Pasco City staff proposes six-month moratorium, urges public process for siting secure community transition facilities

A Pasco City staff member proposed a six-month moratorium on new siting decisions for secure community transition facilities to allow public sessions and to develop a defensible local process.

The staff member said Pasco ‘‘has land use’’ authority to determine which properties can be developed as residential, commercial or industrial and noted that secure community transition facilities are already identified in the city’s ordinances and land‑use policies. ‘‘We haven’t established a process for that,’’ the staff member said.

Why it matters: the staff member warned the city must balance residents’ concerns with legal limits. ‘‘We can’t use a moratorium to try to supersede what state law says,’’ the staff member said, adding that a moratorium ‘‘buys us the time’’ to outline siting criteria and that ‘‘the shorter the time frame, the more defensible that action is.’’ The staff member recommended six months as a period that allows public input while showing progress toward a solution.

What staff proposed: the staff member described two steps Pasco could take: place a short moratorium to pause new siting decisions while the city crafts criteria, and consider requiring a special‑use or conditional‑use permit for such facilities so decisions are noticed and heard in a public meeting. ‘‘…it is allowed within our community, but it requires a special use or a conditional use permit, which often triggers a public hearing,’’ the staff member said.

Limits and next steps: the staff member emphasized the city cannot adopt standards that make siting ‘‘nowhere eligible’’ because state law requires the city to allow these facilities in some locations. Pasco plans public listening sessions so residents can express concerns and city staff can explore alternatives that are both responsive to community concerns and legally defensible. The staff member closed by saying the city must find ‘‘a solution that it is allowed within our community, but helps minimize…some of the concerns that our citizens will have.’’

The meeting did not record a formal motion or vote on a moratorium in the provided transcript; the staff member described proposed next steps and public engagement the city intends to pursue.