HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2025 09.A. Misc Distributed at the MeetingDistributed at Meetin
5- 6- .202s- lte
Yakima City Council —Budget Proposal Ideas
Presented by Gunnar Berg
May 6, 2025
Introduction
To address the $9,000,000 budget shortfall, I propose three actionable strategies: targeted budget
cuts, automatic fee increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and renegotiation of
interlocal service contracts. These measures aim to streamline budget discussions, enhance
revenue, and reduce operational strain.
1. Immediate Targeted Budget Cuts
Implementing immediate, strategic cuts can reduce the deficit without solely relying on tax
increases. The following proposed reductions total $206,200 in savings:
Item Savings
Windows Alive/Arts $10,000
Fireworks $15,000
Flowers and Flower $44,300
YCDA Funding $50,000
Sell BOA Building $50,000
Adult Sports $36,900
Total Savings $206,200
Action: Approve these cuts at the next meeting to initiate deficit reduction.
2. CPI -Based Automatic Fee Increases
To ensure revenue keeps pace with inflation, implement a 3% annual fee increase starting next
year, reflecting the historical U.S. CPI average. Current fees generate —$3,000,000 annually; a
3% increase would add $90,000 in Year 1.
10-Year Revenue Projection (3% Annual Increase):
3%
Year Revenue
Increase
1 $3,000,000 , 90,000
2 $3,090,000 $92,700
3 $3,182,700 $95,481
4 $3,278,181 $98,345
5 $3,376,526 $101,295
6 $3,477,822 $104,334
7 $3,582,156 $107,464
8 $3,689,621 $110,688
9 $3,800,310 $114,009
10 $3,914,319 $117,429
Total Additional
$1,031,745
10 Year Revenue
Proposed Fees for CPI Adjustment:
• Building/Development Permits
• Utility Fees (Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Solid Waste)
• Bus Tickets, Parks/Recreation Fees (e.g., Lions Pool, Harmon Center)
• Business Licensing, Planning/Zoning, Public Safety Fees
• Parking/Traffic, Recording/Administration, Special Event Permits
Recommendation: Introduce Impact Fees to further bolster revenue.
3. Renegotiate Interlocal Service Contracts
Yakima provides Fire, Police, and IT services to cities like Union Gap, incurring significant
overtime costs due to understaffing. Renegotiating contracts under the Interlocal Cooperation
Act (RCW 39.34) to include a 15% premium can generate additional revenue.
Proposed Contract Fees:
Hourly Rate for Service
Administrative Surcharge
Equipment Usage Fee
Late Payment Penalty
Training and Certificate Fee
Emergency Response Fee
Plan Review Fee
Annual Contract Administration Fee
Specialized Service Fee (e.g., hazardous material inspections)
CPI Adjustment (3% annually)
Strategy:
• Reinvest all additional revenue into hiring more staff for Fire, Police, and IT departments.
• Increased staffing will reduce overtime costs, further lowering the budget deficit.
• City Manager Vicki should lead renegotiations with other cities' leadership.
Benefits:
• Reduces department strain and overtime expenses.
• Enhances service sustainability while generating revenue.
• Aligns with legal frameworks for interlocal agreements.
Conclusion
These proposals —budget cuts, CPI -based fee increases, and contract renegotiations —offer a
balanced approach to addressing the $9,000,000 shortfall. By acting swiftly, the City Council can
stabilize finances, improve operational efficiency, and maintain essential services. I urge you to
consider these measures and take action in the upcoming meeting.
Contact: Gunnar Berg
ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE YAKIMA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT AUTOMATIC ANNUAL FEE INCREASES BASED ON
THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI), AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima provides essential services, including building and
development permits, utilities, public transportation, parks and recreation programs,
business licensing, planning and zoning, public safety, parking and traffic enforcement,
recording and administration, and special event permits; and
WHEREAS, the costs of providing these services have increased due to inflation, rising
operational expenses, and infrastructure maintenance needs; and
WHEREAS, current fees generate approximately $3,000,000 annually, and maintaining
revenue in line with inflation is necessary to sustain service levels without placing undue
burden on the City's General Fund; and
WHEREAS, a 3% annual fee increase, reflecting the historical average of the U.S.
Consumer Price Index (CPI), is projected to generate an additional $90,000 in the first
year and approximately $1,031,745 over ten years; and
WHEREAS, Washington state law, including RCW 36.32 and RCW 35.22.280, authorizes
cities to establish and adjust fees for services, provided such fees are reasonable and
supported by the costs of service provision; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance ensures transparency, public participation, and compliance
with state law to withstand potential legal challenges, consistent with court decisions
such as Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas (99 Wn. App. 127, 2000); and
WHEREAS, the Yakima City Council finds that automatic CPI -based fee adjustments are
necessary to maintain fiscal sustainability, protect public health and safety, and promote
equitable cost -sharing for city services;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) to
establish an automatic annual fee adjustment mechanism based on the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for specified city fees. This ordinance ensures that city revenues keep pace
with inflation while complying with Washington state law.
Section 2. Amendment to Yakima Municipal Code — Automatic CPI -
Based Fee Adjustments
A new section is added to the Yakima Municipal Code, Title 1 (General Provisions),
Chapter 1.XX (Fee Adjustments), as follows:
YMC 1.XX.O1O — Automatic Annual Fee Adjustments Based on CPI
1. Applicability. The following fees and charges established in the City of Yakima
Master Fee Schedule shall be subject to an automatic annual adjustment based on
the Consumer Price Index (CPI):
• Building and development permits, including plan review and inspection fees.
• Utility fees, including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste services.
• Public transportation fares, including bus tickets.
• Parks and recreation fees, including but not limited to Lions Pool, Harmon
Center, and field rentals.
• Business licensing fees, including general and regulatory licenses.
• Planning and zoning fees, including applications for subdivisions, variances, and
rezones.
• Public safety fees, including fire inspection and code enforcement fees.
• Parking and traffic fees, including permits and fines.
• Recording and administration fees, including document processing.
• Special event permits, including street banners and temporary use permits.
2. Adjustment Rate. Beginning January 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, the fees
listed in subsection (1) shall be adjusted by 3%, reflecting the historical average of
the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), as published
by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The adjustment shall be calculated as follows:
• New Fee = Current Fee x 1.03
• Fees may be rounded to the nearest dollar or five -dollar increment for
administrative efficiency.
3. Alternative CPI Adjustment. If the annual CPI-U for the Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue
Metropolitan Area, as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 12-
month period ending June 30 of the prior year, differs significantly from 3% (i.e.,
exceeds 5% or is below 1%), the City Manager may recommend an alternative
adjustment rate to the City Council for approval by resolution. Such
recommendation shall be supported by a fiscal impact analysis and public hearing.
4. Council Review. The City Council retains the authority to modify, suspend, or amend
the automatic fee adjustment by ordinance if economic conditions, service costs, or
other factors necessitate a different approach. The Council may also adjust base
fees independently of the CPI adjustment.
5. Public Notice. The City shall provide public notice of the adjusted fees at least 30
days prior to January 1 of each year through publication on the City's website, in the
Master Fee Schedule, and at City Hall. The notice shall include the new fee amounts
and the effective date.
6. Revenue Projection. The automatic 3% annual fee increase is projected to generate
the following additional revenue over ten years, based on an initial annual revenue
of $3,000,000:
• Year 1: $90,000
• Year 2: $92,700
• Year 3: $95,481
• Year 4: $98,345
• Year 5: $101,295
• Year 6: $104,334
• Year 7: $107,464
• Year 8: $110,688
• Year 9: $114,009
• Year 10: $117,429
• Total Additional Revenue (10 Years): $1,031,745
Section 3. Compliance with Washington State Law
This ordinance is designed to comply with Washington state law, including but not
limited to:
�► RCW 36.32, authorizing counties and cities to establish fee schedules.
• RCW 35.22.280, granting cities broad authority to regulate fees for services.
• Court decisions, such as Isla Verde Intl Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas (99 Wn. App.
127, 2000), affirming the authority to impose fees for public services that are
reasonably related to service costs.
Section 4. Public Participation
Prior to the adoption of this ordinance, the City shall:
1. Hold a public hearing to solicit input from residents, businesses, and stakeholders.
2. Publish notice of the hearing at least 14 days in advance in a newspaper of general
circulation and on the City's website.
3. Make available a fiscal impact analysis and the proposed Master Fee Schedule for
public review.
Section 5. Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2026, following its passage and publication
as required by law.
Adopted by the Yakima City Council this day of , 2025.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Approved as to form: City Attorney
Distributed at Meeting:
em#
MEMORANDUM
TO:
VIA:
Yakima City Council
Vicki Baker, City Manager
FROM: Mike Bailey, Financial Consultant to the
City of Yakima Citizen Budget Committee
SUBJECT: An Update on the Citizen Budget Committee
DATE: May 6, 2025
This report summarizes the activities of the Citizens Budget Committee created by the City
Council on December 10, 2024, consistent with the prescribed functions and duties in the
founding resolution. While this report summarizes their efforts, and discussions at a high level,
we have made it clear that each committee member is free to express their opinions
independently as well. Additionally, the committee continues its work to develop
recommendations to share with the City Council. The members of the committee are listed in
Attachment A along with their respective sponsors.
Activity
It was a pleasure to work with and support these individuals through this effort. To date, there
have been eleven meetings of the committee covering such topics as how city budgets work,
the history of the City of Yakima's General Fund, revenue options for cities in Washington State,
reviews of the departmental programs in the context of priority -based budgeting, input and
feedback from the townhalls and related survey work conducted by the City, and many
conversations about alternative approaches and possible solutions. (Note: the committee
provided helpful feedback regarding the draft citizen budget survey. Not all of the feedback was
able to be accommodated by the tools being used, but many changes were made based on their
input.) The meetings initially lasted 60 minutes but we weren't finishing within that time. The
committee agreed to extend the meeting times to 90 minutes (but we often went beyond that
time limit as well). In fact, the lastest meeting on April 30th lasted over two -hours. The
committee continues to meet, In addition, there were numerous homework assignments, and
several committee members did additional work on options independent of the stated agendas
and approach.
This was an enthusiastic and caring group of individuals. While the meeting schedule did not
work well for everyone, the level of attendance was commendable. Many members attended all
meetings. Those who were unable to attend a meeting often followed up with me to stay caught
up and were ready to offer constructive input when we reached that step.
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
Discussion
With a diverse group of individuals, the discussions were wide-ranging. Many of the concerns
and issues raised by the committee members were outside of the scope of our assignment
(such as reviewing the contractual agreement with the YMCA for the swimming pool,
understanding what is funded by general revenues but in other funds).
Frustrations - The committee met with each department director to review the programs
identified during the priority -based budgeting approach used last fall. Often this resulted in
some frustration that with the breadth of city programs in the General Fund, the three meetings
(four and % hours) devoted to this proved insufficient to form clear opinions about
opportunities to refocus the city's limited resources from one program to another. As a result,
the committee felt that the use of the priority -based budget approach (as in scoring programs
against the Council's stated strategic objectives and commonly used program attributes) did not
result in a dear stratification of city programs for their analysis. [Note: see the Council's strategic
objectives and program attributes used for this exercise in attachment B.1 This unique approach
also proved to be a bit of a learning curve as most budget exercises focus on line -item details
and adjusting. Since the Council chose to implement a priority -based approach the resolution
creating the committee asked them to utilize this program -oriented model as well. Most
committee members did complete the scoring exercise — though with some misgivings. See the
Program summary stratified by committee member scores in Attachment E.
The lack of revenue flexibility for cities in Washington State also proved to be frustrating for the
committee. In a discussion as to options for additional resources to meet community needs,
some on the committee felt that sales taxes would be a better option as opposed to raising
property taxes. (Note: there was some discussion and disagreement on this point). However,
the lack of meaningful options other than property tax increases was a common concern.
Additionally, there was discussion about the merits of a vote for additional resources as
contrasted to the wisdom of the Council taking the initiative to identify additional resources as
needed. As described above, the committee continues to review the options in hopes of
developing specific recommendations for the Council's consideration.
Understanding the financial journey that the city has been on was also challenging. While
needing more resources to accomplish their mission was a common theme from department
directors, the lack of information about the effectiveness of the current programs was noted.
The Council's adopted strategic goals were continually part of the conversation. It was observed
by some that the Council should work with their new city manager to build specific workplans,
operational objectives and performance evaluations of those programs and workplans that
would inform future iterations of the strategic goal discussions as well as the budget. Rather
than recreate the strategic goals for each budget, conduct any edits that might be in order and
Page - 2
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
build a responsive approach to these goals that improve the connection between strategic
priorities, departmental operations and success, and financial support.
There were references to past budget cuts and lower levels of city staff in current budgets as
compared to the past and the committee reviewed the departmental headcounts over the past
ten years (see Attachment C). Of particular concern was the lack of clarity (potentially
intentional) by past City leaders as to the headcounts in crucial departments. While the official
budget materials indicate that individual employee counts varied only slightly, the reductions in
total city employment supported by the General Fund was not illustrated clearly. A total of
eleven "frozen" positions in the police and fire budgets are only noted in various footnotes for
those who knew where to look for them. (In this case, "frozen" means the position is listed as
existing however there is no funding for the position in the department's budget and the
department was not permitted to fill the position.) The frozen positions are five police officers,
three fire-fighters and three telecommunication specialists (dispatchers in the 911 center). As a
result the information provided to the Council, the committee and the public about levels of
staff available in these crucial areas was misleading and only brought to light very late in the
committee's work. (In addition to the eleven positions in police and fire, there is also a "frozen"
position in the Finance Department.) As a result, the total number of employees in the
programs under review actually dropped over the past ten years with decreases coming in some
of the highest priority areas of the City.
Themes
As indicated there were several divergent opinions on a number of topics. Some committee
members developed preliminary recommendations to reduce the current budget by the
identified $9 million gap (those are provided as attachments to this memo for your
information). Some wanted the Council to explore revenue options. A focus on those who
directly benefit from city services paying more of the direct costs also emerged as a theme.
Ensuring the city is not carrying any unnecessary real estate or buildings was discussed. Below
are some of the more common themes resulting from the discussions.
Cost cutting — While some committee members went through the budget and recommended
reductions resulting in the $9 million target, most did not take this approach. While the
committee felt there were some programs that the city supports which are narrow in focus, no
consensus has emerged as yet regarding which programs the city should stop doing.
Revenue options — As discussed above, there were divergent opinions about which revenue
options might be best for the city. Some discussed a vote to raise property taxes (such as an
increase to the EMS levy, potential parks district or fire authority with their own taxing
authority) others preferred pursuit of sales tax alternatives (though this option is pretty limited
by state law). The new authority for an increase in the sales tax by .1% dedicated to public
Page - 3
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
safety was discussed as well. The idea of increasing the Transportation Benefit District (TBD)
sales tax or motor vehicle excise tax seemed to have support as well though it would be of
marginal benefit to the General Fund. Additionally, the committee also discussed the logic of
proposing to eliminate the automatic "CPI inflator" in the dedication of funds for streets and
parks in the City's charter. This would free up just over $1.2 million in the 2026 budget.
However, due to the compounding over time, this would grow to mandate a much larger
dedication to these city responsibilities in future years.
The committee discussed the option of charging a higher fee to non-resident use of city
programs and facilities (who don't pay the taxes to subsidize city facilities and activities).
Additionally, the committee noted that Yakima provides lots of services to other cities and
jurisdictions. Instead of just recovering costs, the city should consider charging a "little more"
for these services.
Another revenue idea was to solicit sponsorships from private individuals or businesses for city
programs where it would be appropriate. Lastly, the committee was curious as to whether
development related fees are recovering the full costs of the related city processes that support
this work.
Economic development — All committee members seemed to agree with the proposal put
forward by city manager Vicki Baker that making Yakima a more attractive place to start and
sustain a business was a good long-term strategy. The committee also acknowledged that this
approach will take time to have an impact on city budgets and action should be taken soon to
maintain the city's strong financial position.
It was observed in the context of different topics that the city has several strong financial
activities, businesses and residents. This led to such ideas as sponsorships, philanthropic
approaches, and a willingness to enable residents to carry more of the responsibility for
activities that benefit the community.
Budget approaches — Committee members asked about a target -based approach where
department directors would use their expertise to develop budgets to serve the City within a
given financial parameter. Some committee members felt this might serve the city better than
the priority -based approach (or maybe as a companion approach). See Attachment D for a
description of a "Target Based Budget". This approach may help to address a concern the
committee had that left unchecked, public safety would eventually eclipse all other city
programs and services.
Conclusion
The committee developed a variety of considerations including ways and places to reduce costs,
approaches and opportunities to increase resources and ideas for making the city more efficient
Page - 4
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
in its use of current resources. The best approach will likely be a combination of many ofthe
issues, concepts and approaches that are described above for Council's consideration.
As different committee members have different ideas, they ill likely find it valuable to share a
few o their top thoughts with the Council directly.
Attachments:
A Budget Advisory Committee Members
B Council's Strategic Priorities and Priority Based Budgeting Program Attributes
Review of headcount by department, last ten years
Description of a Target -Based Budget
Individual committee member efforts to reduce the current budget by 9 million
Program summary stratified by committee member scores
Page-.
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
Attachment A
City of Yakima, WA - Citizen Budget Committee — Membership Roster
Dirk Bernd — representing Matt Brown
Gunnar Berg — representing Reedy Berg
Matt Duffy — representing Rick Glenn
Angie Girard — representing Janice Deccio
Dulce Gutierrez — representing Danny Herrera
Jeanna Hernandez — representing Patricia Byers
Luis Lopez — representing Leo Roy
Attachment B
Council's Strategic Priorities and Priority Based Budgeting Program Attributes
Strategic Priorities: A Safe and Healthy Yakima; A Resilient Yakima; A Thriving Yakima; An
Engaged Yakima
Program Attributes (these differ for those programs which face the community and those which
are more related to governance).
Community Attributes — Level of mandate; Reliance on the city for the service; Degree of cost
recovery; Percent of the population of the city served by the program; Opportunities for
collaboration with others; The degree to which the program extends equity for city services;
Change in demand for the service.
Governance Attributes — Contributes to fiscal responsibility; Contributes to good decision
making; Enhances communication with the community; Supports a strong workforce; Advances
compliance with laws and regulations; Supports continuous improvement; Addresses the
management of risks.
Page-6
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
Attachment C - Review of headcount by department, last ten years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
City Manager 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3
City Council 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Racords/ City Clerk 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5
Human Rasources 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 10.5 10.5 11 11
Legal 18.5 18.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 20.5 20.5
Municipal Court 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 10.5 10.5
Planning 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Code Administration 17 17 17 17 17 19 19 19 17 17
City Hall Facility Maint. 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
Economic Development 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
Police 195 195 189 188 188 190 192 192 193 193
frozen police officer positions -5 -5
Fire 104 103 104 104 104 104 105 105 107 107
frozen firefighter and dispatch positions -6 -6
Information Technology 23 23 23 23 24 24 23 23 23 23
Finance 15 15 15 13 14 14 14 14 13 13
frozen finance position -1 -1
Parking 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0
Purchasing 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4
E gneering 8.75 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.75 9 9 9 9 9
Total '434.55' 433.3' 429.3' 425.3'425.55' 433.8' 438,2' 437.2' 423r 423
Parks & Recreation 20.9 20.9 22.9 23.4 23.4 24.7 25.4 25.4 25.4 25.4
Traffic Eineering 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Streets 22.0 22.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 22.0 22.0
Total General
495.2 492.7 492.7 489.2 489.7 00. 50.6 504.6 488.4 488.4
Note: frozen positions are only noted in the current budget period and may apply to previous
budgets as well.
Page - 7
Memo to the City Council
Re: Citizen Budget Committee Report
Attachment D —Target Based Budgeting in Local Government
The target -based budget has two primary components: 1) a "Target Level" budget that finances
a basic level of municipal services, and 2) an unspecified number of incremental expenditure
requests called "Current Service Levels" or "Expanded Service Levels." Each service level is a
separate and autonomous set of expenditures intended to provide a specific service or to fund a
particular program, project, or piece of equipment. Each represents either a change in how
existing services are delivered (i.e., "Current Service Level") or an additional or new level of
service (i.e., "Expanded Service Level") that a department can provide.
Staff prepares a budget according to the following steps:
1. A Target Level expenditure base is established for each department within the funds
where this approach is to be used. The Target Level was defined as the amount
necessary to provide the same or lesser level of service as last year, with no new
programs, staff, or one-time capital outlays.
2. The department head prepares additional service -level requests (i.e., Current and
Expanded Level requests). If the City Manager approves Current or Expanded Service
Levels or programs, the Finance Department added them to the proposed budget; those
not approved are not included in the budget. For the reader's information, Current and
Expanded Level requests —whether approved by the City Manager or not —should be
made available to illustrate what did not get approved and included.
3. Department heads rank Current and Expanded Level requests in priority order.
4. Staff estimates revenues for the impacted funds and finalizes the preliminary budget by
funding the service level requests that, in the City Manager's opinion, were the highest
priority within our revenue constraints.
Page - 8
4
8
10
16
18
19
20
45
46
47
55
56
67
80
9
10
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
City of Yakima - Community Programs
Police Programs
2025 COMMENT
Community Service Officers:
386,000
CUT BY 60% - COST OPTIMIZATION
W1TH CODES DEPT
Prisoner Transportation:
220,000
CUT FULLY- COST OPTIMIZATION
WITH DETENTION FTE's
Major Crime Unit:
770,000
CUT BY 10%
Crime Free Rental Housing
82,000
CUT FULLY
Record Management
870,000
CUT BY 50%
Internal Affairs
297,000
CUT FULLY
Trainin. Office
316,000
CUT FULLY
TOTAL DEDUCTION
li ire
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Parks
CUT DEPT BY 20% OR CLOSE
STATION 92
Park Maintenance (Revenue included)
2,272,823
CUT BY 15%
Ballfield Maintenance (Revenue included)
237,463
CUT BY 50%
Parks & Recreation Administration
TOTAL DEDUCTION
999,509
CUT BY 25%
Streets & Traffic
Snow & Ice Control
459,500
CUT BY 50%
Street Maintenance Roadwa
3,227,000
OFFSET WITH TBD FEE INCREASE
OF $10.00 (CURRENT $20 FEE
GENERATES 1,7 MILLION P/YEAR
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Traffic Operations
Traffic Control Devices
1,423,000
CUT BY 25%
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Municipal Court
Communi Diversion Pro•ram
TOTAL DEDUCTION
50,000
CUT
Codes
Leadershi.
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Planning
479 180
CUT BY 30%
Lon. Ran.e Plannin.
TOTAL DEDUCTION
364,662
CUT BY 50%
Engineering
I Office Admin
300,000
CUT BY 15%
f Pro"ectAdmin
150,000
CUT BY 15%
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Economic Development
1 Windows Alive/Arts Commission
10,000
CUT
Flowers and flower baskets
44,300
CUT
YCDA
50,000
CUT
Fireworks
15,000
CUT
I Federal Lobb in•
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Total Communi Pro•ram Deductions
60 000
CUT
Page 1
SUBMITTED BY DULCE GUTIERREZ
04/16/2025
City of Yakima - Governance Programs
2025 COMMENT
CUT DEPT BY 10%
Human Resources
Personnel / Benefit Administration
101
102
103 Civil
116
118
119
125
126
129
466,644 CUT BY 10%
Payroll Administration
Service (Charte
Police
Fire)/
255,980 CUT BY 10%
595,68
CUT BY 10%
TOTAL DEDUCTION
Facilities
City Hall Facilities
BOA Buildin
520,671 CUT BY 20%
OFFSET BY MINIMUM OF 50% WITH
50,000 LEASE REVENUE
Purchasing
Special Pro`ect Professional Services
34,000
CUT BY 50%
TOTAL DEDUCTION
City Administration
AWC Dues
85,000
CUT
Trainin./Travel Cell Phones
Total Governance Pro ram Deductions
CUT BY 50%
Page 2 SUBMITTED BY DULCE GUTIERREZ 04/16/2025
Yakima Budget Advisory Committee
To address the City of Yakima's fiscal challenges and achieve a target savings of approximately
$9,000,000, I have reviewed city programs and propose the following reductions and efficiency
measures. Each recommendation includes a justification, estimated savings, and strategies to
maintain essential services where feasible. These proposals prioritize public safety,
infrastructure, and core services while leveraging technology, cross training, outsourcing, and
revenue generation to minimize community impact. Programs are listed in numerical order:
GOAL: $9,000,000 in Reductions
Department
Police Department:
Fire Department:
Parks Department:
Information Technology:
Streets and Traffic:
City Clerks Office:
Traffic Operations:
Municipal Courts:
Prosecution:
Finance:
Codes:
Human Resources:
Planning:
Engineering:
Clean City:
Facilities:
Purchasing:
City Managers Office:
City Administration:
Economic Development:
Total Savings:
Reduction Recommendation
$997,000
$3,342,000
$1,872,000
$594,000
$414,000
$114,000
$197,000
$387,000
$180,000
$50,000
95,000
$421,000
$55,000
$75,000
$58,000
$102,000
$47,000
$45,000
$24,000
$119,000
$9,1.88,000
POLICE DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS
Program 1: UAV (Drones): No Reduction
Program 2: K9: No Reduction
Program 3: ProActive Unit: No reduction
Program 4: Community Service Officers
■ Recommendation: Eliminate 3 of 5 FTE positions or discontinue the program if not
required.
• Justification: Reducing non -essential roles preserves resources for frontline policing.
• Savings: Between $231,600 - $386,000
Program 5: DUI Enforcement: No Reduction
Program 6: Traffic Unit: No Reduction
Program 7: Detention: No Reduction
Program 8: Prisoner Transportation
■ Recommendation: Implement Zoom/Skype for court appearances where permitted. If in -
person presence between attorney and prisoner is required, have attorneys visit prisons
rather than transporting inmates.
• Justification: Virtual hearings reduce risks and costs. Assuming 50% of cases shift to
virtual platforms, significant savings are achievable.
• Savings: $110,000
Program 9: Jail Contracts
• Recommendation: Prioritize violent offenders for incarceration over nonviolent
offenders (e.g., DUI cases) if not already implemented.
• Justification: Focusing on high -priority inmates may reduce costs without compromising
safety. It may also free space for more violent criminals. Further analysis is needed.
• Savings: To be determined
Program 10: Major Crimes Unit: No Reduction
Program 11: Special Assault Unit: No Reduction
Program 12: Property Crime Unit: No Reduction
Program 13: Gang Enforcement: No Reduction
Program 14: Narcotics Unit: No Reduction
Program 15: Forensics Unit: No Reduction
Program 16: Crime Free Rental Housing
■ Recommendation: Eliminate the program or seek grant funding. Cross -train staff to
other roles.
• Justification: This non -essential program can be discontinued to redirect resources.
• Savings: $82,000
Program 17: Property and Evidence: No Reduction
Program 18: Records Management
■ Recommendation: Cut by 50% through AI -driven efficiencies and software upgrades.
Eliminate overtime for administrative tasks. Chief Boyle mentioned they used significant
overtime last year to complete paperwork. Unacceptable use of OT in my opinion.
• Justification: Overtime for paperwork is inefficient. AI tools can streamline records
management, reducing staff reliance.
■ Savings: $435,000
Program 19: Internal Affairs
■ Recommendation: Cut by 20% through efficiency upgrades (e.g., Al tools, software)
and reduced overtime.
• Justification: Streamlined workflows preserve staff while lowering costs.
• Savings: $59,400
Program 20: Training Office
• Recommendation: Cut non -mandatory training and conduct eligible training remotely to
eliminate travel and lodging costs.
• Justification: Remote training maintains compliance while reducing expenses.
• Savings: $79,000
Program 21: Crime Analysis: No Reduction
FIRE DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS
Program 22: Fire Suppression
• Recommendation: Reduce by 20% by closing Station 92, redistributing staff, hiring
volunteer firefighters for administrative tasks, implementing longer shifts, and deferring
non -critical equipment upgrades.
■ Justification: Reallocating resources and leveraging volunteers maintains firefighting
capacity while reducing overtime and capital costs. Move firefighters from Station 92 to
other stations to cut down on Overtime.
• Savings: $3,090,800
Program 23: EMT Services
■ Recommendation: Expand by adding trained volunteers or inactive EMTs to increase
revenue.
• Justification: Enhanced service capacity could offset costs elsewhere.
• Savings: $50,000 generated (guesstimate)
Program 24: Community Risk Reduction
• Recommendation: Discontinue assistance to Union Gap/Selah/Etc or charge a premium
for services.
Justification: Reducing overtime or increasing revenue ensures fiscal responsibility.
• Savings: $100,000 (assumes cuts + higher admin. fee charged)
Program 25: Fire Administration
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined workloads, cross -training, and
overtime elimination.
• Justification: Efficiency measures preserve service levels at lower costs.
• Savings: $95,400
Program 26: Training
• Recommendation: Reduce by 10% by prioritizing Zoom -based training to avoid travel
and lodging costs.
• Justification: Remote training maintains compliance while cutting expenses.
• Savings: $6,300
Program 27: Fire Mechanics/Facilities: No Reduction
Program 28: Fire Investigation: No Reduction
Program 29: Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting: No Reduction
Program 30: MSA Repair Technician: No Reduction
Program 31: Technical Rescue Team: No Reduction
Program 32: Hazardous Material Team: No Reduction
Program 33: Unmanned Aerial Systems Operations: No Reduction
PARKS DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS
Program 34: Washington Fruit Community Center
■ Recommendation: Increase service fees, seek sponsorships (e.g., Washington Fruit), or
cut services by 40%.
Justification: Revenue generation or reduced offerings align costs with essential
priorities.
■ Savings: $127,836
Program 35: Fisher Park Golf Course
• Recommendation: Increase prices by 25%.
• Justification: Higher fees offset costs, with a conservative 10% savings despite potential
participation drops.
■ Savings: $25,000 (Guesstimate)
Program 36: Youth Sports
• Recommendation: Increase prices by 25%.
• Justification: Higher fees offset costs, with a conservative 10% savings despite potential
participation drops.
• Savings: $10,000 (Guestimate)
Program 37: Youth Activity
• Recommendation: Increase prices by 25%.
• Justification: Higher fees offset costs, with a conservative 10% savings despite potential
participation drops.
■ Savings: $10,000 (Guestimate)
Program 38: Adult Sports
• Recommendation: Either eliminate completely or increase prices to fully fund this
activity
• Justification: Adults can fund their own activities.
• Savings: $36,9I7
Program 39: Community Recreation
• Recommendation: Increase prices by 25%.
• Justification: Higher fees offset costs, with a conservative 10% savings despite potential
participation drops.
■ Savings: $9,381
Program 40: Lions Pool
■ Recommendation: Option 1: Eliminate entire pool from budget...sell the facility to the
school district or private sector.
■ Justification: Elimination is best option. City is creating the MLK pool which will take
the place of Lions Pool which is outdated, has significant repairs, and isn't sustainable
revenue wise to fund itself,
■ Savings: $479,176
Program 41: Franklin Pool
■ Recommendation: Option 1: Turn Franklin Pool into a self-contained splash pad which
requires no life guards/less upkeep. Also use space during the winter for an outdoor ice
skating rink to generate revenue for the city. Install concession stand as well for
summer/winter use.
■ Justification: It will require more of an upfront cost, but would be significantly less
costly long term considering no need for staff/lifeguards. It also would be a fun new
addition to Yakima. See if Yakima Rotary would fund this project.
■ Savings: $50,000 minimum per year over time. If not a revenue generator.
Program 42: Aquatic Administration
■ Recommendation: Cut by 50% through reduced staff and program offerings. Cutting
lions pool will lower cost naturally.
■ Justification: Prioritizing essential services over discretionary programs ensures fiscal
discipline.
■ Savings: $83,372
Program 43: Harmon Center
• Recommendation: Cut by 30% by reducing class offerings or increasing participant fees.
• Justification: Prioritizing essential services over recreation reduces costs.
• Savings: $114,662
Program 44: Senior Trip and Tours: No Reduction, try to expand
Program 45: Park Maintenance
■ Recommendation: Reduce by 25% by decreasing mowing/landscaping frequency or
outsourcing to private firms (e.g., Colonial Lawn and Garden).
■ Justification: Outsourcing reduces staff and benefit costs while maintaining basic
upkeep.
■ Savings: $568,000
Program 46: Ballfield Maintenance
• Recommendation: Cut by 50% by starting a volunteer program, reducing maintenance,
and increasing concession prices with part-time labor.
■ Justification: Volunteers and fee hikes offset costs without eliminating community
access.
■ Savings: $1 18,731
Program 47: Parks and Recreation Administration
■ Recommendation: Cut by 20% through streamlined work, cross -training, and
Al/software efficiencies.
• Justification: Efficiency upgrades reduce costs while preserving core functions.
• Savings: $199,901
Program 48: MLK Pool
■ Recommendation: Double ticket prices to match Lions and Franklin Pools new pricing
(if increased).
• Justification: Higher fees reduce subsidies, assuming 20% savings.
• Savings: $40,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Program 49: Infrastructure/Security
• Recommendation: Cut by 15% through streamlined security/infrastructure, cross -
training, and Al efficiencies.
• Justification: Technology and multitasking reduce costs without compromising service.
• Savings: $301,940
Program 50: Geographic Information Systems
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined security/infrastructure, cross -
training, and reduced support for other cities (e.g., Union Gap).
• Justification: Prioritizing Yakima's needs preserves functionality at lower costs.
■ Savings: $37,806
Program 51: Application Development
▪ Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined security/infrastructure, cross -
training, and reduced support for other cities (e.g., Union Gap).
• Justification: Prioritizing Yakima's needs preserves functionality at lower costs.
• Savings: $56,973
Program 52: Computer Operations
■ Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined security/infrastructure, cross -
training, and reduced support for other cities (e.g., Union Gap).
• Justification: Prioritizing Yakima's needs preserves functionality at lower costs.
• Savings: $103,900
Program 53: Application Support
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined security/infrastructure, cross -
training, and reduced support for other cities (e.g., Union Gap).
• Justification: Prioritizing Yakima's needs preserves functionality at lower costs.
• Savings: $93,453
STREETS AND TRAFFIC PROGRAMS
Program 54: Sidewalks: No Reductions
Program 55: Snow and Ice Control
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through outsourcing or efficiency measures.
• Justification: Private sector efficiencies can lower costs while maintaining service.
■ Savings: $45,950
Program 56: Street Maintenance/Roadways
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% by prioritizing high -traffic areas.
• Justification: Focusing on critical infrastructure maintains safety while reducing costs.
■ Savings: $322,700
Program 57: Street Cleaning: No Reduction
Program 58: Street Maintenance Administration
• Recommendation: Cut by 20% through streamlined operations.
• Justification: Administrative efficiencies reduce overhead without impacting core
services.
■ Savings: $35,800
Program 59: Street General Services
• Recommendation: Eliminate entirely.
■ Justification: Discontinuing non -essential services aligns with savings goals.
■ Savings: $10,300
CITY CLERKS PROGRAMS
Program 60: Public Records Act (PRA)
■ Recommendation: Cut by 20% through digitization, Al tools such as Grok to get data
quickly to respond to Public Records Requests, and elimination of non -required
committees.
■ Justification: Technology to help respond to Public Records Requests, and reduced
meetings streamline operations.
■ Savings: $39,663
Program 61: Open Publics Meeting Act
■ Recommendation: Cut by 20% through digitization, Al tools for meeting summaries,
and elimination of non -required committees.
• Justification: Technology and reduced meetings streamline operations, as supported by
clerk estimates.
■ Savings: $39,663
Program 62: Records Management
* Recommendation: Cut by 20% through digitization, Al tools for meeting summaries,
and elimination of non -required committees.
Justification: Technology and reduced meetings streamline operations, as supported by
clerk estimates.
Savings: $35,000
Program 63: Election: No Reduction
Program 64: LEOFFI — Police Board: No Reduction
Program 65: LEOFFI — Fire Board: No Reduction
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PROGRAMS
Program 66: Street Lighting: No Reduction
Program 67: Traffic Control Devices
■ Recommendation: Cut by 10% by postponing new installations/upgrades and focusing
on maintenance.
■ Justification: Essential safety is preserved with deferred capital spending.
• Savings: $142,300
Program 68: Traffic Planning
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined planning efforts.
• Justification: Focusing on high -priority projects maintains functionality at lower costs.
• Savings: $54,900
Program 69: Debt: No Reduction
MUNICIPAL COURT PROGRAMS
Program 70: Court Services by Judicial Specialists
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through staff reduction or efficiency measures.
• Justification: Streamlining aligns with broader administrative savings goals.
• Savings: $68,803 (Guestimate)
Program 71: Court Services by Judicial Officers: No Reduction
Program 72: Interpreter Services
Recommendation: Replace staff interpreter with free Al translation tools by 2027
contract end.
■ Justification: Al tools are cost-effective and widely used in professional settings. There
is no longer a need for a professional interpreter.
■ Savings: $150,580
Program 73: Jury Services: No Reduction
Program 74: Probation Services — Yakima County
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined operations.
• Justification: Efficiency measures reduce costs without compromising oversight.
• Savings: $29,732
Program 75: Accounts Receivable: No Reductions
Program 76: Collection Service (YCCS): No Reduction
Program 77: Building Security: No Reduction
Program 78: Administrative Duties by Manager
• Recommendation: Cut by 50% through streamlining, cross -training, and staff
reductions.
• Justification: Consolidating duties enhances efficiency and reduces overhead.
• Savings: $88,232
Program 79: Court Record Requests: No Reduction
Program 80: Community Diversion Program
• Recommendation: Eliminate as non -mandatory.
• Justification: Discretionary programs can be discontinued to meet savings goals.
• Savings: $50,000
PROSECTION PROGRAMS
Program 81: Family and Community Violence Unit
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% by prioritizing high -value cases and reducing overtime.
• Justification: Streamlining preserves core functions.
• Savings: $48,434
Program 82: Traffic and Property Crimes Unit
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% by prioritizing high -value cases and reducing overtime.
• Justification: Efficiency measures maintain prosecution capacity.
• Savings: $38,617
Program 83: Charging Unit
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% by prioritizing high -value cases and reducing overtime.
• Justification: Streamlined operations preserve essential services.
• Savings: $12,995
Program 84: Community Diversion
• Recommendation: Eliminate entirely as non -required.
• Justification: Discontinuing non -essential programs aligns with savings goals.
• Savings: $80,727
FINANCE PROGRAMS
Program 85: Budget
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined processes.
• Justification: Efficiency measures reduce administrative costs.
■ Savings: $49,977
Program 86: Annual Comp. Finance Report (ACFR): No Reduction
Program 87: (ACFR) Audit Certificate: No Reduction
Program 88: Accounts Payable: No Reduction
Program 89: Purchasing Card Auditing: No Reduction
Program 90: Grants: No Reduction
Program 91: Debt Management: No Reduction
Program 92: Cash and Investments: No Reduction
Program 93: Capital_ Management: No Reduction
CODES PROGRAMS
Program 94: Leadership
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through streamlined operations.
• Justification: Modest reductions maintain oversight while contributing to savings.
• Savings: $23,959
Program 95: Plans Examiner
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through efficiency measures.
• Justification: Streamlining preserves core functions.
• Savings: $12,430
Program 96: Code Inspectors
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through optimized workloads.
• Justification: Efficiency measures maintain compliance efforts.
• Savings: $15,073
Program 97: Code Enforcement Officers
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through streamlined operations.
• Justification: Modest reductions preserve enforcement capacity.
■ Savings: $30,395
Program 98: Permit Techs/PPC
■ Recommendation: Cut by 5% through efficiency upgrades.
■ Justification: Streamlining maintains permitting services.
■ Savings: $13,285
Program 99: Suncore Dispatch Services: No Reduction
Program 100: Indigent Defense: No Reduction
HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS
Program 101: Personnel/Benefit Administration
Recommendation: Streamline HR by consolidating accounts receivable, training, and
public records tasks. Adopt private -sector tools (e.g., Workday) to cut 1/3 of the
$1,318,305 total HR budget.
■ Justification: With current staff levels, HR is oversized compared to private -sector
benchmarks. Consolidation and technology enhance efficiency.
■ Savings: $139,993
Program 102: Payroll Administration/Civil Service
■ Recommendation: Streamline HR as above.
■ Justification: As above.
■ Savings: $84,473
Program 103: Recruitment/Classification
• Recommendation: Streamline HR as above. Hire this process out to headhunters to save
time on recruitment (or use the company Workday or other private sector HR options to
save significantly on staff/workload).
■ Justification: As above.
■ Savings: $196,574
Planning Department Programs
Program 104: Current Planning and Licensing
■ Recommendation: Cut by 5% through streamlined processes.
■ Justification: Efficiency measures preserve planning functions.
• Savings: $36,466
Program 105: Long Range Planning
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through prioritized planning efforts.
• Justification: Focusing on high -impact projects reduces costs.
• Savings: $18,233
Program 106: Legal Department: No Reduction
Engineering Department Programs
Program 107: Development Review: No Reduction
Program 108: Development Inspection
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through streamlined inspections.
• Justification: Efficiency measures maintain oversight.
• Savings: $10,000
Program 109: Traffic Engineering
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through prioritized projects.
• Justification: Focusing on high -impact areas reduces costs.
■ Savings: $12,500
Program 110: Office Admin
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined operations.
• Justification: Administrative efficiencies reduce overhead.
■ Savings: $30,000
Program 111: Project Admin
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined management.
• Justification: Efficiency measures preserve project oversight.
• Savings: $15,000
Program 112: Traffic Calming
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through prioritized initiatives.
• Justification: Focusing on high -priority measures reduces costs.
• Savings: $7,500
CLEAN CITY PROGRAMS
Program 113: Graffiti Program
■ Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined efforts. See if private sector can
help sponsor this, such as Standard Paint and Flooring who could donate free paint,
supplies, etc.
■ Justification: Efficiency measures maintain community appearance.
■ Savings: $7,250
Program 114: Clean City Code Compliance
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through optimized enforcement.
• Justification: Streamlining preserves compliance efforts.
• Savings: $29,424
Program 115: Other Operating Expenses
• Recommendation: Cut by 5% through reduced discretionary spending.
• Justification: Modest reductions align with fiscal goals.
• Savings: $21,553
FACILITIES PROGRAMS
Program 116: City Hall Facilities
■ Recommendation: Cut by 10% by reducing cleaning staff and halting equipment
upgrades/renovations.
■ Justification: Efficiency measures and deferred spending reduce costs.
• Savings: $52,067
Program 117: HBJCC Maintenance: No Reduction
Program 118: Bank of America Building
• Recommendation: Sell the building or rent it out to generate revenue.
• Justification: Selling eliminates maintenance costs; renting generates income in a prime
location.
■ Savings/Revenue: $50,000 (minimum estimate for either option)
PURCHASING PROGRA S
Program 119: Purchasing Goods and Services
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% by eliminating unnecessary purchases/upgrades.
• Justification: Reduced discretionary spending aligns with savings goals.
• Savings: $26,031
Program 120: Insurance: No Reduction
Program 121: Purchasing Card Program: No Reduction
Program 122: Policy and Procedure Training
Recommendation: Cut by 30% by eliminating non -mandatory training and using remote
options.
• Justification: Remote training reduces travel and expense costs.
• Savings: $21,216
Program 123: Surplus Disposition: No Reduction
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE PROGRAMS
Program 124: City Management
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined operations.
• Justification: Shared reductions ensures equitable budget cuts across departments.
• Savings: $41,800
Program 125: Special Projects
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% by prioritizing essential initiatives.
• Justification: Reduced discretionary spending aligns with fiscal goals.
• Savings: $3,400
CITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
Program 126: AWC Dues
• Recommendation: Cut by 20% through reduced participation.
• Justification: Lowering non -essential memberships contributes to savings.
• Savings: $17,000
Program 127: State Lobbying
• Recommendation: Cut by 10% through streamlined efforts.
• Justification: Reduced lobbying aligns with fiscal priorities.
• Savings: $7,200
Program 128: Council Stipend: No Reduction
Program 129: Training/Travel Cell Phones: No Reduction
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Program 130: Window Alive/Arts Commission
• Recommendation: Eliminate or have private funding (e.g., Moyer) cover costs.
• Justification: This non -essential program primarily benefits specific properties which
shouldn't be the priority of the city budget.
■ Savings: $10,000
Program 131: Flowers and Flower Baskets
• Recommendation: Eliminate or secure sponsorships.
• Justification: Discretionary beautification can be privately funded or discontinued.
• Savings: $44,300
Program 132: YCDA
• Recommendation: Eliminate or find sponsors to fund.
• Justification: Non -essential programs can be discontinued to meet savings goals.
• Savings: $50,000
Program 133: Fireworks
• Recommendation: Eliminate or have other cities/businesses fund.
• Justification: Discretionary events can be privately supported or discontinued.
• Savings: $15,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED SAVINGS
The proposed reductions yield an estimated $9,1.88,000 in savings, with additional potential from
programs requiring further analysis (e.g., Jail Contracts, EMT expansion, business sponsorships,
etc). This figure excludes savings for programs without specific estimates to ensure conservative
projections. These measures prioritize public safety, infrastructure, and essential services while
leveraging technology, outsourcing, and revenue generation to minimize community impact.
Thank you for considering these proposals. I am available to discuss further or assist with
implementation planning.
Gunnar Berg
(509) 853 6088
City of Yakima Priority Based Budgeting Citizen Community Combined Scores
Strategic Program
Program Name NmtAnnount Priority Attributes Combined
7SCollection Service (YCCS) 2.000 3.594 4.429 8.022
69 Debt 247.000 3.688 4.171 7.859
71 Court Services byJudicial Officers 6I3.769 3.584 4.228 7.822
13Gang Enforcement 999,000 3.633 4.276 7.810
54Sidewa(ks 105^000 3,688 4.114 7.802
73Jury Service 60,000 3.694 4.200 7794
10 Major Crime Unit: 770,000 3.467 4.286 7.752
11SpoduiAaxaukUnit 1,200.000 3.467 4.286 7.752
G6Street Lighting 170,000 3781 3.843 7.724
12 Property Crime Unit 758,000 3.467 4.257 7724
14Narcotics Unit 632,000 3,400 4.314 7714
77 Building Security 60,000 3.218 4.486 7704
G Traffic Unit: 527'000 3.267 4.400 7.667
7Ootonhon: 870.000 3.400 4.257 7.657
23 Emergency Medical Services (indEMS tax (114'000) 3.200 4.443 7.643
124City Management 418.000 3.489 4.143 7.612
9 Contracts: 1'400'008 3.400 4.200 7.600
70Court Services byJudicial Specialists 688,031 3.219 4.314 7.533
67 Traffic Control Devices 1'423,000 3.500 3.943 7.443
SuncommDispatch Services 1.798^000 3.156 4.276 7.432
15 Forensics Unit 195,000 3.400 3'943 7.343
32 Hazardous Material Team 82'516 3.000 4.236 7235
21Crime Analysis 481,000 3.467 3.743 7.210
1O9Traffic Engineering 250,000 3.063 4.105 7.167
31TechniciaiRescue Team 38,000 3.000 4.118 7.119
120|naurance 51.541 2.344 4.771 7.115
28 Fire Investigation 28^000 3.067 4.024 7,090
27 Fire Mechanics /Facilities 545,000 2.933 4.143 7.076
79Court Record Requests 42`800 2.844 4.143 6.987
GGStreet Maintenance Roadway 3,227.000 3.031 3.943 6.974
81Family and Community Violence Unit 968'692 2.969 4.000 6.969
29Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting 28.800 3.067 3.900 6.967
1O8Development Inspection 200'000 2.968 3.980 6.968
22 Fire Suppression (including revenue) 15`454.000 2.933 4.000 6.933
44Senior Trips & Tours (Revenue included) O 4,000 2.933 6.933
83Traffic and Property Crimes Unit 772,368 2.989 3.943 6.912
104Current Planning &Licensing 729,325 %.SGS 3.933 6.902
74Probation Services (Yakima County) 297,325 2.844 4.067 6.901
35 Fisher Park Golf Course (Revenue included) 0 4.000 2.886 &886
83 Charging Unit 259'914 2.969 3.914 6.883
Legal
98Permit Techs/PPC 265.702 3.969 3.914 6883
105Long Range Planning 364.662 2.969 3.510 6.878
2 KS: 8.500 2.800 4.029 6,829
63Eiecdono 230.000 2.969 3.857 6.826
3GYouth Sports (Revenue included) 61.500 3.250 3.543 6.733
37Youth AcdviUan(Revenue included) 03.624 3.250 3.643 6.793
112Traffic Calming 75.000 3.875 3.848 6.723
30 MSARepair Technicians 13.000 2.867 3.062 6'719
91 Debt Management 80.174 2.344 4.371 6.715
97CodeEnforcammntOff icem 607.910 2.989 3.729 6.697
BGAnnual Comprehensive Financial Report (AC 582.800 2.250 4.429 6.679
76Accounts Receivable 78.000 2,844 3.823 6.672
17Property &Evidence 186.000 3.133 3.514 6.648
128Council Stipend 95,100 3.344 4257 6.601
11OOffice Admin 300'000 2.781 3.819 6,600
111 P,cdmctAdm|n 150'000 2781 3.819 6.600
92Cash 8Investments 143.293 2.344 4.200 6.644
93Capital, Management 177.282 2.344 4.200 6.544
78Administrative duties byManager 176.464 3.469 4.029 6.497
87Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (AC 7.000 2.250 4200 6�450
80Grunto 241.758 2.344 4.057 6.401
GO Traffic Planning 549.000 2.813 3.571 6.384
GU Public Records Act (PRA) 198.316 2.600 3.857 6.357
G1Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) 188.316 2.500 3.867 6.357
34Washington Fruit Community Center (Revnn/ 319.591 3.063 3.286 8.348
65Snow & Ice Control 459.500 2.906 3,371 6.278
24Community Risk Reduction (including rmvenL 279.000 3.400 3.829 6229
1.002.420 1.594 4.628 6.222
4Community Service Officers: 386.000 2.200 3.943 6.143
26 Fire Training 63^000 3.600 3.543 6.143
86 Budget 499.771 1.969 4.171 6.140
1QRecord Management 870'000 2733 3.400 6.133
45 Park Maintenance (Revenue included) 2.272.823 2781 3.343 &124
20 Training Office 316'000 2.833 3.171 6.105
3PruAcdveUnit: 1,000 3.000 3.057 6.057
25Fire Administration 954.000 2.867 3.157 6.024
46 8aiUioidMaintenance (Revenue included) 237.463 2781 3.229 6.010
72Interpreting Services 160.580 2.094 3.814 6.008
19 Internal Affairs 297.000 2,933 3.057 5.990
62Records Management 175.000 2.500 3.429 5.929
SSCode Inspectors 301.477 2.469 3457 5.926
8Prisoner Transportation: 220'000 2.333 3.643 5.876
95 Plans Examiner 248.600 2.469 3.371 5.840
57Street Cleaning 570.500 2.406 3.400 6.806
12STraininQ/TravoiCell Phones 30000 1.969 3.829 5.797
121 Purchasing Card Program 49.144 1.594 4.200 5.794
43Senior Classes atHarman Center (Revenue i 382.208 2.500 3.257 5.757
8OCommunity Diversion Program 50.000 2.094 3.667 5.751
123Surplus Disposition 58.734 1.504 4.143 5.737
94Leadership 479'180 2.469 3.329 5.697
119Purchase ofGoods &Services 260.317 1.594 4.000 5.594
38AdukSpnks (Revenue included) 36.917 2.500 3.886 6.586
3SCommunity Recreation (Revenue included) 93.814 2.500 3.086 5.586
122Policy & Procedure Training 70.720 1.406 4.086 6.492
88Accounts payable 220.034 1.594 3.857 5.451
89 Purchasing Card Auditing 115.427 1.694 3.829 5.422
47Parks & Recreation Administration 999.509 2.688 2.657 5.345
11GCity Hall Facilities 620.671 1.406 3.938 5,344
114Clean City Code Compliance 294'246 2.313 2.395 5.308
42Aquatic Administration 166.744 2.500 2.800 6.300
84 Community Diversion 80.727 1.844 3.343 5.187
113Graffiti Program 73.600 2.406 3729 5.136
127State lobbying 72.000 1.594 3.395 4.989
1SCrime Free Rental Housing 82.000 2.400 2.571 4.971
48Aquatic Center a1MLKJr. Park 200.000 2.000 2.914 4.914
1O2Payroll Administration 255.980 0.844 4.057 4.901
48Infrastructure /Security 2.012.038 1.406 3.429 4.835
101 Personnel / Benefit Administration 466.644 O.B44 3.943 4787
Indigent Defense 1.760.000 1.781 3.005 4786
6UGeographic Information Systems (G|S) 378.067 1.406 3.371 4,770
116Other operating expenses 431^067 1.844 2.924 4768
134Federal Lobbying 60,000 1.875 2.828 4.704
1 UAV(Dronn): 6,000 1.933 2786 4,889
131 Flowers and flower baskets 44'300 2.281 2.408 4.681
41Franklin Pool (Revenue included) 167.876 2.000 2.629 4,629
33Unmanned Aerial System operators (UAS) 13.000 2.133 2.486 4.619
117HB]CCMaintenance 20.080 0.844 3760 4.604
40 Lions Pool (Revenue included) 479,176 2.008 2.571 4.671
S1Application Development 569.733 1.219 3314 4.533
53Application Support 934.533 1.219 3.314 4.533
132YCDA 50,000 2.031 2.485 4.517
G8Street maintenance Admin 179.000 1.813 2.657 4.470
5SStreet General Services 10'300 1.688 2.771 4.459
62Computer Operations 1.039.248 1.218 3.200 4.419
133Firmworko 15.000 2.031 2.314 4.346
130Windows Alive/Arts Commission 10.000 2.031 2.171 4.203
126Special Project Professional Services 34.000 1.406 2.478 3.885
103Civil Service (Charter,Police &F|ra)/Recruitn 595.681 0.844 3,029 3.872
126 AWC Dues 85,000 0.844 2.743 3.587
5 DUI Enforcement: Grant
8 BOA Building
64 LEOFF1 Police Board
EOFF1-Fire Board
07 Development Review
1.000 1.886 2.886
50,000 0.8
712,800 2.3
1,074,763 2
2.772
.469'-
Distributed at Meeting:
5_ 6,-2025 Item# 9A
2025-2026
Council Budget Advisory Committee
Report to the Yakima City Council
Wednesday May 6, 2025
A progress report regarding the committee by:
Mike Bailey, CPA (retired)
baileyno6@msn.commm
Approach
The committee's work continues
A written report of the efforts to date has been provided to the Council
This presentation will follow the outline of that report
No decisions are being requested of Council at this time
Presentation Outline
1. The Committee
2. Activity of the Committee
3. Discussions and Frustrations
4. Themes
5. Conclusion
The Committee
Created by the Council in December 2024 to:
• Advise the City Council regarding the city's budget, priority -based
budgeting, etc.
• Learn and understand the budget strategies in light of the council's strategic
priorities
• Assist and provide advice regarding outreach
Provide recommendations to the Council that the committee feels is useful
Com
tee members are also encouraged to express their individual opinions
The Committee
Consisted of:
• Residents of Yakima
• Each member appointed by a member of the City Council
• Served without compensation (and put in 16+ hours in meetings (and counting)
plus homework)
Committee Members:
Dirk Bernd — representing Matt Brown
Gunnar Berg— representing Reedy Berg
Matt Duffy —representing Rick Glenn
Angie Girard — representing Janice Deccio
Dulce Gutierrez — representing Danny Herrera
Jeanna Hernandez —representing Patricia Byers
uis Lopez — representing Leo Roy
Activity
Committee meeting topics
1. Welcome and introductions, a primer on local government budgets -February 13
2. City budgeting objectives and practices - February 19
3. City revenues - February 26
4. Other / related service providers, review of draft citizen survey - March 5
5. City expenditures - Priority based budgeting based on city programs - March 19
1. City programs, Cost drivers and cost issues - March 19
6. Council priorities (strategic goals) and program attributes - March 19
7. City programs - March 26th, April 2nd, April 9th
8. Evaluating city programs and alternative approaches to fiscal resiliency
-
April and beyond
Discussions and Frustrations
A passionate group and healthy discussions
Topics that were of interest, but time didn't permit include:
• Concern over future obligations for financial support of the YMCA pool
• A frustration with the lack of clarity around what general revenues of the
city are funding in other city funds
Frustrations included insufficient time to fully understand city programs
• This led to concern over the ways the priority -based budgeting score sheets
would be utilized in budgeting
• Concerns over how the program attribute scoring related to budget scores
Discussions and Frustrations
The lack of flexibility in tailoring revenue solutions to the unique
characteristics of the City also proved a frustration. Discussions
included:
• A voted increase in the property tax (in one form or another).
A sales taxes would connect the economic activity of those in Yakima to
helping pay for services (regardless of property ownership).
Maybe the Council should do what it could to address revenue needs and
not expect the citizens to understand all the related issues.
Discussions and Frustrations
Getting a clear picture of the needs of City departments to provide
services versus "cuts" that have been endured in the past proved
difficult.
• Department directors summarized their General Fund programs in
person for the committee.
Most directors indicated a need to recover from past cuts and the
committee reviewed staff levels going back ten years.
• "Frozen" positions complicated the discussion (and obscured
staffing levels)
Discussions and Frustrations
Understanding how the city's programs connect to the Council's Strategic
Priorities also proved challenging
• The committee discussed making this a focus of future work.
• Examples include:
• More clearly connecting city operations to council goals.
Developing connected measures of success to better evaluate
effectiveness.
Using this data to help inform priorities for future budgets.
Themes
Revenue Options — As mentioned above the following were discussed:
• A property tax vote
• levy lid lift, parks district, fire authority or similar approach
• Increasing the TBD revenues (as a Council option)
Eliminating the automatic CPI inflator in the City Charter for Parks and
Streets funding
Charging higher fees to non-residents for city services
Charging more than the costs of providing services in other
jurisdictions (for such things as fire protection, IT services, etc.)
Soliciting sponsorships or philanthropic support for certain services
Themes
Cost cutting— Some committee members went through the City
budget and identified ways they could cut the budget by S9m
(the amount used as a target in the citizen survey)
• Most did not do this, and I did not hear a consensus yet as to what the
city should stop doing in the community.
Economic Development
The committee agreed with and appreciated Vicki Baker's vision of
improving the overall economy in Yakima for the benefit of everyone
This will take time however and action is needed now to retain the
City's strong financial position.
Themes
Budget approaches
• The committee discussed a "Target Based" approach where
department leaders would prepare budgets to make the best use of a
certain amount of money.
• More information on this approach and how it might compliment the
priority -based approach was provided.
Conclusion
The committee's work is on -going in hopes of developing
recommendations
• A multi -pronged approach will likely prove most effective.
Future budgets will likely require similar types of community conversations
Mike's ClosingThoug
A strong leadership team is now in place
• Stability in leadership is essential to make long-term progress.
• They can't be successful in a vacuum (each leader must do their part).
• Work to establish a healthy culture in the City's workforce is needed.
Past decisions have been made that seem inconsistent with Council's intent
• Clarity is essential to gain community trust.
It seems to me that:
The City needs to either raise resources or decide what to stop doing.
• This should be a Council decision (with lots of community input).
This is the essential policy work
Resources
AWC (wacities.org) - workshops/training -Association of Washington Cities
MRSC (mrsc.org) - webpages & trainings -- Municipal Research and Services Center
mrsc.org/financialpolicies
mrsc.org/budgeting
• Call/email with questions
GFOA (gfoa.org/publications) - Government Finance Officers Association
• Publication series for elected officials
• Best practice series (The Anatomy of a Priority Driven Budget Process)
WA State Auditor's Office (sao.wa.gov)
• The Center - performance@sao.wa.gov
All past audit reports including "findings" and fraud reports