Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here we go. Okay. Good evening. My name is Kim Lehrman, and I would like to call the City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting to order. I would like to welcome all those in attendance this evening and ask you to join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. To begin tonight's meeting, I would like to ask the clerk to call roll.

Rosa Torres. Present. Austin Crawford. Excused. Pat Jones. Present. Kim Linnerman. Present. Rob Waits. Present. Dana Crachfield. Excuse. Rachel Teal. Excuse. Jay Hendler. Present. Jerry Cochran. Excuse. Ms. Chair, there are five members present. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. The Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by the City Council. The purpose of the Planning Commission is to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City's comprehensive plan, land use updates, block grant allocations, and zoning code. The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community and the impact of land use decisions on community, livability, economic opportunity, housing affordability, public services, and environment. I would like to remind the audience tonight proceedings are being broadcast live on the City of Pasco's Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSA. channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. This meeting is also being recorded so you can watch it on the City of Pasco's website which is pasco-wa.gov. Click on the video on demand link and make your selection there. There are copies of the meeting agenda available on the back table so you may follow along with the meeting. At this time I would like to ask that you silence your cell phones to prevent interruptions during our meetings. Operation of the Planning Commission meetings. For those present this evening, when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission, please come to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone, and state your name, city of address for our records. Before we begin tonight's meeting, I need to remind the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington state law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair, but also appear to be fair. In addition, Washington State law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may either benefit or harmed by the Planning Commission's decisions. An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight's agenda needs to be aired at this time or to be waived. First, are there any Planning Commissioners members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda? Let the record show that there's no declarations. Second, is there anyone in the audience this evening who object to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda? Okay, let the record show there's no declarations. We as a Planning Commission need and value your input. It helps us to understand the issues more clearly and to make better recommendations to the City Council. Furthermore, in many cases, your input here at the Planning Commission meeting is your only opportunity to get your facts and opinions placed onto the official record the City Council used to make its decision. I encourage you to take full advantage of this opportunity. Next, we'll move to the approval of minutes. The next item is approval of meeting minutes for July 17th meeting. These meeting minutes were mailed out to the commissioners ahead of time, and I trust you had an opportunity to take a look at them, and I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes.

Madam Chair, I'll move approval.

Okay. A motion has been made by Commissioner Jones. Do I hear a second?

I second.

Okay. A second was by?

Rob Waits.

Commissioner Waits. It has been moved by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Waits. And all those in favor say yay. Yay.

Yay.

Okay. Four yays. Any opposed? So let the record show that the meeting was unanimously approved. And I didn't vote, so should we go back and vote? So that way we have a quorum, because that would be five. Okay, so let's try that again. Okay, so the meeting minutes for July 17th was, motion was made for approval by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Waits. And let's go ahead and take a vote for all those that approve.

Aye.

Aye.

Seeing five ayes, it's unanimous. Okay. Moving on to our old business, we have a number of items that have previously come before the Planning Commission and they are here before us on the agenda tonight. For us to obtain any further clarification from the City staff, for us to discuss these items amongst ourselves and to come to a conclusion for our recommendation to City Council. The first item is 2026 Community Development Block Grant Program Allocation and Annual Work Plan. Master File BGAP225-003. We'll start with the city.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Tonight we'll be talking about the 2026 Community Development Block Grant Work Plan. With that, I wanted to begin with the background and what the intent of the CDBG program is. It provides annual grants on a formula basis to states, cities, and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments. and by expanding economic opportunities to low and moderate income persons. When reviewing the applications, this was the criteria that staff used to ensure the activities lined up with council goals, the 2025-2029 Tri-Cities Consortium Consolidated Plan and the CDBG-HUD regulations and national objectives. These are the goals for 24-25 for the council. Quality of life, financial sustainability, community transportation network, community safety, economic vitality, and city identity. The consolidated plan 25-29 goals are increase and preserve affordable housing. This is done through down payment assistance and owner occupied rehabs. Community, neighborhood, and economic development. This is through facades. Public works and facility projects, example with installing ADA equipment at the city parks and upgrading PSK equipment in the incubator kitchen. Homeless interventions and public services, this is through activities like the YMCA and the ARCA Tri-Cities. This goal for CDBG slash HUD regulations and national objective is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities for low to moderate income persons. CDBG program requires that each activity funded except for program administration and the Section 108 debt payment must meet a national objective. An activity that does not meet a national objective is non-compliant with CDBG regulations and may be subject to remedial actions which would be the City of Pasco as we are the grantee. So what we are presenting to you tonight for staff recommendations are three different options. With option one is a mixture of housing activities, economic development activities, and public service activities. Option two is only housing and economic development activities. And option three is again a mixture of all three goals of housing, economic development, and public service activities. With that, I will stand for any questions and just a reminder to the Commission that if you are not wanting to go with either of the three options that we have presented tonight, the Commission can amend one of those or produce an option that is not recommended here tonight.

Thank you, Ms. Webb. Commissioners, do you guys have any questions or share-outs?

I have a question on option three. For the City of Pasco Parks and Recreation Department, Peanuts Park, North Refurbishment, the ask was for $100,000 and they've allotted $5,000. Does that even, I mean, with that ask being so disparate from what we would grant them, does that even cover any of the projects they have in mind?

When we were deciding on the two projects that they actually approached us with, which would be Peanuts Park North refurbishment and the ADA playground equipment, they were inclined to go mostly with the playground equipment. Peanuts Park North, they do have other funding, and so any amount that we give them would help.

Thank you. Madam Chair.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you very much. I would like to thank the city planning people who worked on this for leaving out upwards care from all three of the proposals. I know I made my feelings pretty clear last month about whether or not we should spend any money or allow money to go to them. I appreciate the fact that you heard what I was saying. did not put any money for them in any of the three recommendations. I stand by what I said a month ago, our money should go towards funding good local organizations, and I did not believe that organization was a good fit, so thank you for listening, and for honoring my request.

Any other commissioners? I have a question for Ms. Webb. The Arkham Trails cities did last year, did they get any funding?

Last year, if you remember, we swayed towards funding any public service activities. We stayed with housing and economic development activities. Okay.

And kind of looks like a trend again this year for option three. Housing for Tri-County Partners Habitat for Community. Okay. Did that get funded last year? They did not apply last year.

They did not apply.

Okay. All right. Is there any preference on those that have applied again and again but have not gotten it and have had in the past long-term relationships with the CBDG funding?

I wouldn't say there's a preference. It just kind of depends on who actually does apply and how was their previous monitoring with us and did they follow what they were supposed to do? Did they meet their goals? So that's what it kind of comes down to.

And can you share with the public again about the risk level?

Yes, so the risk level actually comes from HUD. That is a form that we fill out. It asks all kinds of questions as like, have they applied before? Is this their first time applying? Is this a construction project? Do they have any audit findings? They have to produce their audits to us. We have to go through those. So there's probably like seven questions, and at the end there's a score, and that's where it comes up with the risk. Thank you.

Anything else from the commissioners? Do you need a moment? Oh, Commissioner Jones.

Are we, is our goal tonight then to make a recommendation of one of these three to move forward to the city council? Are we that far along? Or what is our task for tonight?

Yes, so either you can pick one of the options that we presented to you tonight. You can take one of the options and change it however you would like to if you're wanting to find somebody else that we didn't choose or if you're wanting to see other information then we can come back to you next month

I see, thank you. So just again, since we are in a tossing out information discussion stage, I would ask us as we move forward to consider options one or three. I think option two leaves out a lot of the key components of places we would like to offer support to. No one's gonna get everything they want. There just isn't enough money. but I would ask that we look at one and three and not consider option two just because of the many blanks that it holds and then continue our discussion from there.

Are you putting that in the form of a motion?

I will make a motion that we remove option two from discussion and continue our discussion with options one and three still on the table.

Okay. A motion to remove option two and to allow for further discussion for option one and three has been made by Commissioner Jones. Is there a second? I second. Commissioner Torres seconded. All right. So then we'll go to a vote and then carry on with discussion. Okay, so commissioners, all those in favor of striking out option two and continuing on conversations with option one and three, please say aye. Aye. Okay, unanimous vote in favor of striking out option two. And now go ahead and roll into discussion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And so back to the city then. You gave us kind of a breakdown as to what the focus was for each option. Would you share with that again, please, what it was for option one and what it was for option three? I think that will give us a little bit more clarity as we look at these more deeply. Thank you.

So basically with both of these options we are following all three goals of the community development block grant intention as well as our comp plan which is housing, economic development, and public service activities. We just kind of tried to spread the money out as far as we could. Once you take out administration and you take out the Section 108 payment, we basically had less than $300,000. Any further discussion or questions?

Commissioner Torres? Yeah, thank you. I just have a comment. I think we've, in years past, have also had this conversation about the code enforcement line item. I would just reiterate and make that comment again that code enforcement, although it is a very valuable position and I understand the value that the code enforcement brings, but for such a hefty price, it seems like that amount could be used maybe in that other housing priority that isn't being addressed with the PASCO critical home repairs. And again, it's mostly just because that seems like a function that we should have at the city level and that should be paid with city budget, not with grant money that is know potentially at risk at this point we don't even know if we're going to be able to get the full grant money you know um again this year versus and then in coming years so it just seems like something we should fund out of something else and um and instead you know allocate those funds to something else on this list otherwise i think option three is a pretty good list

Chair recognizes Commissioner Waits.

Can I get a definition or just the difference between critical home repairs and minor rehab program? What is the difference in those two programs?

There isn't a difference.

Really?

Yeah, they're both the same thing. They will help houses that need to have some kind of rehabilitation done.

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Webb, can you go ahead and give a couple examples? For example, I know that the commissioners have heard it quite often, but for the public to be able to receive a couple examples.

Sure. So with the owner-occupied rehabilitation program, basically we have repaired people's roofs. We have installed ramps for somebody that needed an ADA compliance ramp to get into their house. We have fixed HVAC units, heaters. We've replaced flooring in somebody's house because they had a flood. Replaced windows so that they were up to code. Done electrical work. Pretty much anything.

Madam Chair?

Chair recognizes Commissioner Jones.

Thank you very much. Question for the city people. On both options one and three, it appears that Habitat for Humanity was passed over. Is there a reason for that? Have they been funded a lot previously or how come they didn't get a piece of the pie on either one of those?

So maybe one good way to answer that, it simply is because this is the first time they've applied for this program. It's not an existing program that they have. We already have an existing program that we've been perfecting for years and years. And so we just felt like it was best to stick with one tried and true program as opposed to starting a new one. Or spreading it out amongst the two would produce probably a greater impact. A program with Habitat for Humanity already? The city conducts the same activities. But not with Habitat for Humanity per se, but the same type of activity. for the same type of home improvement activities. Okay. So, right.

Not home ownership.

That's correct. Yes, it's different from what is most commonly known as their home building projects. It's a little bit different in that regard. No disrespect to Habitat. Nothing knocking what they're wanting to do. We've done it for a long time. We've been perfecting the program for quite a while, and we just felt it was probably a more... impactful way to go to continue what we've been doing.

I want to piggyback on what Commissioner Torres has said and we've shared our concerns over the past of having these grants pay for salaries of Pasco City staff and our concerns about how long we're going to be able to continue to fund those staff members when grants come and go. True, this is historical that we've received these grants in the past, but uncertain times and the additional stress that can place onto those staff members. Have we ever received a comment or could we ask for the city council to kind of talk a little bit about their value of placing the staff member onto the grant for payment for their salary versus salary and benefits coming out of the general fund?

Yeah, it's definitely conversations we've had with the city council in the past. You know, we've shared the planning commission's points of view historically. The interesting thing is it's It's not an easy or guaranteed solution either way you go. We certainly have been facing budget adjustments and staffing adjustments through the general fund and other funds. So even if all of the code enforcement or other staff positions were directed towards the general fund, I don't know. Well, I can't speak for the City Council, but I would just suggest it's not necessarily a rosy picture there either. Thank you for your feedback on that.

Commissioners, do you need another moment before we continue on? Oh, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we approve option number one as our recommendation to the City Council as presented.

Commissioner Jones has made a motion to move forward to the city council on a vote of option one. Do I see a second from any commissioners?

I'll second.

Commissioner Hadler seconded. and commissioners it's time to go ahead and make a vote for all those in favor say aye aye aye nay nay the motion fails three four two against Excuse me, that does pass, yeah. I was thinking back to a voting quorum. Okay, yes, three, four, two against. And Ms. Webb, do you have something to say or do I go ahead and move on to the next item?

So what will happen now is we will take this to a city council workshop and then they will have the final decision moving forward.

Should I say that again?

Are we good? No, we're good. We heard you. Tonight I will be discussing the 2026 Home Program Work Plan and Allocation. This presentation on the Home Program Allocation, we are presenting this tonight as the Home Funds Don't Need a Public Hearing. PASCO entered into a home consortium agreement with Kennewick and Richland in 1996, making the cities eligible for federal home dollars. Each member city is allocated an equal share of the entitlement after 10% is set aside for the lead agency to administer the program and 15% is set aside for Community Housing Development Organization, which is currently Habitat for Humanity. The estimated entitlement funds for PASCO is $163,000. Estimated program income is $100,000. These funds are from down payment assistance that are paid off. We are budgeting for program administration $10,000 for PASCO staff to administer the program. Down payment assistance of $10,000, anticipating only doing one as the purchase limit which is set by HUD for PASCO is $368,000. which means the purchase limit of the house cannot be more than that. This should have increased in July, but we are still waiting to hear something from HUD. Tenant-based rental assistance, 121.5. Currently, the consortium has a contract with CAC, Community Action Connection, to administer the program for all three cities. And rehabilitation, 121.5. These funds will assist with rehabilitating homes which with home funds, the house would have to be brought up to current code standards. And with that, if you have any questions. Commissioner Jones?

Thank you very much. When members of the Planning Commission went to the City Council meeting a couple months ago to kind of start listening to this process and things, I was kind of shocked and amazed about this thing, this law, House Bill 1220, enacted in 2021. requires local governments to plan and accommodate affordable housing for all income levels, including emergency and supportive housing. I was a little bit taken aback at how deeply the claw of state government comes into what we do. Apparently that's kind of a Washington thing, I guess. We don't do that in the Midwest. Yeah, right. But as I've read As we do these things, it appears to me that we are most certainly satisfying the requirements of this. And is this discussed as part of the overall discussions as you guys are doing this planning and moving forward? Because to me, it seems like it's very satisfying. But I'm just curious as to how much this silliness fits into what you have to do in order to meet these rules and regs.

Right. So as far as like the HELM program and CDBG, Per our citizen participation plan, we do have to have public hearings. We do have to allow the public to know what we are doing. We need to be transparent with everything. So that's why everything is brought to the planning commission, which you are our committee, to make these decisions and then forward to city council, which then allows the public more time to hear the information, which is the same thing we did when we were creating our consolidated plan.

we have to bring in a bunch of different agencies different stakeholders just to get information but we are following the regulations and the rules that are set by HUD a lot of rules a lot of regulations layer after layer after layer and then state one on top of it is pretty heavy so I totally believe I guess we as the regulatory for lack of a better term, that that is being met fully. I just wanted your comments and opinion on that, so thank you.

Good discussion. Commissioners, any further questions or discussion? Seeing none, let's go ahead and move on to our third item on the agenda tonight for Old Business. You have to make a motion on this as well. Oh, that's right, okay. Commissioners, do I have a, do any of you guys have a motion to share?

Are we making a motion to approve the work that's been done on this to move it forward or what are you looking for?

You're making a approval to recommend the programs that we're going to be assisting and moving that to city council for their approval.

So as presented here tonight, right? That would be the final form? Correct. Okay, thank you. I'll move approval of the program as presented tonight.

Thank you. A motion has been made by Commissioner Jones to go ahead and move forward as proposed from Planning Commission to the City Council. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, a second has been made by Commissioner Hadler. Let's go ahead and move to our vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Unanimous of five. Okay, next steps is moving to old business project updates from city staff.

Thank you very much, and I'm not going to be exhaustive this evening, but just wanted to give you some updates on some of the ongoing projects that we have, including the Transportation System Master Plan, the state-mandated Regional Climate Planning Greenhouse Gas Plan, and also the Energy Resilience Study. The transportation system master plan is really, it's fully underway now. The consultant is mainly doing data collection, existing conditions analysis, and even though the plan isn't, like really old, there's been a lot of development happening in the Pasco community. So there's a lot for them to catch up on as far as new development patterns and different conditions since the last study. So they're in the process of that, and you'll be hearing more from us and them as the project moves forward and you start seeing public engagement touch points as we reach out to the public for inclusion in that plan. The regional climate planning project, that's been a pretty extensive project, and for those that maybe aren't really aware of what that plan or that project is, the state legislature mandated that the communities that are planning under the Growth Management Act include certain aspects of climate planning and resiliency in their projects. comprehensive plan updates and of course the Department of Commerce provided substantial funding for that effort and some of the communities in the Tri-Cities area Pasco Richland Kennewick Benton County West Richland joined together in that effort because largely that the issues in this regard are pretty much the same they don't stop at the river or they don't stop on a certain street so we've joined together and hired a consultant to help lead us through that effort So we've been busy reviewing like, you know, draft policies, greenhouse gas inventories or analyses, vulnerability assessments when it comes to, you know, changing environmental conditions, whether it be more wildfires or floods or whatever. And coincidentally, a couple of dates for you to be aware of. Next month, the consultant is going to be presenting to this planning commission where the project is at. We're nearly done, but they wanted to present the project and where it's at to this planning commission next month. You'll be seeing more from them on the 18th, I believe it is. Another date for you to be aware of is they will also be presenting more of a community-wide open house for people to come and listen and give their feedback on the plan and the project. We'll be hosting it here on the 23rd. in the evening at 6 to 8 p.m. So that will be another opportunity for the community to get involved. Throughout the project, there's been different community input touch points, either in Richland, kind of like West Richland, virtual online surveys have gone out. So there's been a lot of community feedback throughout the process. So I think it'll be interesting to see what they come up with for the Planning Commission next month. I mean, I've been meeting with them every other week, so I already kind of know the essence of it. But I think you'll be interested to see what's going on there. And as far as the energy resiliency study, that project is actually complete. We actually very recently received a final report. So if you're curious to know about the outcome of that project and the plan, let me know and I can send it to you. It's a pretty large file, so we may have to do it through a file drop or something like that. Very interesting project, and so if you're interested to see that, be sure to let us know. Otherwise, we'll be including some of the elements of that also in the comprehensive plan update where it's appropriate. So I just wanted to give you an update, see if you have any questions for me, and that's it.

Thank you. So to double-check my understanding, for the regional climate planning, the GHC plan, two different upcoming dates, September 18th for Planning Commission and then September 23rd for a public invite.

That's correct.

Do you know which city or location or not there yet?

The public meeting is right here.

Okay.

Yeah, right here in Pasco City Hall. Okay. Other communities have already hosted some of the previous public engagement events, so we offered to host one here. 6 to 8 p.m. on the 23rd. Planning commission is normal. Planning commission time, 6.30.

Okay. All right. Well, staff, if there's nothing else for old business, then we'll go ahead and move on, and there's nothing for workshop or public hearings. So I'm going to move to adjournment. Okay. All right. Do you have a motion for adjournment, commissioners?

Move to adjournment.

Okay. Commissioner Jones moves to adjourn. Second from Commissioner. Second from Hadler with a headshot. I'll second that. Okay. Commissioner Waites, second it, and then vote. I think we're all saying yes. Okay. Aye. Good night.