programs that primarily bene?t low
to moderate income people and families in Pasco.The overall guidance for spending that
money comes from a resolution passed in the late 1990s,Resolution 1969.
It focuses on economic development activities,brick and mortar kind of projects that
contribute to the community's overall well-being in this year.Much like all the years the
commission has been doing this,we receive far more requests than we have money for.We
received 11 applications for roughly one point one seven million dollars.We estimate that our
2022 entitlement will be about seven hundred and ??y thousand dollars.It might go up a
little or maybe down a little.Roughly based on our estimate and on the federal formula,we
expect to receive three quarters of a million dollars.The staff report is prepared like the
commission has seen several times in the past several years.There is the agency request listed
on the attaclnnent,and I'm referring to the ?rst attachment,one that has some color on it.
You'll see the agency request,the staff recommendation.There's a column for the Planning
Commission recommendations,and then this will proceed to city council in August based on
the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Of course,city council has the ?nal say.We did add two contingency projects,which is the
green block on attachment number one.We did not receive applications from the downtown
Pasco Development Authority for either the specialty kitchen economic development activity
or for the facade improvement program.Normally,they submit applications for those they
were added as a contingency in case a project is underspent,or we get additional funds,which
sometimes occurs depending on the sentiment of the federal government.
Thank you,commissioners.I'll open it up for your discussion,questions,alternate
recommendations to staff.
Commissioner Myhrum stated that he wanted to thank staff for the presentation.Also just
noting,he thinks this recommendation is Very equitable,and don't believe any of the
applicants were denied funds,but there were some that received some larger cuts than others.
Overall,it seems to be a pretty reasonable solution in sharing the funds that we expect.And
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 July 15,2021
Cityo
Page 117 of 152
r.
so,these contingent funds would only be spent after the other funds have been spent for those
who did apply.That's my understanding of it.So thank you very much.
Commissioner Cochran stated so the continuing ones with those applicants then have to later
provide proposals that we're just keeping.So you would ask for a proposal if we ended up
with that contingent money.
Rick White stated yes they would.They would have to go through the same steps as
everybody else.And the steps include the execution of something called the sub recipient
agreement.So it's a contract essentially with the city and then they carry out the program.As
you know,HUD regulations require.
Commissioner Cochran stated thank you.Any other questions from commissioners or ultimate
recommendations to what staff is recommended?OK,we'll open the public hearing any
individuals that wish to speak on this particular item,now's the time to come forward and speak.
Please state your name and city of address for the record.Anyone on the phone or are you going
to speak on this issue?
Natalie Curtman with Tri-County Partners,Habitat for Humanity stated,thank you for having
the public speak this evening or comment.We are our head of?ce,is in unwealthy and way in
Richland,but we serve for Franklin County and Walla Walla counties.I just wanted to
reiterate that we've been present in the city of Pasco for quite some time now,building on
Cedar and Elvina.We believe that affordable homeownership is crucial,crucial in the
housing continuum.It moves beyond rentals and gives people the chance to build wealth for
their families.
And we very much believe that this is an opportunity that low income and moderate—income
families and Pasco should be able to have.Home ownership gives the opportunity for not
only the people initially receiving the homes to bene?t,but for fU.t11I'Cgenerations as well as
the wealth has transferred since they own the home.Thank you for considering Habitat for
Humanity.
Commissioner Cochran stated thank you.Is there anyone else or does anyone have questions
from the commissioners for Habitat for Humanity?Hearing none,all right,Well,with that,I
will close the public comment section and I would entertain emotion.I note that staffs
recommendation is to carry forward these recommendations and make a recommendation for
city council to go with these staff recommendations.
Commissioner Myhrum stated I move that the planning commission close the public hearing
on the use of funds for the 2022 community development block grant program.
Commissioner Lehrman seconded the motion.
Commissioner Cochran stated that was moved by Commissioner Myhrum and seconded
by Commissioner Lehrman that we close the public hearing and make the
recommendation staff recommendations to city councils.Let the record show that was
passed unanimously,and the recommendations will proceed to city council.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 July 15,2021
Page 118 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 16, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Resolution - 2022 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation (MF# BGAP
2021-004)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Draft Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 06.17.2021 & 07.15.20/21
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Pasco's share of Federal HOME funds is $263,000 (Including program income).
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with the Cities of Richland
and Kennewick in 1996 making the City eligible for Federal HOME funds. Every
three years, during the renewal cycle, member cities are given the opportunity
to withdraw from the consortium, make changes to the cooperative agreement,
or select a new Lead Agency. In April 2019, the Consortium renewed the
Agreement through December 31, 2022.
Home funds are allocated based on need and income eligibility and may be used
anywhere within the City limits; however, neighborhoods designated a priority by
Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding is first targeted in the
Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low-moderate income
census tracts (201, 202, 203, and 204).
If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as needed
within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low-moderate income
families.
Page 119 of 152
V. DISCUSSION:
The City is restricted to using HOME funds down payment assistance for first
time home-buyers in accordance with the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium
Cooperative Agreement approved by all three cities in 2010, renewed in 2019
through 2022
From 2015 through 2020, HOME funds provided down payment assistance to
76 Pasco first-time home-buyers at a maximum of $10,000 per loan. In program
year 2021, one (1) down payment assistance loans have been funded to date.
Estimated HOME entitlements funds totaling $263,000 (including program
income) will be available to provide down payment for an estimated twenty -four
(24) first time home-buyers in 2022, based on need. Staff presented
recommendations for funding at the July 15, 2021 Planning Commission
meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff funding
recommendations as presented.
Page 120 of 152
Resolution – 2022 HOME Allocations - 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4073
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FEDERAL 2022 HOME ANNUAL
WORK PLAN AND ALLOCATION
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco together with Kennewick and Richland renewed a
cooperative agreement 2019 continuing participation in the Consortium originally formed in 1996
under the Home Investments Partnership (HOME) Program through 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Consortium allows the three cities to be eligible for federal HOME funds;
and
WHEREAS, the City has established a Community Housing Improvement Program
(CHIP); and
WHEREAS, $263,000 is expected to be available from entitlement funds and program
income, for Pasco HOME projects in program year 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO:
Section 1. That the 2022 HOME funds received by the City of Pasco shall be allocated
to the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) First Time Homebuyer Assistance
program, which operates city-wide with priority given to neighborhood improvement areas and
low-moderate income census tracts;
Section 2. Tenant Based Rental Assistance shall be added as a contingency use of HOME
funds: and
Section 3. That the City Manager or his delegate is hereby authorized to sign all
agreements in accordance with the 5-Year Consolidated Plan, and Annual Action Plan
Supplements previously approved by Council.
Page 121 of 152
Resolution – 2022 HOME Allocations - 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _________,
2021.
Saul Martinez
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 122 of 152
Pasco
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETING MINUTES
City Hall -Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,JUNE 17,2021
6:30 PM
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Block Grant-2022 Home Fund Allocations F#BGAP2021-004 -Angie Pitman stated
The City of Pasco joined with Kenwick and Richland to form a consortium together,the Tri
Cities Home Consortium.It prepared our ?ve year plan.We work together,basically sharing
information to kind of share the load.When I prepared this slide,this is what we had for
estimated for entitlement funds that would be available for 2022.However,I have received a
recent slide basically saying we're probably going to get about double that but because of our
down payment assistance program,the lag in being able to provide assistance under the
purchase limit,that kind of is a barrier for people to be able to use the down payment
assistance program.So,we estimate that we will probably do 12 down payment assistance
loans.But anything over that,we would like to give to tenant based rental assistance so we
can continue helping people with rent,and utilities.
Commissioner Lehrman,I have a question about how many residents are each home,about
how many total Pasco residents would be able to bene?t from these 12 DPA projects.Angie
Pitman stated The Down Payment Assistance Program is for purchasing homes.As far as
how many people,I'm not sure it's all based on household size.As far as a tenant based rental
assistance,I don't have any numbers yet.I think that we're lagging a little bit behind the other
two cities and using the current funds.They kind of think that we can use these funds,that
we can continue long term,there's not a hard deadline on these,I mean,except for the ones
that we put on ourselves,like last year,we said we would carry it out through December and
then we would look at it in December and decide whether or not to carry it on based on need.
And so from what we hear,that's where our greatest need is.Commissioner Campos,just
curious,how many applications do we get for the down payment assistance and we want to
propose 12 and get that,but how many do we normally get a year.Angie Pitman stated in the
past,before the housing prices went sky high,we were probably doing 12 to 20 for a year.
Last year,I think we did three.So we have,contingencies in the home annual action plan that
also allows us to move funds from a project that isn't moving forward to be able to use it
someplace else.It's just that we didn't want to leave the down payment assistance program
without any ?.1nds,since we still have a lot of people calling in,asking about it.
Commissioner Lehrman how do residents learned about the down payment program,what
methods of outreach does the city use.Angie Pitman stated Michelle usually does a marketing
campaign,and she just did one recently for the tenant based rental assistance,we have put
this information on our Facebook page.Rosanna's uploaded it wherever code enforcement is
word of mouth.And of course,there are our partners that have been working with us over the
years.So pretty much they know that the program exists.Or if they search for assistance,
they'll ?nd our name on the website and then come and ask if they can get approved because
they know it's their recommended by their lenders and real estate agents as well did you want
to add something we put out we put an advertisement in the Tri—CityHerald last year also
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 June 17,2021
Page 123 of 152
no .4
trying to spur activity.Commissioner Mendez stated I have the same question for the tenant
based rental assistance,how many applicants did the program last year?I know there was an
eviction moratorium.I wonder if there any kind of impact to the numbers that were people
that were assisted with that.Thank you.Angie Pitman stated I don't have the exact number
that were served at the top of my head,but I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of
10 to 11 households.The amount I don't have that either,that program is being run through
Richland City of Richland as the lead agency and C.A.C.do that.And I get reports every
once in a blue moon,but I can de?nitely look that information up and bring it back at the next
meeting.That would be very helpful to have.
So I'm assuming with this recommendation,you don't need us to do anything until the
next meeting.All right,there are no other questions.we can move on to our next item.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 June 17,2021
Page 124 of 152
Pasco
PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall -Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,JULY 15,2021
6:30 PM
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.Block Grant-2022 Home Fund Allocations MF#BGAP2021-004 -Rick White,Director
stated this is the second time or the second public hearing for this pot of federal money as
well.It's home money and it's restricted to use providing home opportunities,housing
opportunities for low to moderate income people and families.The cities of Pasco,
Kennewick and Richland joined a home consortium together several decades ago now.
Otherwise,each individual city would not be eligible for these funds.But together we are.
And because of our population and their split based on the same formula that allocates the
block grant entitlement.
So this year we expect to receive through the entitlement and through program income two
hundred and sixty three thousand dollars.The program income is because we have a down
payment assistance program.It's a no interest loan essentially.And if you're in the house long
enough,it's forgiven six years.If you're in the house not long enough,you must pay it back.
Not with interest,but just the principal amount that you received in the first place.So that's
where our program incomecomes from.So what staff is recommending is that we continue
the Down Payment Assistance Program.It's limited to ?rst time homebuyers and those
qualifying under federal block grant rules for income.And we've also added a tenant based
rental assistance program because not so much in 2021,but in 2020 we experienced a
shortage of applicants for the Down Payment Assistance Program because of the rapid rise in
housing costs.In case that happens again this year,we have a second program to be able to
use those funds and not be in danger of having to return them to the federal government.
Commissioner Mendez stated could you please tell us again how many families are supposed
to be served by either the down payment system program or the tenant-based program.
Rick White stated again,we estimate 10 down payment assistance loans this year,and I’m
not positive on how many will serve with the tenant based rental assistance,but to date,we
have served 28 families with that program.There were 42 applications,a certain amount fell
off for whatever reason,and then we were left with 28 success?al grants.
Commissioner Cochran stated other questions or comments from the commissioners.OK,
we'll open this item up for public discussion,is there any individuals here that wish to speak
on this public hearing item here tonight or on the phone?
Kristin Webb,interim CDBG Administrator stated I wanted let the commission know that as
of Tuesday,they actually had their ?rst down payment assistance loan,for the year.
Commissioner Hendler made a motion to close the public hearing on the use of the
funds for the 2022 HOME program allocation and annual work plan.Commissioner
Myhrum second.Commissioner Cochran stated it was moved.Commissioner Hendler
July 15,2021
Cityo
Page 125 of 152
and seconded by Commissioner Myhrum for this to carry forward to the
recommendation for the city council to approve the staff recommendations as
documented here in this item.All those opposed.Hearing none,the motion passed
unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 July 15,2021
Page 126 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 17, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
Finance
SUBJECT: 2021-2022 Biennium Financial Update
I. REFERENCE(S):
Financial Fund Summary
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Council is provided monthly financial updates on the City's most critical and
prominent fund, the General Fund, to further transparency, assure budget
compliance and for informational purposes. Quarterly reports on the major funds
allow staff to communicate the larger financial picture of the City to the Council
and its residents.
V. DISCUSSION:
The financial report attached does not include fund balances that are authorized
by Council during each budget year. The exclusion fund balance amounts is t o
present a clear picture of funds being received and expended by the City without
reliance on reserves, a fund balance trend for all major funds is also provided.
Considering the time of payroll/labor cost and the passage of the six months of
the biennium, elapsed time for the combined type of expenses is 24%. The
financial report illustrates that the City was able to meet and exceed its budgeted
revenue target, while the expenses were slightly lower than the authorized
Page 127 of 152
budget. There are various factors for the expenses being lower than the
authorized budget; timing of capital budgets, strategy to delay purchases
anticipating COVID-19 impacts, and unpredictability of some of our expenses.
Some of the purchases delayed will need to be procured later in the biennium,
capital project budget needs will be presented to Council for approval as the
need arises.
Staff has presented the operational budget and capital budget separately to
provide further clarity on such types of activity. The timing of expenses f or capital
projects is not linear in nature and is based on various project schedules.
Staff has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in the stabilization of
the financial system, creation of new reporting tools, and reconfiguration of the
system to provide better fiscal control and access. As staff places these newly
created tools and processes to action, staff anticipates the future budget vs.
actual reports to be even better than the last biennium.
Page 128 of 152
QUARTERLY REPORT - JUNE 2021Elapsed Time - 24%OPERATING BUDGETCOMMENTSTotal Budget Ammendment 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD% Received Total Budget Ammendment 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD% SpentGENERAL FUND 111,449,588 - 34,967,413 10,354,040 31% 105,396,217 - 25,632,543 10,428,255 24%Expense and revenue variance of $11M is expected to account for ARPA and COVID-19 vaccination and testing activity. CITY STREET FUND 3,709,555 - 531,246 408,657 14% 4,895,451 - 1,008,347 545,859 21% Revenue - Maintenance cost for overlay will be available on the 4th quarter. No variance expected at this time.ARTERIAL STREET FUND 983,294 - 153,932 126,020 16% 18,968 - 4,695 931 25% Revenue - Timing of distribution of motor vehicle fuel taxes. No variance expected at this time. I-182 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC IMPACT FUND 879,000 - 215,803 80,441 25% - - 975 1,535 0%Revenue - Number of permits drive the revenue. No variance expected at this time, but increased construction acitivity at this rate will exceed adopted budget. STREET OVERLAY FUND 70,000 - 1,102 271,623 2% 58,422 - 43,552 1,957 75%Revenue - No variance expected at this time. Approximately $50-100K increase in expenses is expected due to overlay assessments and Engineering staff work.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUND 2,769,906 - 11,000 50 0% 1,013,320 - 160,251 60,225 16% No variance expected.M.L. KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 94,702 - 26,653 17,766 28% 281,420 - 69,906 40,814 25% No variance expected.AMBULANCE SERVICES FUND 16,949,935 - 4,309,214 1,788,269 25% 18,537,955 - 4,215,797 1,599,362 23% No variance expected.CITY VIEW CEMETERY FUND 547,200 - 232,800 63,293 43% 624,664 - 197,879 48,573 32% Minimal variance expected. Increase in expenses will be offset by increase in revenue. BOULEVARD PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE FUND 342,451 - 82,185 48,240 24% 23,426 - 5,799 2,240 25% No variance expected.ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUND 349,260 - 39,560 34,910 11% 330,447 - 27,478 35,135 8% Timing of sports seasons, no variance expected.GOLF COURSE3,508,000 - 1,079,466 209,032 31% 3,660,186 - 963,802 295,973 26% No variance expected.SENIOR CENTER OPERATING FUND 80,550 - 2,052 8,360 3% 504,601 - 89,755 58,464 18%No variance expected at this time. Expense - reversal of an accrual anticipating invoice for services rendered in 2020.MULTI-MODAL FACILITY FUND 379,240 - 102,394 54,405 27% 196,013 - 38,579 31,509 20% No variance expected.SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 5,000,000 - 1,387,500 530,750 28% 4,986,000 - 1,238,094 1,750 25% No variance expected.RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAINTENANCE FUND 54,202 - 15,763 17,820 29% 40,112 - 5,938 692 15% No variance expected.SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT FUND 475,000 - 85,398 54,107 18% 475,000 - 50,588 19,493 11% No variance expected. Expenses will be in line with revenue received. LITTER ABATEMENT FUND 25,400 - 9,074 6,024 36% 30,974 - 1,305 2,016 4% Revenue and expense are not linear in nature. No variance expected at this time.REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 419,000 - 176,624 29,742 42% 830,300 - 33,982 22,343 4% Revenue and expense are not linear in nature. No variance expected at this time.TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING FUND 6,002 - 121 1,466 2% 554,022 - 100,995 70,119 18% Impact is unknown at this time due to the pandemic's impact to large events.PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND 1,673,400 - 387,507 137,721 23% 36,584 - 144 3,090 0% No variance expected.CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (REET) 4,540,000 - 1,683,203 670,621 37% - - - - 0%Revenue - High home sale and purchase activity drive the revenue. It is likely that revenue will exceed adopted budget if the current trend continues. ECONOMIC & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND 2,687,620 - 1,276,016 403,639 47% 1,216,418 - 305,783 90,672 25% No variance expected. Revenue is not linear in nature.STADIUM / CONVENTION CENTER FUND 67,000 - 166 2,201 0% 373,844 - 1,698 2,710 0% No variance expected.HOTEL/MOTEL EXCISE TAX 757,060 - 149,842 105,469 20% 425,200 - 86,122 36,260 20% No variance expected. Expenses will be in line with revenue received. GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS - - - - 0% - - - - 0% No variance expected.WATER / SEWER UTILITY FUND 62,463,244 - 12,999,320 5,296,831 21% 46,367,584 386,000 9,227,568 3,660,249 20% No variance expected.EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE 3,204,437 - 760,346 319,575 24% 3,305,244 - 695,180 313,068 21% No variance expected.EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE 264,002 - 54,287 24,534 21% 264,002 - 54,287 18,644 21% No variance expected.EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE 3,605,776 - 1,027,408 377,151 28% 3,588,051 405,000 960,727 14,635 24% No variance expected.EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE 1,891,178 - 541,480 167,355 29% 2,546,788 - 11,970 - 0% No variance expected.MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FUND 12,558,640 - 3,391,193 1,249,534 27% 12,295,620 - 3,230,647 1,633,560 26% No variance expected.241,856,752$ -$ 65,720,270$ 22,866,672$ 27.2% 212,877,833$ 791,000$ 48,464,389$ 19,040,134$ 22.7%EXPENDITUREREVENUEPage 129 of 152
CAPITAL BUDGETCOMMENTSTotal Budget Ammendments 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD% Received Total Budget Ammendments 2021-2022 YTD 2019-2022 YTD% SpentGENERAL FUND1,636,290 - 711,275 674,720 43% 11,813,974 10,521,034 6,352,872 171,252 28% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.CITY STREET FUND 691,020 - 193,850 75,000 28% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.ARTERIAL STREET FUND - - - - 0% 596,000 413,904 58,383 17,709 6%All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.I-182 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC IMPACT FUND - - - - 0% 605,000 824,370 30,896 (3,460) 2% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.STREET OVERLAY FUND 2,068,472 - 426,311 - 21% 5,723,000 1,360,370 394,145 - 6% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUND - - 3,781,000 - 0% 616,000 4,147,634 395,146 74,838 8% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.M.L. KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 140,000 - 25,002 12,501 18% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.AMBULANCE SERVICES FUND 840,000 - 210,000 105,000 25% 23,233 - 11,616 - 50% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.CITY VIEW CEMETERY FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.BOULEVARD PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE FUND 64,291 - 16,653 - 26% 290,000 - 72,498 34,401 25% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.ATHLETIC PROGRAM FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.GOLF COURSE- - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.SENIOR CENTER OPERATING FUND 468,232 - 107,058 52,500 23% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.MULTI-MODAL FACILITY FUND - - - - 0% 175,000 - 87,498 75,000 50% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.SCHOOL IMPACT FEES- - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAINTENANCE FUND - - - - 0% 200,000 - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.SPECIAL LODGING ASSESSMENT FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.LITTER ABATEMENT FUND 10,000 - 2,502 1,251 25% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING FUND 500,000 - 124,998 68,751 25% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND - - - - 0% 345,000 2,371,034 585,563 - 22% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (REET) - - - - 0% 2,042,735 2,459,880 228,974 1,150,307 5% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.ECONOMIC & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND - - - - 0% - 600,000 - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.STADIUM / CONVENTION CENTER FUND 255,500 - 64,374 39,999 25% 255,500 810,478 205,156 265,968 19% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.HOTEL/MOTEL EXCISE TAX - - - - 0% 755,500 - 189,372 108,750 25% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 34,916,047 33,286,028 3,384,511 1,485,503 5% 34,916,047 33,286,028 7,253,990 1,873,771 11% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.WATER / SEWER UTILITY FUND 78,519,743 9,978,796 4,747,941 (382,657) 5% 96,665,500 19,217,892 7,905,823 2,622,965 7% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.EQUIPMENT RENTAL OPERATIONS FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - GOVERNMENT TYPE - - - - 0% 451,762 - 225,882 - 50% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT FUND - PROPRIETARY TYPE - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FUND - - - - 0% - - - - 0% All expenses are not linear in nature and are based primarily on project schedules.120,498,105$ 43,264,824$ 13,922,644$ 2,134,088$ 8.5% 156,082,894$ 76,012,624$ 24,083,962$ 6,448,290$ 10.4%REVENUE EXPENDITURE
Page 130 of 152
Fund Name* 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Fund Balance Trend General Fund$14,633,214 $13,569,395 $15,790,933 $20,262,625 $27,104,245Street Fund$299,677 $109,102 ($148,445) $5,231 $849,908Arterial$1,045,996 $1,294,961 $1,038,246 $919,077 $1,068,786I-182 Impact$1,043,083 $908,771 $1,091,573 $1,575,019 $2,210,512Street Overlay$2,966,353 $3,821,493 $4,486,074 $4,347,160 $4,457,929CDBG$341,628 $292,184 $94,822 $70,224 $100,946Martin Luther King Center $127,287 $184,378 $169,675 $117,369 $69,451Ambulance$148,220 $433,046 ($465,797) $2,185,653 $6,505,073Cemetery$74,862 $48,142 $69,526 $57,708 $155,993Boulevard Maintenance$1,976,930 $2,003,048 $2,070,522 $2,184,704 $2,251,218Athletics$218,524 $237,471 $268,164 $247,770 $212,300Golf$156,783 ($3,699) $98,638 $108,252 $30,056Senior Center$32,611 $18,522 $37,157 $44,512 $75,308Multi-Modal$225,415 $340,700 $349,701 $146,413 $261,111Marina$35,179 $87,883 ($294,608) ($293,800) ($48,278)Lodging Tax (TPA)$1,264 $1,399 $1,413 $1,413 $1,413HAPO - TRAC$218,523 $415,322 $521,177 $590,055 $524,766Park Development$2,152,337 $1,723,175 $2,219,436 $2,996,483 $3,426,183Real Estate Excise Tax$5,927,245 $6,979,994 $8,853,212 $9,120,575 $9,590,355Economic Development$1,923,700 $2,037,512 $2,213,093 $3,402,950 $3,824,932Stadium & Covention Center$290,452 $464,052 $626,924 $811,068 $706,582Utilities**$19,860,381 $26,339,292 $32,148,453 $32,306,179 $39,269,162Equipment Operations & Maintenance$400,382 $427,760 $182,863 $147,131 $70,712Equipment Replacement - Government$5,146,741 $6,069,872 $7,197,771 $8,616,845 $9,187,325Equipment Replacement - Utility$2,997,602 $3,573,838 $3,804,442 $4,523,387 $4,865,952Medical Insurance$1,027,962 $2,313,861 $2,686,992 $2,056,622 $2,334,364*Excludes funds that are restricted by law within the fund**Includes funds intended for capital projects and bond reservesFund Balance TrendPage 131 of 152
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 9, 2021
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Workshop
Meeting: 8/23/21
FROM: Steve Worley, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution - Change Order No. 2 to Columbia East Force Main Project
I. REFERENCE(S):
Resolution
Change Order (CO) No. 2 (proposed)
Supporting Documentation for CO No. 2
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Original Contract $5,511,103.00
Change Order No. 1 $ 33,514.69
Change Order No. 2 $ 299,000.00
New Contract Amount $5,843,617.69
8.6% Sales Tax $ 502,551.12
Total Contract Amount $6,346,168.81
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Change Order No. 1
This CO was necessary for two reasons; first, unmarked utilities were discovered
during the execution of the work. Second, as described below, construction
started late due to a delayed funding agency (EDA) authorization . As a result,
the Contractor was required to modify their work sequence to avoid impacts to
Page 132 of 152
farmer’s crops in the agricultural fields. This change order was within the
Director’s authority to approve.
Change Order No. 2
On March 1, 2021, Council awarded the bid for the Columbia East Force Main
project to DW Excavating, Inc. The award was contingent upon receipt of an
anticipated federal Economic Development Agency (EDA) Funding Award
Letter. A series of events caused a substantial increase in costs to the Contractor
between the time of bid award and the Contractor signing the construction
contract.
At that time, the EDA was working to approve a request from the City to increase
the grant award for this project from $3M to $6M to help cover increases in the
estimated project cost. The City received notification that the award was
approved on November 16, 2020, but funds were not secured until the City
received a grant award letter. While EDA was processing the increased grant
award and getting the grant award letter routed for signatures, the construction
bid could not be awarded without jeopardizing funding. The supplemental
funding award letter was received on March 18, 2021; almost three weeks later
than anticipated.
In February 2021, following bid opening but prior to award of the contract to DW
Excavation, the state of Texas suffered a major power crisis resulting from three
severe winter storms that swept across the United States between February 10–
20, this in turn resulted in a massive electricity generation failure in the state of
Texas.
The Texas power outage affected many industries including the plants in the
USA that manufacture the resin used to make high density polyethylene (HDPE)
pipe; the very pipe needed for the Columbia East Force Main project. The
electrical shutdown of the resin plant created a nation -wide shortage on the
manufacture of HDPE pipe. The result was a significant increase in pipe cost
and pipe suppliers were no longer honoring previous prices given to contractors
for their bids. The legal term used by the pipe suppliers was Force Majeure,
which in general terms means unforeseeable circumstances, such as an act of
God, or event for which no party can be held accountable, such as a hurricane
or a tornado, that prevents someone from fulfilling a contract.
As a result of those events, DW Excavating’s material costs for the Columbia
East Force Main project increased by $664,215.30 (plus tax) after they submitted
their bid to the City. With these circumstances, DW Excavating offered the City
two options prior to executing the construction contract; 1) help cover the
increased cost of pipe material through a change order, or 2) DW Excavating
would forfeit their 5% bid bond ($299,252) and walk away from the project.
Page 133 of 152
To keep the project moving forward, and in consideration of the facts provided
above, the City offered, through the City Manager’s authority, an amount of
$299,000 to help cover part of the increased cost of the HDPE pipe material.
This offer was contingent on DW Excavating working with their legal
representatives to try to get the pipe supplier to honor their original material
prices. DW Excavating accepted this offer, executed the construction contract,
ordered the pipe material, and began constructing th e force mains.
DW Excavating recently notified the City that their legal efforts with the pipe
supplier did not result in a lower price for the pipe material. As a result, DW
Excavating agreed to a change order value of $299,000 plus tax to help cover
some of the increased pipe cost related to the bid award timeline and supply
chain disruptions.
The combined total of Change Orders Nos. 1 and 2 exceeds City Manager
authority and requires City Council authorization.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends the execution of Change Order No. 2 to the construction
contract with DW Excavating, Inc for the Columbia East Force Main project in
the amount of $299,000.00 ($324,714.00 with sales tax).
Page 134 of 152
Resolution – CEFM Project – CO No. 2 - 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND CHANGE
ORDER TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH DW EXCAVATING,
INC. FOR THE COLUMBIA EAST FORCE MAIN PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City and DW Excavating, Inc. entered into a Construction Contract on
March 30, 2021 to provide Improvements to the Columbia East Force Main Project; and
WHEREAS, the City and DW Excavating, Inc. executed one Change Order to the
Construction Contract to accommodate unlocated utilities (water lines, sewer lines), and adjust the
construction sequence to avoid damaging crops around a field owned by Frank Tiegs.
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $36,396.95 (including sales tax) was
authorized under the authority provided to the City Manager and Public Works Director; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 2 relates to a series of events beyond the control of the
Contractor resulting in a substantial increase in pipe costs after award of the bid; and
WHEREAS, Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $324,714.00 exceeds the City
Manager’s authority and thus requires Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON:
Section 1. That Change Order No. 2 to DW Excavating, Inc. is hereby approved by City
Council.
Section 2. The City Manager of the City of Pasco, Washington, is hereby authorized,
empowered, and directed to execute Change Order No. 2, a copy of which is attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A, on behalf of the City of Pasco.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided
by law this ____ day of August, 2021.
_____________________________
Saul Martinez
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 135 of 152
Project No:17003 Project Title:Columbia East Force Main
Contractor:
Description of Change:Increased pipe price
Detail as Appropriate:Due to COVID-19, HDPE material suppliers did not have a large inventory
of material on-hand. After bids were opened, a cold-weather event in Texas caused state-wide power
outages, which caused extensive damage at HDPE production facilities, shutting down production
and causing a severe shirtage of HDPE and rapid price escalation. The HDPE pipe increased in
price by $664,215.30 plus tax and the City negotiated a change order amount of $299,000.00.
Contract Bid Amount:5,511,103.00$
SALES TAX @ 8.6%:473,954.86$
Total:5,985,057.86$
Subtotal 33,514.69$ Subtotal 299,000.00$
Sales tax @ 8.6% 2,882.26$ Sales tax @ 8.6% 25,714.00$
Total 36,396.95$ Total 324,714.00$
Total Change Orders To Date 361,110.95$
New Contract Amount
YES NO
CONTRACTOR Date Date
CONST. MANAGER Date CIP MANAGER Date DatePUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
PROJECT MANAGER
APPROVED:APPROVED:
Modification to Contract time by this Change Order………………..
revised Total Contract Time…………………………………………….
It is mutually agreed by both parties that this Change Order fully describes the change(s) that is (are) being
made and that the compensation for this Change Order is full and complete and is the only compensation
due or owing for this Change Order. Further, it is mutually agreed that this document will supplement the
present Contract Documents and that the provisions of the previously executed Contract Documents shall
apply to this Change Order.
AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:APPROVED:
6,346,168.81$
IS CONTRACT TIME AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE ORDER
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order……………………………
CITY OF PASCO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
DW Excavating, Inc.
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDER CURRENT CHANGE ORDER
Page 136 of 152
Kent McCue
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
van@dwexcavating.net
Tuesday,July 13,2021 11:09 AM
Kent McCue
‘TylerWilson‘
RE:Columbia East Force Main —Response to DW Claim
Core _Main Letter to DW.pdf;Core &Main Original Price.pdf;Core &Main 4-13-2021
|nvoice.pdf
Low
Iars dwexcavatin .net
MCCUEK asco—wa.ov serram asco-wa.ov
Kent
Per Steve's request below,see attached documents regarding the pipe price increase.We have had multiple meetings
with Core and Main.Final word from Core &Main’s corporate office is that they will not honor their quote at bid time.
The first attachment is the letter DW Excavating received stating that Core &Main will not honor the original bid price.
The second attachment is the original quote price and the third attachment is an invoice showing the lineal foot cost.
There is a total of 51,015 LF of 20"HDPE pipe on the project.With an increase of $13.02 per LF,the total cost amounts
to $664,215.30 of increased pipe costs.
DW Inc.has done everything in our power to move the project forward as quick as possible.It would be fatal to DW if
we are forced to absorb this cost.
We ask your consideration in assisting with this cost increase.
Thanks,
——————————Forwarded message ———————--
From:Steve Worley <>
Date:Fri,Jul 2,2021 at 9:00 AM
Subject:RE:Columbia East Force Main —Response to DW Claim
To:Lars Hendrickson <>
Cc:Kent McCue <>,Maria Serra <>
Hi Lars,
Yes,we can restart the conversation about DW’s claim.
Please work with Kent to provide the necessary documentation supporting the pipe price increase and the
efforts DW has taken to try to get your supplier to honor their original quote.
worleys@pasco-wa.gov
[NOTICE:This message originated outside of City of Pasco DO NOT CLICKon links or open attachments unless you
sure the content is safe.]
Page 137 of 152
Clyd23$
1 Pasco,WA 99301
(509)543-5738
Steve M.Worley,PE
Public Works Director
525 N.3"‘Avenue
Iars dwexcavatin .netFrom:Lars Hendrickson <>
Sent:Thursday,July 1,2021 4:01 PM
To:Steve Worley <>
Subject:Re:Columbia East Force Main —Response to DW Clai
Lars Hendrickson
DW Excavating,Inc
Steve,
Early on you had given us a letter stating you were willing to go up to $299,000 for the pipe price increase.Then you
sent us a letter without that offer,with the intent that we would try to reach a settlement with Core &Main.We have
been trying to negotiate with them since then.The issue has been brought all the way to the president ofthe company.
They are not willing to offer anything to help us with this issue.Can we restart this conversation?
Thanks,
[NOTICE:This message originated outside of City of Pasco DO NOT CLICKon links or open attachments unless you are
sure the content is safe.]
wo r|eys@pasco-wa.gov
PO Box 293
worleys@ gasco-wa.gov
Thanks,
Page 138 of 152
..1
r‘
On Thu,Apr 15,2021 at 5:06 PM Steve Worley <>wrote:
Mr.Hendrickson and Mr.Falt:
Steve M.Worley,PE
Public Works Director
525 N.3”‘Avenue
The original letter will be mailed tomorrow
Please find attached the City of Pasco’s response to your claim on the above project.
worle s asco-wa.ov
Pasco,WA 99301
(509)543-5738
www.avast.comVirus-free.
PO Box 293
wor|eys@pasco—wa.gov
(509)919-7659
Page 139 of 152
Page 140 of 152
=a.m$_E¢
8.8m.om<
8.8e_mm~moo.c8.mm~m
8.8m.Em8.83:m
8.8~....m8.83 m
:._=oE<.29..3....u_:D
oo.8<..~m8.oE.?m
8.2»m8.3 w
8.m-.~m2...m
8.5..m8.8»m
883;m8.8m m
8.83m8.8 m
8.8%:m858.5 m
8.o$.mam8.8m.~H W
_:a_m$2%
858.3m858.3 m
8.8m.mmm8.83m m
w m
m m
8.83m8.o8.m m
8.88.5.w8.8 m
8.8N$m8.9 m
8.832w8.3 m
8.88.3.w8_mm~m
8.8m.mHmooa m
8.:.m.o~mon.“m
8.8m.mBm8.o8_m...H m
8838m8.o8.mS m
8.08.3:m8.e8_m£m
8.88.2m8.8m m
8.o8_m»moo.o_8.m~m
8.8m;m8.83 m
8_o3.umoodo?m m
oqoo??»853.2”m
8.8o.m~m8.8a.mm m
=.=..:.<.33SE :5
Eon23$
65$:.au>buxm\Sn
tnuuabtau
$.-<.~
L3,...
u.
."n
u.
an 0 IV .4
cox...::._._~3.3 3 .3;1:5 a:£.....H .:3 3 L.__.:..__E
:._;..?..:_::.:._:_
.2..._.:_e _....:::._...__:.._._
2;:.__:__s:_.._.._.:
E C J‘:5.5:...
_.:.._.=.._...._.7.__.:_>.7;:.:.:.___:.___L.._:<
.5.‘._L;...=:.__.._:....___._u:_..
_z._._.:._._x .1...
_:...:.:
0 ._.c_9._—51.._:c.....:t _.__...__m
r.__._.....L .._T
5 3 J.
....:.E ,_t ..t_::_its 7...:._..
:_
88,888.58.»8
83.88.858
88.88888
88.88.888
88.88.83888.888.8..~8
888.888.88.88
8.88.888888.88
:.:.oE<.2983....8......
8c.3~.8?.88
3.888.8888
8~.88....88~.88
88.88.8888888.88
88.83.88.88
88.8~m_~8mmd8
88.88..888.8838
88.88..88.8..8
8.88.888.888
88.888.8~888.88.888
88888.83888.88.888
88.88.8888.888
88.88.8888888.88
88888.88888.88.888
88.888.88m_m888.88.8
88.m8...:...88~.R8
oo.m~m.oS~88.888
888.88888.88
88.88.8888.8888
8,888.888oodm8
8.88.828oodm8
8.88.8888.838
oo.om?.mwH88.88
88.88.8888:8
88.88.8288888.828
88.88.88:88888.8888
oo.>-.mvm8oo.n-.m¢m8
8.88.888oodm?8
88.88.88888.88.888
8.88.888888.88
8.88.888.88.88
88.88.88888.88.888
88.88.88888.88.888
:=.8E<.59..2......2::
8.588.8888
6:..>—.u8u3..
.._2uE8:ou
88..88.8m~.88
88.8..8.88~8
cu.a<m.o~8
88.888.8<~8
ao.cam_m-8E.....aw.m-8
8.88.888.88.88
88888.8888.88.38
..=aE<.38»8......=8:
88.38.~R.88
88.88.858
88.83.88188
88.888;888.8888
8.8..888.88
8888.8888.88
8.88.888.88.~8
88.88..888.888
888.8888.888
88.88.88888.88.888
8.88.8888.88.888
88.88.88888.888
88.8888888.888.8~8
88.88.88888.88.888
88.88...m88.~888.88.8
88.8838888.88
888.88..88.888
8888...88888...8
88.88.28888.888
88.8.....8888.888
oo.oo....~om888.8..8
88.88.8888.8.:8
88.88.8888.88
88.825888.88
88.88.8888o.8o8.oo~8
88.88.82888.88.828
om.o8a.mm~8om.oo...mw~8
88888.88888.8888
88.88.88888.88.888
8.888..888888.88
88.888.8888.888.88
88.88.88888.88.888
88.88.88888.88.888
u.=.o....<_3o._.3.5:5».
8888.8.8.8
.u:...:n..n...
...8.8u...:Bu
uw.nma.mnm.m
8.888.888
cvdwn?u
aadamdum
8e.888.e88.8
81888.83
cc.m¢~.wwn.m
8
m
8
8
8888.888...8
8:88.888
8185...“8
88.858888
3.888.88888m.~mm.om~8
8.28.88..8...H8.88
8.83.888.88.88
:._=aE<.39..out;«.2:
88.38.83288
u~.vwv.3.m
..8.888.888.8
wm.¢~w.c...8.58.88
8.8:..38
88.8.8-_o8
...~.88~..8.888..8
88.888;888.288
88.38.»?n8
88.88.»888.88
~m.m¢u.mn8.8888
88
8388.88N.888....88
88888.88.mmm.m...8
8.88~.m88.~88.8
88.~:..<.~8Km8
88.88.8888Km8
.....-...~8
88.~88.8....8.38
88.8888....888
88888.828.888
codcm.n~B88
88.8888....~8
88.88.888.88
88.88.88m~.mmm.owH8
88.88328:..m~..~.H8
vm.mmH_...o~.88388
om.wmH.m~~.288
88.88.88888.888.8..8
8.82888.828
88.888.888888.88
2.888588388.38
88.88.88888.88.888
«=:oE<?sh...muttMED
88888.8:8
.8...._..o.?:b8_..eutm.....o
CU5.EB
3.83.8:.m
oo.aao.~em
88.885
888.888
88.88.88~
oodoo??
88.88.88
u::o:.<.23.
88.n88.3e.8
3.888.?»
8.88.888...
88.88.88
aodvm
8.8<.m~
2..com.~
8.88.8
8.88.8
8.88.88
8.88.88
8.88.88
8.88.8
8.88.8
88.888.$~.8
88.88.88
88.88.88
8.88.8
88.88.88
88.88.88
on..=..n.N~.n
88.88.88
88.88.88
oo.omw.n~
88.88.88
88.88.88
88.88.83
oo.oom.-
8.88.8»
8.88.8
8.88.8.
88.88.8~
8.88.88
E_.8E<.52.
1A mmmwwmvrwwwwwmwmmwwmmmwmwmmmmwwm
.;_<5..825.8
8.80.»8.8w>=.E.<
588.3.58288
..5oS:mEm8>.8...8<
8.88.8888..
88.88.888w.
88.88.888n.
8......._....85
828...4m_.._um..un
2888.8.8...88.88
838.88
88.88.888<8
8.288.
oa.~88.
oo.o8m.~8<8
8888..8<8
oo.m~88.
88.88.8888..
888.88<8
8.888.0
8.88.888.
8888.8888
8.88885
8.8288.
8.8288.
8.88.88<8
88.828E
88.888z..
8.888E
8.888>U
88.888.
8.888.
8...E....oo.n88.
88.88.8888..
88888.82.8W.
8.88~8<8
8688.888<...
8.88.888.
8.88.88W.
88.88.888W.
88.88.888<8
3....:8:«=5
u»uE.:mwm1mm:..m:m
n
.n
H
=.u....U
8~
amnm
oown
88:.
88
8888.
832
cm
-«-<-4-4
£530
8wu:mcmt..:.8<ucm8m>_m>M383 __E8:.8:8 _.8.c._:8 m.m
Bmwmm_.u_._w.....«Em mccocm~.m.
.85 ..a:._$8.88.88 8.8.
88.3.5889 .82
Eva.
8.3.2.88 Em ~>_._._8<.mw._.iw...um
.8.:m.n.8.8828.8 282.8.8.8..m_.cu.o.m~8....
_._U3mumzmcto.883.888:8.89.8.8388;.....:..o_E3 8.3.”.9...w:.8:8.m..o.uD.w~
.8w.B_._m.8838:8..30..8....E>.::wcm§o_..8.0:E8.E8 883.2588 8_..mE8_m »
88.58.88 5.8..88:28.88.8m.<.8 898 8888...8~.<
8~.<
88.8uuw_D..n.<88 R.<
co_.nuo_wxX03 m_>.wNu<
.8258888385.2.8 328:3 Ewemo m~.<
.8588:o_mD.w vcm88.5.38 5.25 3.4.
8.8.53 8>_m>._<.858 m~.<
8_m:m.,.m.>.8.8.3.888:.8EmE8um.8m...888.m>oEwm -.<
coz?m8E3..8wm85E:.ou B :um::OU H~.<
w::._..2.83:8.8:.>>n.m:.88_xm.E cazumccou
om+vEm.Em.u>:m:_.8_xm.mgzwmmmm.H.<
88.88 0..Q.“..u(.2...m.n.<
m8:..ou no...m..__um.:.mum_.8..:u 3...<
88..8ou8888.88.83.88nm;8:._u mT<
.8 >._8:wa 82.98888 ~H.<
88.8.).89.08.82...m8885.._o..m>m8xm.mbxm..0 m.._..o..mS.<
8....mS.89.08.w_m:.mVm88m_u.._ozm>muxwmbxm.6 mc_._o..m.87....
8:a.8.u:h88.0.u:m8w._3u....:m 3 .m>cc..wxm.<
.9283u_tm.._.>.m..o8Em._.8...w..o.8.m.<
E....xmE $3 :26 .8.8.5.n.<
85.8588 8.<
588.8852...??u.88 we:o_u:_o8mm mi
88.8GU88.8m=.8m8E.mu::au88m.8828 .:o.8:m>2.8 am <.<
.8888.§s_.___2.885.585 8.888 m.<
m..__>m>.:m>m8>_umoz ~.<
8mm:m..u.855.T4
:o.:..._88mn .82
E3.
<w.:.8w:um
...~8~\.n.~\~83.888
:2 .88 >.~.=..£.888.Em
8883..~um:._ou
..__m.>.wv..o8.ummum.nE:.oU .8:o=~.:n.m...Em
:x
2:2
8,8m.~wm.~on
Page 141 of 152
oow?B ._EmEm=u m L 2,.2;.Em_n__._u.._.3 .2 an .m.E_._:_m_.cuu.ou_=25
.99999.2 uum_o._._299
_.S9\m.L~.
99.999.999.99999.999.94.99999.999.449.9949.499.999.9994.994.949.999.._<.6»9zS.o.u.._n9=§9u..92599999993999 925999 9599955992
_.u8_uw:o99.398:23::__m99.99.9950 99.:>3uw.su_>m._9.99..
9989.999m8.999.99498.999.99998.999.99998.999.9499"Each9999.94m>9.._9u_a__<.9~o~.m9>._w..:nm9_co999999u._w9>993 uzuzun?au
99.89.99999999.99999.89.99999999.99999.98.999us$.9_.a»3_a9
99.89.8998.999.99999989.99998.98.99999998.99999.39.999.999.8994
99.89.89999.98.8998.999.99998.999.99999989.9999889.9999889.99998.89.999999.98.99999889.9999999999999999994999m99_9>99_999__2m9_99999_E99 9.9
99.98.99999.89.999889.998.89.998999.998999.99889.998.89.9999.98.99999.98.9999..9 >§99._99.:999999_a99 9.9
99.89.99999.89.99999.89.99999.89.99999.89.99999.89.99999.999.9999.999.9999.89.9998,999.999999 .9_9.x9_9 x9.99z9.99s_9.9
u_..:OF.<.2993.9.9.3:._:oE<.30..99:9.5:3u..=._DF_<:93...93....3:3u::DF_<.35»03.53:3u:_._DE(=95.»outau_:3u__..3.:~:d:u_9n_..u9wa £5:
9.999999 .99 998494 .9 9.999999
99.999.89.99999.999.949.9999.999.999.9949.999.999.99994.999.994.99._£o94w_999999
99999.899999999.999999.99144993.949.99998.994.4499"§9.9...B3_99
99.999.999.99999.999.999.9999.89.9999999.999.99.2998.89.999.99_£o5._9
8.89.99999.999.99999.84.9998.89.9999.89.99999.89.99999.89.9998.89.99999.98.99999.89.999499 99_.8o_99 2 999 99_.§__..9_99.4
9998.998.999898.998.9998.994999.99999.944999.99999.949999.999599 .9999.9..._.99_.9 99.4
8.84.99999.998999.9999.998949.9999.998,999.9999.9999.84.9998.995 99_:9_m9 99.4
8999.998.98.998.89.998.89.9999.999999.99998.89.999998.99889.998.89.99499 99_9z9_9._9499 99.4
8.89.9999.999.998.89.9999.99998999.9999.99998949.9999.999999999.998.89.99499 .a9S9_99x99__~_2 99.4
8.999.99999.99998.89.998.9998999.4999.9499989.9999.9998.89.998.999599999:999999.999_:9.929:993..wE8 99.4
889.99999.89.9998.999.99998.999.999999.89.99999.89.99999.98.99999.89.9998999.99999.89.9999..96:989 3.9 9.99 99 9 99.398 49.4
99.999.949999.89.9999989.999999.98.99999.98.9998,999.99999.999.499999.999.99999.98.9998.89.99499 >_9E9m49.,_9>.958 99.4
99,999.9998.99999.999.99999.99999.999.44999.44999.98.9998.9998.98....9999.999B99999_939.29_93_999:9399E$9_93_993999699 99.4
889.99999.89.9998999.999999.999.99\9999.999.9999989.9998,999.99999.999.999889.998.98.99999399999.999 9_9E9_839o99m9999 99.4
99.999.9999898.9999898.99998999.999999.89.99999.89.99999.89.99999999.999889.9999999.999599_9_.:999=9_994s9 99999.92999999999 99.4
8.98.999.9999.99998.98.994.998.999999.98.994.9999.99998.999.999.9999.999999.999.949.998.99995 99.4
8.999.949999.999999.999499999.9999989.49998.9998.999.999999.99998.999.99998.999959999.29.99_999_99_992..999.95999.9.99 .99 99 .999:9358.99 299.9 99.4
8.89.94998.99998999.99998.999889.99998.999889.999999.99999989.49998.99995899.9$E9_999_99_99.....999.959E9.99 .99 99 .999:99999299 2929 99.4
8.89.998.89.9999.89.99999.98.99999999.999989.998.89.999989.998.89.9999.999.9949999+4£9..9e9>:99_9_x9 999.9999 99.4
9989.999999.99999989.994999.9998999.49998.9998.999.99498.4998.999.99998.999929.9999 99.49 99 949.545.:99.4
8.98.49998.99999.89.99999.99999.84.99999.4998999.99999.49999.98.9498.999299999 u9_9ou99999_u9t9999999.9 49.4
99.999.94998.999884.99998.9999989.99998.4998.999.999999.9998.89.999999.9992.99994 92989999 99_999.9999__u:9 99.4
99.999.94999.999999.89.9998.99999.89.99999.999999.84.9498.949999.89.9998.999589 _9.:_9999 99__o:98 99.4
8.999.999999.99999.89.99999.9999949.99999.9999.89.99999.9999.89.99999.49599_9_28.o9999.9999_u9o_.9>8x9£9.9.9999o99 99.4
8.999.499999.99999994.99999.9999,999.99999.9999994.99999.9999999.9998.995994999594,.9:999_99_9.9n9_u9999>Gx99:x9._o999o99 99.4
8,999.8998.999.999999.98.8998.89.99998.89.99998.98.99998.89.99998999.99998.89.99998.89.9999959992999990 999$._9.99:999_§oE99 9.4
8.999.99998.999.99998.999.99998.89.99998.999.49998.89.49998.98.99998999.999999.89.99999.89.99995E998uE99.>._9._99E99s9_o.9 9.4
8999.99498.999.99498.999.99998.98.999999.98.89999.98.8998.999.99998999.99998.98.99499989.9949999 .9_9..a9§.9.9o_.m 9.4
9989.99999989.9999.89.4998.89999999.94999.99498.89.99998999.9999.89.9998.99994999 99.99.99 9.4
99.98.99999.98.9998.98.99999.98.99999.98.99999.98.99999.89.9998,999.99999.89.9998,999.99949999:S99?_x9£_.s9t__99899 9999_9m9 9.4
99.999.99999.98.9998,999.99999.89.99999999.998999.9999.999.9999.999.998.98.998.89.993999.9_9u._9.m:99$e.399ouu99_o._.9ou.99_Em.,29 4.4
8.98.998.89.998.98.998.98.998.89.9999999.998.98.998.98.9999999.99999.89.9995989.99E99._9_4,9999_.se99.8u9 9.4
99.89.99999.89.99999.99999999.98.99999.84.99999.84.99999.89.49999.89.49999.89.99999.89.999m99 99_>9.:99>§.6S9 9.4
99.89.99999.98.9998,999.99999.89.99999.89.99999.89.9998,999.99999.98.99999.89.99999.89.999499 $9999u59__>_9.4
9:_..oE<.990...3...;u_:3u_._:OE<_£n._.mu_.i3:3u::OF_<Fae»uu_..._5:3u_._3DE<_Eo...3.5u_—._3u.._=oE<_mua._.99:;3:33:39:995.._o_9..__.99mn_Em:
9999999$9999929999999929.999999.49999E9999.939.999 4 9.999999
E9.._9..ww._..z.u:.:9m._E_9w=>_Uu=_ua9_w._w_>Ea._.u=_.a__o9_<
....9.Uu::ou999.999.4999.”...92uE.:9G...39..:95:ou
‘J
oow?8::
Page 142 of 152
HE
MAI
July 9,2021
To:Lars Hendrickson
DW Excavating Inc
215 Park Street
Davenport,WA 99122
Re:Pasco Columbia East Forcemain Improvements
Project No.17003 EDA No.07-01-07483
Core 8.Main LP
1215 N Bradley Road
Spokane,WA 99212
Lars,
This follows and concerns our discussions regarding the pricing for the 30”HDPE pipe for the above
referenced project.
As we've discussed,the resin shortage caused by hurricanes in the late fall of 2020 and the later freeze
that hit the southern United States have led to extreme volatility in the HDPE market in 2021
Consequently,manufacturers have been unwilling to lock in pricing for extended periods,and even in
some cases when they have committed to pricing have later declared force majeure to pass along
extreme cost increases or to excuse performance entirely.
In quoting this project,Core &Main attempted to provide as much certainty as possible under these
challenging circumstances,by locking in pricing with a vendor for a definite (if short)period,and
communicating that deadline in writing,followed by numerous verbal reminders to both DW Excavating
and the City of Pasco.Unfortunately,the City was unable to commit within that period,and no
agreement was reached based on the original pricing quoted.Instead,a purchase order was agreed to
based on pricing available at the time of order.
Any purported reliance on the original pricing on the part of the City would be unreasonable.Again,the
period for which pricing could be held by the vendor and therefore by Core &Main was expressly
communicated to the City,and the underlying circumstances impacting the market and necessitating
the short window are and have been well publicized and generally known.The quote also states that it
is subject to Core &Main’s standard terms of sale,which in relevant part provide that in the event of
manufacturers’shortages,Core &Main is entitled to an adjustment not only in schedule,but also in
price.(See paragraph 4.)
As a distributor,Core &Main must base its price on the price it pays to manufacturers,and
unfortunately in the current market conditions it must pass on increases to its customers when it is not
possible to hold pricing.We have done everything we could to communicate these limitations in a
Knowledge
Experience
service,Nationwide®
Page 143 of 152
SEE
transparent manner,and to keep the increase to a minimum.We have sold the material at very low
margins to do so.However,that is the limit to what we are able to do.
Please feel free to contact me with any further questions.
Core &Main LP
1215 N Bradley Road
Spokane,WA 99212
Knowledge
Experience
Service,Nationwide”
Randy Roberdeau
District Manager Eastern Washington &Alaska
907-351-4796
Page 144 of 152
Bid Proposal for CUTQUOTECOLUMBIAEASTFORCEMAIN
Bid#:1685385
Seqif Qty Description Unlts Price Ext Price
i !1‘='M6.-11T
310 i
T T
smsrsroncemm sym-non
330 5700 e20 IPSTDRT11HTDTPETP!PTE59'
T T
339 1.520.ITPSDRTS/.1.1_TTZ§EG4.5TPQZOO
3.49 12 T12631!UPGREENWIRE
35,9 .12 5SMTDBYSPLICE!.<|T
T359 24 I2TTTXT§T0TPTlT!CTTTAPE
370 5 g2x1ooo'nawsseweaGREEN
2o2T,Tz,3.
§-TOTO
§i'§‘~.9
?'E§‘.x‘
>‘T11~
”
‘FOR
II;-T.ITuTT§9§T4s:Am~e
1235,00’
0:99294i9oT$DB1iTiPSETL§ADP T
1565,2720"3.1655LAPJQINU-TTToM£snc
T T TTT T
ooMEsn9Le£TT;9TITuI
T .T T
T.+s.waT:TKTs.ourArso .V
..
480"o i29"3;6§ssIu.9.1<IrTn9Mes11c_
.T
ssr 1.ss_2.TsT4TT o.oo
_=I1T1/sTxT1Ts"wzDTBTLTNUTS3!wassas;zoxysTFTLGFFe1rLT9~T<sAs1<ETr.zoPETELECTROFusems.ws
I
530 BE!-0Wf!EM|§lMP9BIA|-TEBNTATTE
540 To99MTes11cTLmT9ITNT
O.I-0O O3919
!F
426 E _crrvussosas“
E
I
I
01.
09.458.75.9.00
O~O3':'>“iE%
599*‘9 29"sDRT1T1§siPsBACKINGRTINTGT
I
1360.14 6-
005705.7DAYSeureka
tramA+T1z;.Ts}160T‘
TT
§zba.sT12-
soAverasepriceperF1’35-77
“*For reference only -not included in total
02/19/2021 11:23 AM Actualtaxes may vary Page 3 of 9
a'
22;.-
L295:
7534.
355.
164
35.48
MAIGORE
Page 145 of 152
Invoice #0024267
Invoice Date 4/13/21
10474 COLUMBIA EAST 2105
Date Ordered Date Shipped Customer PO #Job Name Job #Bill of Lading Shipped Via Invoice#
4/08/21 DIRECT
Shipped To:
DW EXCAVATING INC 000/0000 CAPITAL AVE BETWEENE FOSTER
PO BOX 1089 mmoo WELLS RD AND PASCO KAHLOTUS RD
DAVENPORT WA 99122 1039 CONTACT:TYLER 509-720-6080
PASCO,WA
CUSTOMER JOB-2105 COLUMBIA EAST
0024267
St.Louis,MO 63146 Total Amount Due $148,410.00
1830 Craig Park Court
Account #232825
Sales Rep RUSS HOFFMAN
Phone #509-547-2410
Branch #305 Pasco,WA
.0057005700094lP20ll50
0941P201150 20 IPS DR11 HDPE PIPE 50'5720 5720 43.50000 PT .00
IN LIEU OF 09419201140
BID sEQ#700
0941P201150 20 IPS DR11 HDPE PIPE 50'39633 3060 36573 48.50000 FT 148,410.00
BID SEQ#1010
20 IPS DR1l HDPE.PIPE 50'/15 '.:w(w1~":'
con:1'.MAIN PO#-0270975
Product Code Description Ordered ....i,.,.=...B 0 Price UM Extended Price
This tznnuction in governed by and subject to core 6 Main‘:standard an:and conditions,which are Lnenzpotacod by reference and accepted.
To review these um:and cnndittonn,please visit:http://tandc.coreanan1n.c<n/
ooooo Page :
Invoice Total:$148 ,410 .00
Subtotal:148,410 00FreightDeliveryHandlingRestock
00
00
other :
Tax :
Terms:NET 30
Ordered By:LARS HENDRICKSON
BID SEQ?380
CORE &MAIN LP
PO BOX 28330
ST.LOUIS,MO 63146
run you £0:the opportunity to save ycui I:appreciate you pxoupt paynant.
4/08/21
Remit To:
MAI INVOICE
Page 146 of 152
QUALITY OF LIFE
Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re-
investment in community infrastructure by:
• Using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other public and private capital to
revitalize older neighborhoods and safe routes to essential services.
• Continuing efforts toward designing, siting, programming needs, and site selection for a
community center and pursuing acquisition of land for future community park.
• Developing Phase I of the A Street Sporting Complex and continue efforts to provide additional
soccer and sports fields.
• Coordinating with the Pasco Public Facilities District to develop a public education campaign,
financial analysis and prepare a ballot measure concerning the development of a regional aquatic
facility for consideration by the people.
• Completing construction of a new animal control facility.
• Ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public resources in the delivery of
municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities.
• Collaborating with the Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission and community leaders to
enhance engagement efforts and organizational cultural competency.
• Updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re-development to
promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design elements, e.g.: walkability, aesthetics,
sustainability, and community gathering spaces.
• Updating Parks and Facilities Comprehensive Plan to include: public facilities inventory, needs
assessment, level of service, and centers evaluation.
• Teaming with local and regional partners to develop a Housing Action Plan with a focus on strategies
that emphasize affordable housing.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Enhance the long-term financial viability, value, and service levels of services and programs, including:
• Regular evaluation of services and programs to confirm importance to community, adequacy, and
cost-benefit.
• Continuation of cost of service and recovery targets in evaluating City services.
• Ongoing evaluation of costs, processes and performance associated with delivery of City services
including customer feedback and satisfaction, staffing, facilities, and partnership opportunities.
• Instilling and promoting an organizational culture of customer service across all business lines.
• Updating policies relating to urbanization of the unincorporated islands to assure consistency with
long-range planning, community safety, and fiscal sustainability.
City Council Goals 2020-2021
Page 147 of 152
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by:
• Developing a Comprehensive Police Strategic Master Plan through a transparent process to evaluate
future service levels of the department to assure sustainability, public safety, and crime control over
the next 5-10 years.
• Collaborating with regional and community partners to evaluate and implement strategies to
reduce the incidence of homelessness.
• Leveraging and expanding partnerships to maintain and enhance behavioral health services to
community members in crisis being assisted by police and fire.
• Continuing efforts to improve police and community relations.
• Working to achieve and maintain target fire response times through operational improvements and
long-range strategic planning of facilities and staffing.
• Focusing on the long-term goal of sustaining a Washington State Rating Bureau Class 3 community
rating.
• Leveraging infrastructure database of sidewalks, streetlights and pavement conditions along with
evaluating policies and methods to address needs and inequities.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation network through:
• Commencement and completion of construction of the Lewis Street Overpass project.
• Continued emphasis on improvements in Road 68/I-182/Burden Blvd. corridor to improve operation
and safety.
• Data-driven pro-active neighborhood traffic calming efforts.
• Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access.
• Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization of its recommendations to
develop policies, regulations, programs, and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic
investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency and safety.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Promote and encourage economic vitality by supporting:
• Downtown revitalization efforts of Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA), post-COVID
restart, and City initiatives such as Downtown Master Plan process and sign code modifications.
• The construction of Peanuts Park and Farmers Market and continued efforts to pursue streetscape
and gateway upgrades.
• The completion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update and Broadmoor Master Plan efforts,
adoption of Urban Growth Area expansion alternative, implementation of adopted long-range
planning efforts with appropriate analysis and adoption of planning actions including: zoning code
changes, phased sign code update, and development regulations and standards.
• Increased efforts to promote the community as a desirable place for commercial and industrial
development by promoting small business outreach and assistance, predictability in project review,
and excellent customer service.
• Partnerships and encouragement of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to facilitate
development of the remaining state-owned properties at Road 68/I-182.
Page 148 of 152
• Continued coordination with the Port of Pasco to complete and implement a waterfront-zoning
plan and provide for public infrastructure.
• Active partnerships in the planning and development of strategies to promote tourism and
deployment of assets to spur economic activity.
• In concert with community partners, development of a comprehensive economic development
plan.
COMMUNITY IDENTITY
Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion and image through:
• Continued efforts of community surveying through traditional methods and the application of new
technologies.
• Providing opportunities for community engagement through boards, commissions, volunteer
opportunities, social media, forums, and other outlets.
• Enhanced inter-agency and constituent coordination developed during the pandemic.
• Continued efforts of the community identity/image enhancement campaign to include promotion
of community and organizational successes.
• Enhanced participation and support of cultural events occurring within the community.
• Support of the Arts and Culture Commission in promoting unity and the celebration of diversity
through art and culture programs.
For more information, visit www.pasco-wa.gov/councilgoals
Page 149 of 152
CALIDAD DE VIDA
Promover una vida de buena calidad a través de programas de calidad, servicios e inversiones y
reinversiones adecuadas en la infraestructura de la comunidad al:
• Utilizar una Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (Concesión de Ayuda Federal para el
Desarrollo Comunitario) y otro capital público y privado para renovar las vecindades antiguas y las
rutas seguras a los servicios esenciales.
• Continuar los esfuerzos hacia el diseño, las obras de construcción, las necesidades programáticas, y
la elección de dichas obras de construcción, para un centro comunitario y comprar el terreno para
un futuro parque comunitario.
• Desarrollar la 1era Fase del Sporting Complex (Complejo Deportivo) de la Calle A y continuar los
esfuerzos de proporcionar más campos de fútbol y de otros deportes.
• Coordinar con el Pasco Public Facilities District (Distrito de las Instalaciones Públicas de Pasco) para
desarrollar una campaña de educación pública, un análisis financiero, y preparar una propuesta
sobre el desarrollo de una instalación acuática regional para que sea considerada por el público.
• Terminar la construcción de una nueva instalación para el control de animales.
• Continuar los esfuerzos para mejorar la eficiencia y la eficacia de los recursos públicos en la entrega
de servicios municipales, programas, y el mantenimiento y la viabilidad a largo plazo de
instalaciones públicas.
• Colaborar con la Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission (Comisión de Inclusión, Diversidad, y
Equidad) y con los líderes comunitarios para mejorar los esfuerzos de participación y la capacidad
cultural organizacional.
• Actualizar los estándares de diseño para el desarrollo de nuevas vecindades y el redesarrollo para
promover más cohesión de las vecindades a través de elementos de diseño, p. ej.: viabilidad peatonal,
evaluación de las necesidades, sustentabilidad, y lugares donde se puedan reunir los miembros de
la comunidad.
• Actualizar el Parks and Facilities Comprehensive Plan (Plan Comprehensivo de los Parques y las
Instalaciones) para que incluya: un inventario de instalaciones públicas, una evaluación de las
necesidades, el nivel de servicio, y la evaluación del centro.
• Trabajar en equipo con colaboradores regionales para desarrollar un Housing Action Plan (Plan de
Acción para Viviendas) con un enfoque en las estrategias que enfatizan viviendas económicas.
SUSTENTABILIDAD FINANCIERA
Mejorar la sustentabilidad financiera a largo plazo, el valor, y los niveles de servicios y programas,
incluyendo:
• La evaluación regular de los servicios y de los programas para confirmar la importancia de la
comunidad, la capitalización adecuada, y el costo-beneficio.
Metas del Concilio de la
Ciudad del 2020-2021
Page 150 of 152
• La continuación del costo por el servicio y de las metas de recuperación al evaluar los servicios de la
Ciudad.
• La evaluación continua de los costos, los procesos y el desempeño relacionado con la entrega de los
servicios de la Ciudad incluyendo la retroalimentación y la satisfacción del cliente, el personal, las
instalaciones, y las oportunidades colaborativas.
• Inculcar y promover una cultura organizacional de servicio al cliente a lo largo de todas las líneas de
negocio.
• Actualizar las políticas relacionadas con la urbanización de las islas no incorporadas para asegurar
consistencia con la planificación a largo plazo, la seguridad comunitaria, y la sustentabilidad fiscal.
SEGURIDAD COMUNITARIA
Preservar las mejorías anteriores y promover las ganancias futuras al:
• Desarrollar un Comprehensive Police Strategic Master Plan (Plan Maestro Estratégico
Comprehensivo Policial) a través de un proceso transparente para evaluar los niveles futuros de
servicio del departamento para asegurar sustentabilidad, seguridad pública, y control de crímenes
durante los siguientes 5-10 años.
• Trabajar con colaboradores regionales y comunitarios para evaluar e implementar estrategias para
reducir los casos de personas sin techo.
• Hacer uso y ampliar las colaboraciones para mantener y mejorar los servicios de salud conductual a
los miembros de la comunidad que se encuentran en medio de una crisis, ayudados por la policía y
por los bomberos.
• Continuar los esfuerzos para mejorar la relación con la policía y con la comunidad.
• Trabajar para lograr y mantener el tiempo de reacción de los bomberos a través de mejorías
operacionales y la planificación estratégica de instalaciones y personal a largo plazo.
• Enfocarse en la meta a largo plazo de mantener una clasificación de la comunidad Clase 3 del
Washington State Rating Bureau (Departamento de Clasificación del Estado de Washington).
• Utilizar la base de datos de la infraestructura de las banquetas, los faroles, y las condiciones del
pavimento, como también evaluar las políticas y los métodos para tratar las necesidades y las
injusticias.
RED DE TRANSPORTE COMUNITARIO
Promover una red de transporte extremadamente funcional y multimodal a través de:
• El comienzo y el término de la construcción del proyecto Lewis Street Overpass.
• El énfasis continuo en las mejorías de la ruta Road 68/I-182/Burden Blvd. para mejorar la operación y
la seguridad.
• Los esfuerzos proactivos basados en datos para calmar el tráfico en las vecindades.
• La colaboración continua con Ben Franklin Transit para mejorar la movilidad y el acceso.
• El término del Transportation System Master Plan (Plan Maestro del Sistema de Transporte) y la
utilización de sus recomendaciones para desarrollar políticas, reglas, programas, y proyectos que
proporcionan más conectividad, inversiones estratégicas, movilidad, sistemas multimodales,
accesibilidad, eficiencia, y seguridad.
Page 151 of 152
VITALIDAD ECONOMICA
Promover y motivar la vitalidad económica al apoyar:
• Los esfuerzos de renovación de la Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) (Autoridad de
Desarrollo del Centro de Pasco), el reinicio después de COVID, y las iniciativas de la Ciudad como el
proceso del Downtown Master Plan (Plan Maestro del Centro) y las modificaciones de los códigos de
anuncios.
• La construcción del Peanuts Park and Farmers Market (Parque Peanuts y el Mercado) y los esfuerzos
continuos para discutir paisajes urbanos y actualizaciones de entradas.
• El término de los esfuerzos de la Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update (Actualización
Comprehensiva del Uso de Terrenos) y los esfuerzos del Broadmoor Master Plan (Plan Maestro de
Broadmoor), la adopción de la alternativa de la expansión de Urban Growth Area (Área del
Crecimiento Urbano), la implementación de los esfuerzos de planificación a largo plazo con los
análisis adecuados y la adopción de acciones de planificación incluyendo: los cambios a los códigos
de zonas, la actualización de los códigos de los anuncios de las fases, y el desarrollo de las reglas y los
estándares.
• Más esfuerzos para promover a la comunidad como un lugar atractivo para el desarrollo comercial
e industrial al fomentar el alcance y la ayuda a los negocios pequeños, la predictibilidad en la
revisión de proyectos, y un excelente servicio al cliente.
• Las colaboraciones y la motivación del Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (Departamento de
Recursos Naturales) para facilitar el desarrollo de las propiedades restantes del estado en Road 68/I-
182.
• La coordinación continua con el Port of Pasco (Puerto de Pasco) para terminar e implementar un
plan de zonas costeras y proporcionar una infraestructura pública.
• Las colaboraciones activas en la planificación y el desarrollo de estrategias para promover el turismo
y la utilización de recursos para estimular actividad económica.
• Junto con los colaboradores de la comunidad, crear un plan comprehensivo de desarrollo
económico.
IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA
Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la cohesión, y la imagen a través de:
• Los esfuerzos continuos para evaluar a la comunidad a través de los métodos tradicionales y la
aplicación de nuevas tecnologías.
• Proporcionar oportunidades para la involucración comunitaria a través de mesas directivas,
comisiones, oportunidades para voluntarios, medios sociales, foros, y otros medios.
• Una mejor coordinación entre las agencias y los constituyentes desarrollada durante la pandémica.
• Los esfuerzos continuos de campañas para la mejoría de la identidad/imagen comunitaria que
promuevan a la comunidad y a los éxitos organizacionales.
• Una mejor participación y apoyo de los eventos culturales llevados a cabo dentro de la comunidad.
• El apoyo de la Arts and Culture Commission (Comisión de Artes y Cultura) al promover la unidad y
celebrar la diversidad a través de programas de arte y cultura.
Para más información, visite www.pasco-wa.gov/councilgoals
Page 152 of 152