The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/11/2017 00 Distributed: Capital Facilities Plan Draft1 1 la ' We atw a '0 I comprehensive plan 2040 4! 1 1 1 1 t CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DRAFT, March 2017 tAm '' We ace � I comprehensive plan 2040 1 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DRAFT, March 2017 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 10 Introduction ................................. 2 1 1 The Capital Facilities Plan ...................................... 2 12 Key Principles Guiding Yakima's Capital Investments 3 1.3 Services Addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan.................................3 14 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan...... 5 15 Foundation Documents (Incorporation by Reference)........ 5 20 Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis ......6 2.1 Overview...................................6 22 Funding the Capital Facilities Plan .......................................... 6 23 Assumptions ........................................ 6 2.4 Dedicated Capital Revenues and Operating Transfers .....7 2.5 General Capital Revenues ..................35 26 Total Capital Revenues ....................................... 37 2.7 Policy Options and Other Funding Sources 38 2.8 Other Service Providers .. 38 30 Comprehensive capital facility plan . ....................................39 3 1 Inventory ..................................................... 39 3.2 Level of Service Consequences ............................. 39 33 Projects ....40 40 Capital Facility detail ............................... ..40 41 Public Buildings...................................................... 40 4.2 Fire and Emergency Services .......... 41 43 Law Enforcement ..............44 44 Parks ............................................. 45 4.5 Transportation: Streets and Transit ....... ............. 49 46 Wastewater 49 47 Stormwater 52 48 Water ............................................ .......... 53 4.9 Irrigation........... ........ 55 410 Schools 57 411 Airport.............................................60 4.12 Solid Waste.............................................................. 62 References 64 DRAFT, March 2016 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Capital Facilities Element of a Comprehensive Plan include an inventory, projected needs, and funding and financing for facilities and infrastructure This Capital Facilities Plan is intended to provide the technical foundation — inventory, service standards, capacity, proposed projects, and funding as appropriate — for the Capital Facilities Element The goals and policies for the Capital Facilities Element is included in the body of the Comprehensive Plan. 1.1 The Capital Facilities Plan The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is to use sound fiscal policies to provide adequate public facilities consistent with the land use element and concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of development to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service The CFP is based on the following sources of information and assumptions: • Capital Facility Functional or System Plans. Capital facility functional or system plans of the City of Yakima or other service providers were reviewed for inventories, levels of service, planned facilities, growth forecasts, and potential funding. ■ Growth Forecasts. Population and fob growth forecasts were allocated to the City of Yakima by Yakima County, in accordance with the Yakima Countywide Planning Policy (Yakima County 2003). The City considered the targets, planning and permit trends, and land capacity The City developed growth assumptions that accommodate the targets and are less than capacity. The estimates were distributed by transportation analysis zone (TAZ). The 2022 population (six-year) and 2040 population (23 -year) growth for each service provider is estimated ■ Revenue Forecasts Revenues were forecasted for Yakima services to the year 2040. The sources of revenue are summarized from available plans and compared to typical revenue sources for those service providers Growth Management Act Requirements GMA requires that all comprehensive plans contain a capital facilities element GMA specifies that the capital facilities element should consist of ■ An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, ■ A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities; ■ The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities, ■ A six-year capital facilities plan that will finance capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and ■ A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of existing needs (RCW 36.70a.070(3)) The GMA requires the CFP to identify specific facilities, include a realistic financing plan (for the six-year period), and adjust the plan if funding is inadequate Capital facilities are important because they support the growth envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Plan. GMA requires that all capital facilities have "probable funding" to pay for capital facility needs, and that jurisdictions have capital facilities in place and readily available when new development comes in or must be of sufficient capacity when the population grows, particularly for transportation (concurrency) or for services deemed necessary to support development. DRAFT, March 2016 2 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Levels of service (LOS) are established in the CFP and represent quantifiable measures of capacity They are minimum standards established by the City to provide capital facilities and services to the Yakima community at a certain level of quality and within the financial capacity of the City or special district provider LOS standards are influenced by local citizens, elected and appointed officials, national standards, mandates, and other considerations such as available funding. Examples of LOS measures include. amount of intersection delay, acres of park or miles of trails per 1,000 population, gallons of water per capita per day, and others Those facilities and services necessary to support growth should have LOS standards and facilities. Recent Growth Management Hearings Boards cases have placed more importance on the preparation and implementation of CFPs The key points include: • Capital facilities plans should address the 20 -year planning period and be consistent with growth allocations assumed in the Land Use Element Capital facilities plans should also demonstrate an ability to serve the full city limits and urban Growth Area (UGA). ■ Financial plans should address at least a six-year period and funding sources should be specific and committed The City should provide a sense of the funding sources for the 20 -year period, though it can be less detailed than for the six-year period Growth, LOS standards, and a funded capital improvement program are to be in balance In the case where the LOS cannot be met by a particular service or facility, the jurisdiction could do one of the following 1) add proposed facilities within funding resources, 2) reduce demand through demand management strategies, 3) lower LOS standards, 4) phase growth, or 5) change the land use plan. Definition of a Capital Project According to WAC 365-196-415, at a minimum, those capital facilities to be included in an inventory and analysis are water systems, sewer systems, stormwater systems, schools, parks and recreation facilities, police facilities, and fire facilities Capital facilities generally have a long useful life and include city and non -city operated infrastructure, buildings, and equipment Capital facilities planning does not cover regular operations and maintenance, but it does include major repair, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of facilities The capital facilities and projects addressed in the plan include infrastructure (such as streets, roads, traffic signals, sewer systems, stormwater systems, water systems, parks, etc ) and public facilities through which services are offered (such as fire protection structures and major equipment, law enforcement structures, schools, etc.) 1.2 Key Principles Guiding Yakima's Capital Investments There are two main guiding elements behind the capital facilities planning fiscal policies and the GMA These principles interact to guide capital investments. Fiscal policies are tools that the City can use to adjust spending and revenues by changing tax rates and identifying specific areas for expenditure 1.3 Services Addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan Exhibit 1 Facilities and Services addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan summarizes the facilities and services addressed in this Plan, including the service, the provider, and applicable plans considered in this appendix. DRAFT, March 2016 3 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 1. Facilities and Services addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan Public Buildings City of Yakima Includes City -owned public buildings • City Budget, 2016 Fire and Provides facilities that support the • Yakima Fire Emergency Yakima Fire provision of fire and emergency Department Annual Services Department services Report, 2015 • Yakima Police Law Yakima Police Provides facilities that support the Department 2014 Enforcement Department provision of law enforcement services. Annual Report Provides elementary and secondary facilities for instruction in several • Yakima School branches of learning and study • 2014 — 2015 Fiscal District required by the Basic Education Code Year -End Report Schools of the State of Washington. The (YSD) • West Valley Yakima School District serves most • 2016 — 2017 Budget School District students and the West Valley School Summary (WVSD) District serves the western part of the city. • 2012 — 2017 Parks Yakima Parks and Provides facilities for passive and and Recreation Parks Recreation active recreational activities. Comprehensive Plan (Under Update) • 6 -Year TIP, 2017 -- Yakima Public Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic 2022 Streets Works controls, and street lighting • Transportation Plan 2017 (pending) • Transit Development Plan Transit Yakima Transit Provides transit service in and around Annual Report for the City of Yakima 2015 and Six -Year Plan 2016 — 2021 The Air Terminal is owned by the • Yakima Air Yakima Air airport and provides facilities for air Terminal/McAllister Air Terminal Terminal service. The City contracts with a third- Field Airport Master party operator Plan, 2015 • 2015 Waste Load Provides facilities used in collection, Assessment Yakima Public transmission, storage, and treatment Wastewater Works or discharge of waterborne waste • 2013 Wastewater within the city Collection System Master Plan • Stormwater Yakima Public Provides facilities that collect and Management Stormwater Works transport stormwater runoff. Program for City of Yakima, 2015 DRAFT, March 2016 4 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1.4 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan The Capital Facilities Plan relies on the policies set forth in the Yakima Comprehensive Plan as a baseline for studying capital planning needs. The future land use plan and the comprehensive plan population assumptions drive future development in the City, which impacts levels of service and determines capacity needs for services provided by city and non -city providers Exhibit 2 lists the population assumptions for the six and 23 -year planning horizon years for the City of Yakima and the special districts Exhibit 2. Yakima Population Assumptions, 2016 — 2040 City of Yakima* 93,220 • City of Yakima, 116,431 Irrigation Water System Plan • Yakima Public 57,246 Update, 2017 Works Provides supply of potable water to (pending) Water • Nob Hill Water portions of the City of Yakima. • Nob Hill Water Associates Wastewater Association Draft 121,102 147,379 Water System Plan, 28,151 31,766 May 2015 Yakima Water District** Provides supply of non -potable • City of Yakima Yakima Public Irrigation irrigation water to portions of the City Water/Irrigation Works of Yakima Division, 2016 Refuse City of Yakima Provides automated refuse collection • City Budget, 2016 Refuse to residential customers Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 1.4 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan The Capital Facilities Plan relies on the policies set forth in the Yakima Comprehensive Plan as a baseline for studying capital planning needs. The future land use plan and the comprehensive plan population assumptions drive future development in the City, which impacts levels of service and determines capacity needs for services provided by city and non -city providers Exhibit 2 lists the population assumptions for the six and 23 -year planning horizon years for the City of Yakima and the special districts Exhibit 2. Yakima Population Assumptions, 2016 — 2040 City of Yakima* 93,220 100,094 116,431 Irrigation 53,115 54,420 57,246 West Valley School District 22,850 26,157 34,860 Yakima School District 78,932 82,408 90,310 Wastewater 110,413 121,102 147,379 Nob Hill Water District" 28,151 31,766 41,066 Yakima Water District** 73,722 76,787 83,730 *Fire, Police, and Stormwater service area boundaries are synonymous with the City of Yakima city limits **City planning numbers differ slightly from the individual district planning numbers. Source City of Yakima, 2017, BERK, 2017 1.5 Foundation Documents (Incorporation by Reference) The documents used to prepare the CFP are the capital facility and capital improvement plans prepared routinely by the City of Yakima, which are required for obtaining project funding. The following documents are incorporated by reference ■ Yakima's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) DRAFT, March 2016 5 I YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ' Functional plans for service areas were also reviewed and are incorporated by reference into this document. See Exhibit 1. 2.0 CAPITAL FACILITIES REVENUE ANALYSIS ' 2.1 Overview The revenue analysis of the Capital Facilities Plan supports the financing for providing facilities and services, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d) Revenue estimates, using assumptions that are based on ' historical trends, were used to represent realistic expectations for revenue that may be available for capital funding ' This revenue analysis looks at Yakima's capital facility revenues for those services provided by the City of Yakima Through identifying fiscal constraints in the future, project prioritization can be incorporated into the capital planning process. ' The revenue analysis provides an approximate, and not exact, forecast of future revenue sources. The numbers projected in this analysis are for planning purposes and cannot account for sensitivities such as local, state, and federal policy, economic trends, and other factors ' 2.2 Funding p the Capital Facilities Plan Estimated future revenues are projected for the Plan's 2017 — 2040 time period The revenue analysis is grouped according to • General Capital Revenues Those revenues under the category of general capital revenues are the ' revenues required by law to be used for capital projects. The general capital revenues in Yakima include REET I and REET II ' Dedicated Capital Revenues Dedicated revenues are required to be used for certain types of capital spending, outlined by the law. The dedicated capital revenues in Yakima include grants and facility charges and fees ' Operating Transfers. Operating transfers -in are those revenue sources that are transferred in from operating funds Although these are not dedicated sources to be relied on for capital funding, it has ' been the historical practice of the City to regularly make transfers into capital funds for certain service departments Those are calculated separately as the practice may be common enough to be considered a potential funding source, however these transfers are not dedicated to capital ' spending and could be used elsewhere ■ Potential Policy Options and Other Funding Sources There are additional policy tools and sources available to fund capital projects. ' 2.3 Assumptions ' The assumptions used in this analysis may not align with the City's budget assumptions regarding the same sources of revenue because the purpose of the two analyses is different The City's budget estimates how much money the City will have available for spending in the coming fiscal year while this CFP revenue ' analysis estimates how much money (dedicated to capital spending) the City is likely to receive in total over the next six and 23 years The Yakima revenue analysis is based on the following assumptions: • City Boundary The City of Yakima will maintain the same boundary now through the 2040 planning ' horizon, without annexing any additional unincorporated areas The buildable lands analysis ' DRAFT, March 2016 6 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN indicates that the City can accommodate all expected growth by 2040 In the city limits. While annexations may occur with willing landowners, they are likely to be incremental ■ District Boundaries Some of the service providers operate in a geographic area other than the city limits Population estimates through 2040 for these districts are indicated in Exhibit 2. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This analysis assumes that assessed values (AV) for property tax will Increase an annual rate of 1% going forward and that the turnover rate is 3% for residential properties and 2% for commercial properties. New construction Is assumed to be 0 4% of total AV The growth In assessed value and the turnover rates are Important since REET revenues are based on the total value of real estate transactions In a given year. REET 1 and REET 2 each assess 0 25% on the assessed value 2.4 Dedicated Capital Revenues and Operating Transfers CBD Capital Improvement CBD Improvement: Dedicated Revenues The CBD Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 321) historically received an average of $0.42 per capita annually In non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015 The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $0 40 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 3 shows the historical and projected non -transfer and non -grant revenues for CBD capital improvement Exhibit 3 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend to the right of the dotted line An average annual per capita dollar amount Is assumed In each year for this analysis, based on 5 -year historical per capita revenues While the annual average cannot fully represent future receipt of revenues, It approximates how many total dollars may be received over a period of time This method of projection Is consistent for the analysis of dedicated revenues for all service areas analyzed. DRAFT, March 2016 7 F11 11 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated CBD Improvement revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues Exhibit 6 Estimated CBD Improvement Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues 2016 Fund Balance $250,000 $2,279 Total Funds Available $250,000 Capital Costs' Pending Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) 5250,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 'Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Capitol Theatre Capitol Theatre: Operating Transfers The Capitol Theatre Construction Fund (Fund 322) historically received an average of $53,000 annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 (see Exhibit 7) The assumed transfer revenues used in the model are $50,000 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 7 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend to the right of the dotted line An average annual dollar amount is assumed in each year for this analysis, based on the 5 -year historical average transfer amount While the annual average cannot fully represent future receipt of operating transfers, it approximates how many total dollars may be transferred over a period of time This method of projection is consistent for the analysis of operating transfers for all service areas analyzed r� 1 DRAFT, March 2016 9 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 7. Historical and Projected Capitol Theatre Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 140 K 1 120 K 100 K 80 K 60 K 40 K 20 K 0 J a 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Exhibit 8 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Estimated Revenues $340,000 $1,440,000 $1,780,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Capitol Theatre. Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 9 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for Capitol Theatre capital projects over the planning period. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 ending fund balance of about $245,000 in its Capitol Theatre Capital Fund These funds are also available to cover theatre projects during the 2017 — 2040 period Exhibit 9. Projected Dedicated Capitol Theatre Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $340,000 $1,440,000 $1,780,000 $2,030,000 Source- City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 Capitol Theatre: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Capitol Theatre revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues DRAFT, March 2016 10 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 10. Estimated Capitol Theatre Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues I $340,000 2016 Fund Balance 5215,?91 Total Funds Available $590,000 Capital Costs= Pendine, Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) 5590,000 'Year of Expenditure= YOE$ zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Convention Center Convention Center. Dedicated Revenues The Convention Center Capital Projects Fund (Fund 370) historically received an average of $2 00 per capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015 (see Exhibit 11) The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $2 00 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually. Exhibit 11 Historical and Projected Convention Center Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 500 K 450 K 1 1 400 K 1 1 350 K 1 1 300 K 1 I 250 K 1 1 1 200 K 150 K 1 1 100 K I 1 50 K 1 I 0 I 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2916, BERK, 2017 Exhibit 12 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Estimated Revenues Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 yv, vv,vvv $7,330,000 DRAFT, March 2016 11 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Convention Center: Operating Transfers The Convention Center Capital Projects Fund historically received an average of about $72,200 annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 (see Exhibit 13) The assumed transfer revenues used in the model are $70,000 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 13. Historical and Projected Convention Center Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$ 160 K 140 K 120 K 100 K 80 K 60 K 40 K 20 K 0 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Exhibit 14 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Estimated Revenues $470,000 $2,170,000 i $2,640,000 Source• City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Convention Center. Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 15 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for convention center capital projects over the planning period, including operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $584,000 in its convention center capital fund These funds are also available to cover convention center projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 15. Projected Dedicated Convention Center Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $1,720,000 $8,090,000 $9,810,000 $10,400,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Convention Center: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Convention Center revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future DRAFT, March 2016 12 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues. Exhibit 16. Estimated Convention Center Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $1,720,000 J1' Fund EaiCinc Total Funds Available l $2,300,000 Capital Costs, Pending Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $2,300,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Fire Fire Dedicated Revenues The Fire Capital Fund (Fund 332) historically received an average of $153 per capita annually in non - transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $150 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 17. Historical and Projected Fire Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$ 450 K I 400 K i 1 350 K 1 300 K 1 1 250 K 1 1 200 K I 1 150 K 100 K I 50 K 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 18 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 18. Projected Fire Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $940,000 $4,380,000 $5,320,000 DRAFT, March 2016 13 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Source City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Fire. Operating Transfers The Fire Capital Fund historically received an average of $125,000 annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015. The conservative assumption for annual operating transfer revenues is $100,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth Exhibit 19. Historical and Projected Fire Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 300 K I I 250 K 200 K 150 K 100 K 50 K 0 ' 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 20 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 20. Projected Fire Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues 5670,000 $2,880,000 $3,550,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Fire: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 21 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for fire capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, other dedicated sources, and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $34,000 in its fire capital fund. These funds are also available to cover fire projects during the 2017 — 2040 period Exhibit 21. Projected Fire Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $1,610,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Fire- Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison $7,440,000 $9,050,000 $9,090,000 DRAFT, March 2016 14 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Fire revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues Exhibit 22. Estimated Fire Revenues and Costs YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $1,610,000 2016 Fund Balance 534.097 Total Funds Available $1,640,000 Capital Costs= $420,000 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $1,220,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Law and Justice Law and Justice Dedicated Revenues The Police Capital Fund (Fund 333) historically received an average of $3 47 per capita annually in non - transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $3 45 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 23. Historical and Projected Law and Justice Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 900 K i 1 800 K 1 1 700 K 1 I 1 600 K 1 1 500 K 1 t 400 K 1 I 300 K 1 t 200 K 1 1 100 K 1 1 t 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 24 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods DRAFT, March 2016 15 Exhibit 24. Pr YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN nues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $2,160,000 $10,480,000 $12,640,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Law and Justice• Operating Transfers The Police Capital Fund historically received an average of $188,667 annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are $185,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth. Exhibit 25. Historical and Projected Law and Justice Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 400 K 1 350 K 1 1 300 K 1 1 1 250 K 1 200 K 150 K 100 K 50 K ' 1 0 I 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 26 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Estimated Revenues $1,240,000 $5,330,000 $6,570,000 I Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Law & Justice: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 27 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for police capital projects over the planning period, dedicated sources and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $548,000 in its police capital fund. These funds are also available to cover police projects during the 2017 — 2040 period DRAFT, March 2016 16 Exhibit 27. Pro YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Estimated Revenues $3,390,000 $15,810,000 ' $19,200,000 $19,750,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 In addition to the dedicated revenues and operating transfers, over the historical period observed (2011 — 2015) there was around $14 million in grant revenues and $4.5 million in loan proceeds for capital spending on law and justice The City will need to consider what sources are available to fill potential funding gaps in the future Law & Justice: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Law & Justice revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues Exhibit 28. Estimated Law & Justice Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $3,390,000 2016 Fund Balance 5547,718 Total Funds Available $3,940,000 Capital Costs Pending Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) S3,940000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Airport Airport Dedicated Revenues The Airport Capital Fund (Fund 422) historically received an average of $198 per capita annually in non - transfer and non -grant revenues between the ownership years of 2013 and 2016 There were no revenues in years 2011 and 2012 The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model are $198 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually DRAFT, March 2016 17 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 29. Historical and Projected Airport Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$ 500 K t 450 K 400 K 350 K 300 K 250 K 200 K 150 K 100 K 50 K 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 30 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Estimated Revenues $1,240,000 $6,020,000 $7,260,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Airport: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 31 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for airport capital projects over the planning period Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $48,000 in its airport capital fund. These funds are also available to cover airport projects during the 2017 — 2040 period Exhibit 31. Projected Dedicated Airport Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $1,240,000 $6,020,000 $7,260,000 $7,310,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was almost $1.7 million in grant revenues Air Terminal capital spending The City will need to consider what sources are available to fill potential funding gaps in the future Airport: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Airport revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues DRAFT, March 2016 18 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 32 Estimated Airport Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' 'Year of Expenditure= YOE$ 'inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source- City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Parks and Recreation Revenues for parks capital projects and land acquisitions come from state and federal grants, contributions, and inter -fund distributions. In November of 2014, citizens approved a City Charter Amendment to dedicate $750,000 per year for parks capital improvements The Tahoma Cemetery in Yakima is part of the Parks Department. Revenues include charges for grave lots and other services Expected 2017 resources in the Cemetery Fund were $300,426, with expected expenditures of $281,000 These costs and revenues include capital and operations. The financial situation for the cemetery is monitored by Parks (City of Yakima, 2016) Parks. Operating Transfers The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Parks and Recreation Capital Fund through operating transfers. Historical transfers -in range in size from $50,000 to $950,000 but do occur every year Average annual transfers between 2011 and 2015 were $264,000 Historically, it has been the policy of the City to transfer $100,000 from the Operating Fund to the Parks Capital Fund (City of Yakima, 2016). The $950,000 transfer was an outlier compared to the prior years of historical data, and was used specifically for the SOZO project debt service There has been a historical policy to transfer $100,000 from the operating fund, but a $400,000 annual transfer is expected to pay off debt service on the SOZO project through 2035 As a result, the model assumes an annual transfer of $400,000 No growth in transfers beyond inflation (3%) was assumed. DRAFT, March 2016 19 Estimated Fund Revenues $1,240,000 2016 Fund Balance $48,065 Total Funds Available $1,290,000 Capital Costs- osts Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) Estimated ($8,330,000) 'Year of Expenditure= YOE$ 'inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source- City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Parks and Recreation Revenues for parks capital projects and land acquisitions come from state and federal grants, contributions, and inter -fund distributions. In November of 2014, citizens approved a City Charter Amendment to dedicate $750,000 per year for parks capital improvements The Tahoma Cemetery in Yakima is part of the Parks Department. Revenues include charges for grave lots and other services Expected 2017 resources in the Cemetery Fund were $300,426, with expected expenditures of $281,000 These costs and revenues include capital and operations. The financial situation for the cemetery is monitored by Parks (City of Yakima, 2016) Parks. Operating Transfers The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Parks and Recreation Capital Fund through operating transfers. Historical transfers -in range in size from $50,000 to $950,000 but do occur every year Average annual transfers between 2011 and 2015 were $264,000 Historically, it has been the policy of the City to transfer $100,000 from the Operating Fund to the Parks Capital Fund (City of Yakima, 2016). The $950,000 transfer was an outlier compared to the prior years of historical data, and was used specifically for the SOZO project debt service There has been a historical policy to transfer $100,000 from the operating fund, but a $400,000 annual transfer is expected to pay off debt service on the SOZO project through 2035 As a result, the model assumes an annual transfer of $400,000 No growth in transfers beyond inflation (3%) was assumed. DRAFT, March 2016 19 $10M $09M $08M $07M $06M $05M $04M $ 0.3 M $02M $01M 5 0.0 M YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 33. Historical and Projected Parks Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$ I 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Exhibit 34 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 34. Projected Parks Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Operating Transfers Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Tot; i 0,• 2017-2040 Estimated Revenues $2,590,000 $11,190,000 $13,780,000 Source. City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 I Parks: Grants ' State grants have historically been received from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and are supplemented by community donations Since parks grants are competitive on a state or national level, this analysis estimates these revenues on a per capita basis, using the assumption ' that over time a jurisdiction generally receives its "fair share" of available grant revenues Since 2011, Yakima has received around $2.26 per capita annually In combined grant and donation revenues. Given the fluctuating nature of grants, and a large outlier grant in year 2011, a value of $2 00 per capita was ' used to project potential future grant revenues. The analysis assumes no additional growth beyond inflation ' Exhibit 35 shows historical revenues to the left of the dotted line and an estimated future revenue trend to the right of the dotted line. An average annual dollar amount is assumed in each year for this analysis. In reality, annual revenues will vary greatly due to the lumpy nature of grant funding and are likely to ' resemble more of a peaks and valleys trend as shown in the historical data. While the annual average cannot fully represent future receipt of grant dollars, it approximates how many total dollars may be received over a period of time. IDRAFT, March 2016 20 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 35. Historical and Projected Parks Grants and Contributions Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$ '7nn v 600 K 500 K 400 K 300 K 200 K 100 K I 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 36 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 36. Projected Parks Grants and Contributions Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $1,250,000 $6,073,000 $7,323,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Parks: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 37 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for parks capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $12 million in its parks capital fund These funds are also available to cover parks projects during the 2017 — 2040 period Exhibit 37. Projected Dedicated Parks Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Dedicated Revenues $2,590,000 $11,190,000 $13,780,000 $15,030,000 Estimated Grant Revenues $1,250,000 56,080,000 $7,330,000 $7,330,000 Amount Committed to Debt $2,400,000 $5,200,000 $7,600,000$7,600,000 Service Available Revenues $190,000 55,990.000 $6,180,000 $14,760,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Parks Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Parks revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated DRAFT, March 2016 21 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues. Exhibit 38. Estimated Parks Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $190,000 2016 Fund Balance $1,240,543 Total Funds Available $1,430,000 Capital Costs 518,678,691 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ ($17,248,691) zlnflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Streets This section considers all revenues dedicated to capital projects for streets The assumptions used in the Capital Facility Plan revenue analysis differ from those used in the Transportation Plan, which results in some differences in the projected revenues These projections are meant to act as a guide based on historical revenues, and are not meant to represent reality. Streets capital revenues in Yakima are funneled into the two funds, described below • Fund 142 — Arterial Street Capital This fund is used for street improvement projects that are included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The majority of the revenues to Fund 142 come from an allocation of the gas tax and the funds are used to provide a local match to gap funding sources, pay for debt service, or to fund certain projects in full ■ Fund 344— Street Capital. This fund is used to accomplish the goal of investing at least $2 million annually on the restoration and reconstruction of Yakima streets as a response to 72% of voters supporting a City Charter amendment in 2013 that requires the City to invest at least $2 million annually This has increased the City's Average Pavement Index since 2013 Streets: Dedicated Revenues The Arterial Streets Capital Fund (Fund 344) and the Arterial Street Fund (Fund 142) combined historically received an average of $10 88 per capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $10.00 annually. The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually IDRAFT, March 2016 22 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 39. Historical and Projected Streets Dedicated Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$ $2.5M $20M $15M $ 1.0 M $05M i $00M 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 40 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 40. Projected Streets Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $6,440,000 $31,280,000 $37,720,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Streets: Operating Transfers The arterial streets capital funds historically received an average of $627,300 annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are a conservative $500,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth The conservative assumption is made due to an inconsistency in transfers and to acknowledge a large outlier transfer of $2 75 million in 2014 DRAFT, March 2016 23 $2.5M $2.0M $ 1.5 M $ 1.0 M $0.5M $O.OM 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 41. Historical and Projected Streets Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 42 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Estimated Revenues ! $3,240,000 $13,980,000 $17,220,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Streets Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 43 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for streets capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $760,000 in its streets capital fund These funds are also available to cover streets projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Exhibit 43. Projected Dedicated Streets Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $9,670,000 $45,260,000 $54,930,000 $55,700,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was about $19 5 million in grant revenues dedicated to streets capital projects. The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future Streets: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison See the Transportation System Plan for information on Streets projects, costs, and funding gaps. DRAFT, March 2016 24 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Transit The assumptions used in the Capital Facility Plan revenue analysis differ from those used in the Transportation Plan, which results in some differences in the projected revenues. These projections are meant to act as a guide based on historical revenues, and are not meant to represent reality Transit Dedicated Revenues The Transit Capital Fund (Fund 464) historically received an average of $12 74 per capita annually in non - transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $12.00 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 44. Historical and Projected Transit Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $ 3.0 M 1 1 $25M t 1 $ 2.0 M $15M $ 1.0 M $05M 1 $ 0.0 M 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 45 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Estimated Revenues $7,500,000 $36,440,000 $43,940,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Transit Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 46 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for transit capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $4.7 million in its transit capital fund These funds are also available to cover transit projects during the 2017 — 2040 period DRAFT, March 2016 25 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 46. Projected Dedicated Transit Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $7,500,000 $36,440,000 $43,940,000 $48,650,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011— 2015) there was about $630,000 in grant revenues dedicated to transit capital projects, with another $800,000 in grants expected in 2016 The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future. Transit: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison See the Transportation System Plan for information on Transit projects, costs, and funding gaps. Stormwater Stormwater: Dedicated Revenues The Stormwater Capital Fund (Fund 442) historically received an average of $0 52 per capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $0.50 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 47. Historical and Projected Stormwater Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 140 K 1 I 120 K 1 I I 100 K 80 K 60 K 40 K 20 K 0 ir 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 48 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 48. Projected Stormwater Dedicated Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 ,»cv,vvv DRAFT, March 2016 26 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Stormwater: Operating Transfers The Stormwater Capital Fund historically received an average of $561,000 annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are a conservative $550,000 annually, with 3% inflation growth The conservative assumption is made due to an inconsistency in transfers and to acknowledge a large outlier transfer of $12 million in 2015 Exhibit 49. Historical and Projected Stormwater Operating Transfers (2011— 2040), YOE$ $14M 1 1 $ 1.2 M $10M $08M $06M $ 0.4 M $02M 1 $OOM 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 50 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 50. Projected Stormwater Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $3,670,000 $12,590,000 $16,260,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Stormwater: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 51 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for transit capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $4 7 million in its transit capital fund These funds are also available to cover transit projects during the 2017 — 2040 period Exhibit 51. Projected Dedicated Stormwater Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 $3,980,000 517,360,000 $21,340,000 $24,390,000 DRAFT, March 2016 27 I YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ' In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011 — 2015) there were around $300,000 in grant and loan revenues for Stormwater capital projects The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future. ' Stormwater• Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Stormwater revenue sources with its planned project ' costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues. Exhibit 52. Estimated Stormwater Revenues and Costs , YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $3,980,000 2016 Fund Balance $3,044,907 Total Funds Available $7,020,000 Capital Costs $453,200 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $6,566,800 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 21nflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 t Wastewater The following section includes all revenues spent on capital The city separates capital revenues for wastewater into three different capital funds: ' • Fund 472 — Wastewater Capital Facilities. This is a contingency fund for major facility repairs, industrial coating, or minor equipment replacement This capital spending category may include required maintenance and replacement work. ' ■ Fund 476 — Wastewater Capital Construction. This funds wastewater system planning and collection system capital improvements Construction projects related to accommodating service ' area growth and upgrades to capacity, as well as repair and replacement of the existing system are paid out of this fund ■ Fund 478 — Wastewater Capital Project. Fund 478 directs funds to costs associated with the ' planning, installation, rehabilitation, expansion, and modification of the Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Rudkin Road Lift Station. ' Wastewater: Dedicated Revenues The Wastewater Facilities Capital Fund (Fund 472) and Wastewater Capital Construction (Fund 476) historically received a combined average of $149 per capita annually in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015. The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $1 25 annually (based on the 2015 population for the wastewater service area), which is a conservative ' assumption accounting for high outlier revenues from the State Revolving Fund in 2012 The area that is provided with wastewater services does not include the whole city of Yakima, but does include the cities of Union Gap and Terrace Heights. The State Revolving Fund provides funding through the federal Clean ' Water Act's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program and is funded through the EPA to provide low IDRAFT, March 2016 28 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN interest and forgivable loan funding for wastewater treatment construction projects, nonpoint source pollution projects, and Green project The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually Exhibit 53. Historical and Projected Wastewater Dedicated Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 700 K 600 K 500 K 400 K 300 K 200 K 100 K 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 54 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Estimated Revenues $950,000 $4,730,000 $5,680,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Wastewater: Operating Transfers The wastewater capital funds historically received an average of $3 6 million annually in operating transfers between 2011 and 2015 The assumed operating transfer revenues used in the model are a conservative $3 6 million annually, with 3% inflation growth DRAFT, March 2016 29 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 55. Historical and Projected Wastewater Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ $ 8.0 M I $7.0M 1 I $ 6.0 M 1 1 1 $50M 1 1 1 $ 4.0 M I $30M 1 1 $ 2.0 M 1 1 $10M 1 1 1 $ 0.0 M 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 56 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 56. Pro rating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $23,320,000 $80,070,000 $103,390,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Wastewater• Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 57 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for wastewater and sewer capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $12.1 million in its wastewater and sewer capital funds These funds are also available to cover wastewater and sewer projects during the 2017 — 2040 period. Estimated Revenues $24,270,000 $105,510,000 $129,780,000 $141,900,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 In addition to the dedicated revenues, over the historical period observed (2011 — 2015) there were around $6.5 million in grants and loan proceeds to Fund 478 and almost $1.4 million in loan proceeds to Fund 476 The City will need to consider what sources will be needed to fill funding gaps in the future Wastewater: Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated wastewater revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues DRAFT, March 2016 30 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 58. Estimated Wastewater Revenues and Costs YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $24,270,000 2016 Fund Balance $12,117,199 Total Funds Available $36,390,000 Capital Costs' 5181,680,000 - Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($145,290,000) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Water The City of Yakima provides water services to portions of the City, which is supplemented by Nob HIII Water. Water capital is funded by transfers from the Water Operating Fund and grants The fund pays for all capital projects that are related to drinking water and its resources, including treatment, wells, transmission, distribution, pumping stations, storage, fire suppression, and more Funding sources for water capital projects include grants, transfers from the operating fund, loans, and bond financing. Water sales have been down for several years, as of 2017, due to the economic downturn and water usage reductions because of conservation efforts From 2013 to 2017, four years of planned rate increases were delayed. The 2017 budget proposes to increase rates by 5% in both 2017 and 2018 to make up for the delayed rate increases This would allow for transfers to the Water Capital Fund to be reduced to $675,000 in 2017 and $400,000 in 2018. The average residential water customer would experience an increase of around $179 every two months in 2017 and $2 01 every two months in 2018 (City of Yakima, 2016) Water: Operating Transfers The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Water Capital Fund through operating transfers. Five-year Historical transfers -in range in size from $725,000 to $18 million Average annual transfer between 2011 and 2015 was $958,000 and the model's assumed annual transfer is $950,000 There is an annual inflation rate of 3%. DRAFT, March 2016 31 1 11 $25M $20M $15M $10M $05M YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 59. Historical and Projected Water Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ I 1 1 1 1 I $0.0M W I 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2016 Exhibit 60 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods Exhibit 60. Projected Water Operating Transfers (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $6,330,000 $27,360,000 $33,690,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Water: Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 61 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for water capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $4.5 million in its water capital fund These funds are also available to cover water projects during the 2017 — 2040 period Exhibit 61. Proiected Dedicated Water Revenues Allocated for Capital (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $6,330,000 $27,360,000 $33,690,000 $38,250,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Yakima receives state and federal grants to help fund water system capital projects Grants tend to be project -specific in nature and do not occur on a consistent basis. The Water Capital Fund received $9 1 million in grants and loan proceeds between 2011 and 2015, and a grant of about $57,000 in 2015 The City will need to consider the types of gap funding available to meet its needs for water capital investments in the future. Water. Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison DRAFT, March 2016 32 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Water revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues Exhibit 62. Estimated Water Revenues and Costs YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $6,330,000 2016 Fund Balance $4,555,143 Total Funds Available $10,890,000 Capital Costs- Pending Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $10,890,000 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 21nflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Irrigation Irrigation Dedicated Revenues The Irrigation Capital Fund (Fund 479) historically received an average of $23 18 per capita served annually (based on the 2015 service area population) in non -transfer and non -grant revenues between 2011 and 2015 The service area for irrigation only includes a portion of Yakima, with the majority of service focused around the downtown area and the area just to the west The assumed dedicated revenues per capita used in the model is $20 00 annually The model assumes inflation growth of 3% annually n r_ I I 1 Exhibit 63 Historical and Projected Irrigation Revenues (2011— 2040), YOE$ I $14M t 1 $12M $10M Vill 08M$06M 1 ' $04M I 1 1 1 $0.2M I ' I i $ 0.0 M 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 ' Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 ' Exhibit 64 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. DRAFT, March 2016 33 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 64. Projected Irrigation Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Estimated Revenues $7,440,000 $23,120,000 $30,560,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Irrigation: Operating Transfers The City of Yakima contributes funds to the Irrigation Capital Fund through operating transfers Five-year historical transfers occurred in 2014 and 2015, in amounts of $500,000 and $210,000. Average annual transfer between 2011 and 2015 were $142,000 and the model's assumed annual transfer is $140,000 There is an annual inflation rate of 3% Exhibit 65. Historical and Projected Irrigation Operating Transfers (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 600 K ■ 1 I 500 K ■ 1 400 K 300 K 200 K 100 K 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source. City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Exhibit 66 summarizes projected revenues for the planning period as well as two subtotal time periods. Estimated Revenues $940,000 I $3,210,000 $4,150,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Irrigation Total Estimated Capital Fund Revenues Exhibit 67 shows total estimated dedicated revenues available for irrigation capital projects over the planning period, including grants, contributions, and operating transfers. Additionally, Yakima has a 2016 fund balance of about $2.5 million in its irrigation capital fund These funds are also available to cover irrigation projects during the 2017 — 2040 period DRAFT, March 2016 34 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN There have been some loan and grant revenues for irrigation in the past, but they are not a consistent source. In 2011 there was $225,000 in loan and grant money and in 2012 there was $85,000 in loan proceeds from the Department of Ecology Estimated Revenues $8,370,000 $27,150,000 $35,520,000 $37,570,000 Amount Committed to Debt $2,650,000 $6,190,000 $8,840,000 $8,840,000 Service Available Revenues $5,720,000 $20,960,000 $26,680,000 $28,730,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Irrigation- Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated Irrigation revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues. As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues Exhibit 68. Estimated Irrigation Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $8,370,000 2016 Fund Balance $2,049,953 Total Funds Available $10,420,000 Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) ($2,680,000) 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 2Inflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 2.5 General Capital Revenues Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues are collected on property sales at the point of sale They are required by law to be spent on capital projects. REET is based on the total value of real estate transactions in a given year, and the amount received annually can vary significantly based on fluctuations in the real estate market and trends in the economy. Yakima is authorized by the state to impose two separate REET levies. REET I and REET II each allow for a levy of 0 25 % on the assessed value of a sale, for a total tax of 0 5 % of total assessed value All proceeds must be used for capital spending, as defined in RCW 35.43.040. REET II is more restricted than REET I, as it may not be spent on acquisition of land for parks, recreation facilities, law enforcement facilities, fire protection facilities, trails, libraries, or administrative or judicial facilities (RCW 82 46 035) REET II, specifically, can only be levied by those cities and counties that are planning under GMA For REET 11, the capital projects must be those specifically listed in RCW 82 46.035(5): 1 r G C. r DRAFT, March 2016 35 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, streets and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, constructions, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks Within the parameters defined by law, REET I and REET II can be spent at the discretion of the City of Yakima A portion of REET revenues in Yakima are already committed to bond payments, but this analysis estimates that there will be additional revenues to spend for capital purposes Since home sales and values can fluctuate significantly depending on factors of the economy, this analysis assumes annual turnover of 4.0% for residential properties and 2.0% for commercial properties. Exhibit 69 shows historical REET revenues to the left of the dotted line and projected revenues to the right of the dotted line Actual revenues will have some peaks and valleys due to the natural cycles of the real estate market and the economy. $35M $ 3.0 M $2.5M $20M $15M $10M $05M $ 0.0 M Exhibit 69. Annual Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues (2011 — 2040), YOE$ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 Source- City of Yakima, 2016; BERK, 2017 Exhibit 70 shows the estimated total REET revenues for the next six years and for the 23 -year planning horizon (2040). In 2016, REET I and REET II had an ending balance of lust over $700,000, which is also ' available for general capital spending during the planning period Existing debt service commitments are also shown. ' Exhibit 70. Projected Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues (2017 -2040), YOE$ Total General Capital Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 20-- -0 Fund Balance ' Estimated Revenues $11,220,000 $50,160,000 $61,380,000 $62,090,000 Amount Committed to Q 0("000�.i 0 7��.) ��00 h: OCU $14,700,000 Debt Service ' Available Revenues $7,020,000 $39,660,000 $46,680,000 $47,390,000 IDRAFT, March 2016 36 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 General Capital. Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated General Capital revenue sources with Its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017— 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues. Exhibit 71. Estimated General Capital Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues $7,020,000 2016 Fund Balance 5705.887 Total Funds Available $7,730,000 Capital Costs- Estimated osts Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) 5 7, %50.0uu 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ 21nflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 2.6 Total Capital Revenues Exhibit 72 summarizes projected total capital revenues available over the planning period, including fund balances Exhibit 72. Projected Total Capital Revenues (2017 — 2040), YOE$ Total Capital Revenues Subtotal Subtotal Revenue Total Total with 2016 2017-2022 0-0-i Fund Balances Estimated Revenues $80,510,000 $351,140,000 $431,650,000 $437,370,000 Amount Committed to Debt $9,250,000 $11,890.000 $31,140,000 $31,140,000 Service Available Revenues $71,260,000 $329,250,000 $400,510,000 $406,230,000 Total Revenues. Six -Year Cost and Revenue Comparison This six-year comparison looks at the total dedicated revenue sources with its planned project costs for the six-year planning horizon of 2017 — 2022 to understand the difference between future dedicated capital costs and potential future revenues As with most capital spending, estimated future capital costs are larger than future dedicated capital revenues. The comparison of total revenues and costs does not include Streets or Transit, which are analyzed in the 2040 Transportation System Plan Exhibit 73. Estimated Total Revenues and Costs (2017 — 2022), YOE$' Estimated Fund Revenues* $56,460,000 2016 Fund Balance* $25,180,000 Total Funds Available* $81,640,000 0 Capital Costs' * $317,090,000 DRAFT, March 2016 37 1 r] YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN *Does not include Streets or Transit, which are analyzed under the 2040 Transportation System Plan 'Year of Expenditure = YOE$ ' 21nflation Adjusted to YOE$ and therefore do not match costs in Section 4 Source. City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 2.7 Policy Options and Other Funding Sources ■ Bonds. The City uses Bonds to support capital facilities funding. Yakima has a rating of AA- from t Standard and Poor's on its water and wastewater utilities, and its general obligation bonds. This rating is credited to careful staff preparation, good audits, high levels of fiscal responsibility, and comprehensive financial policies ' • Establish Transportation Benefit District The City is considering creating a Transportation Benefit District that would fund the Street Construction Fund Revenues are expected to be between ' $68S,000 and $13 million, depending on a car tab fee of $10 - $20. ■ Impact Fees Impact fees are a financing tool allowed under state law that requires new development to pay a portion of the costs associated with infrastructure improvements that are ' related to the development. GMA allows agencies to implement a transportation, parks, fire, and school impact fee program to help fund some of the costs of capital facilities needed to accommodate growth. State law requires that impact fees be related to improvement that serve ' new developments and not existing deficiencies, that they're assessed proportional to the impacts of new development, that they're allocated for improvements that reasonably benefit new development, and that they're spent on facilities identified in the Capital Facilities Plan ' Local Improvement District/Road Improvement District (LID/RID) A LID or RID is a new taxing district that the City has the statutory authority to create A district could be used to levy additional property tax to cover debt service payments on the sale of bonds purchased to finance projects within the district Revenues from the levy must be used for local, clearly-defined areas where the land owners are being assessed the additional tax benefit. LID, by law, can be used for water, sewer, ' and stormwater projects RIDS may be used for road funding and street improvements. • Other. The City could lobby state legislators to restore some of the funding levels once available to ' local governments for road improvements Although local jurisdictions receive a certain percentage of collected MVF Tax funds, a combination of factors such as decreasing gas prices and a reduction in both vehicle miles driven and vehicle fuel efficiency has resulted in local MVF Tax allocations that ' are generally not keeping pace with inflation. In order to restore funding levels, the City could encourage legislators to follow the recent gas tax increase with measures that raise the tax rate alongside cost inflation and increase the tax rate over time with fuel efficiency improvements. 2.8 Other Service Providers Funding information for service providers other than the City of Yakima are summarized in the capital ' facility detail in Section 4 0 I. IDRAFT, March 2016 38 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 3.0 COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN 3.1 Inventory An inventory for each service provider is included in Section 4 0 3.2 Level of Service Consequences The CFP lays out the level of service (LOS) consequences of growth for the City through 2040 LOS consequences are summarized for each service Exhibit 74 shows the LOS consequences for each facility and adopted LOS standard policies through 2040 The 2040 policy identified indicates the level of service that the City expects to be able to fund during the planning period Exhibit 74. Current LOS and Target LOS by City Service Facility Current •-0 LOS Public Buildings • 2,400 square feet per 1,000 • No adopted policy Population • To maintain existing level of service through 2036, the LOS policy would need to be 2,400 square feet per 1,000 population • To maintain the current public building space without adding capacity through 2040, the LOS policy would need to be 1,900 square feet per 1,000 population. Fire and Emergency • Response time in 2015 was dust over 8 • Adopted LOS for response time is 8 Services minutes on average minutes, 90% of the time. Law Enforcement Parks Wastewater Stormwater Water Irrigation Air Terminal Solid Waste • The current LOS for YPD is 16 officers per 1,000 population. • .64 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood/mini parks • 2.67 acres per 1,000 population for community parks • 342 8 pounds of organic loading per day per 1,000 population. • Maintain per Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or equivalent as determined by the Stormwater Management Program for the City of Yakima • 233 gpd per ERU • 16 miles of pipe per 1,000 population • Reliable and safe air service at a facility that is compatible with the community. • Compliance with the Airport Master Plan 2015, or as amended • Providing solid waste services that are efficient, cost effective and environmentally responsible • Adopted LOS for YPD is 1.8 officers per 1,000 population. • 2 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood/mini parks • 5 acres per 1,000 population for community parks • 342 8 pounds of organic loading per day per 1,000 population. • Maintain per Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or equivalent as determined by the Stormwater Management Program for the City of Yakima • 233 gpd per ERU. • Minimum design pressure of 20 psi • Reliable and safe air service at a facility that is compatible with the community • Compliance with the Airport Master Plan 2015, or as amended. • Provide solid waste services that are efficient, cost effective and environmentally responsible. DRAFT, March 2016 39 123 tons per household per year collected. YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN • • Set level of service consistent with existing service of collecting 123 tons per household per year. • Set service standard for percent of solid waste diverted to recycling 3.3 Projects A list of planned projects for each service provider is detailed in the inventory section The lists include summaries of six-year capital plans and, where available, projects for the long-term 2022 — 2040 planning period 4.0 CAPITAL FACILITY DETAIL 4.1 Public Buildings Overview The City manages municipal and cultural buildings including City Hall, Capitol Theatre, and the Convention Center, of which the latter two are managed by the Capitol Theatre Committee and the Yakima Valley Visitors and Convention Bureau The City identifies capital maintenance, replacements, and other needed investments in its City Budget that help develop the capital improvement program and identify available revenues The City does not have a level of service standard for public buildings, and facilities are anticipated to be adequate to meet the needs of current population and future growth Inventory Public buildings by City Council district are listed below. Most of the public buildings are in District 4, which includes the community's historic downtown Exhibit 75. Public Buildings Inventory (2016 District 1 Convention Center 10 N 8th St YPAL 602 N 4th St District 2 ONDS Office 112 S 8th St i Probation Office 207 E Spruce -- - - { Henry Beauchamp, Jr. Community Center 1 1211 S 7th St I District 4 City Hall Capitol Theatre Trolley Barn YPAC City Gas Island District 5 Public Works 129N2nd St 19s3rd St 404 S 3rd Ave 124S2nd St 302 N 1st St 1 2301 Fruitvale Blvd 68,344 10,472 2,352 S,376 19,352 61,230 S5,700 13,572 6,160 15,000 93,565 DRAFT, March 2016 40 Total Source- City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Level of Service YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 351,123 There is no established level of service (LOS) standard for public buildings in Yakima. Exhibit 76 shows potential LOS standards based on the assumption that the city is currently meeting an appropriate standard (2,400 square feet per 1,000), as well as an adjusted standard indicating what the LOS standard would need to be in order to continue to serve through 2040 with the current inventory (1,900 square feet per 1,000). Exhibit 76. LOS Analysis - Public Buildings LOS Standard = 2,400 Scl Ft per 1,000 2016 93,410 224,184 227,079 2,895 2022 100,094 240,226 227,079 -13,147 2040 116,431 279,434 227,079 -52,355 LOS Standard = 1,900 Scl Ft per 1,000 2016 93,410 177,479 227,079 49,600 2022 100,094 190,179 227,079 36,900 2040 116,431 221,219 227,079 5,860 Note- Calculations do not include the Convention Center or the Capitol Theatre in the inventory of Public Buildings square footage Source- City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 The City should designate an LOS standard for capital facilities deemed necessary for the operations of the City. The current effective level of service for public buildings is around 2,400 square feet per 1,000 residents To maintain this level of service through 2040, an additional 38,000 square feet will need to be added to the public building inventory, with around 6,500 square feet added by 2022 if the standard is to be consistently maintained during the 6 -year planning period If LOS for public buildings were around 1,900 square feet per 1,000 residents, there would be capacity for public buildings through 2040, with an additional 6,000 square feet of capacity remaining Projects, Cost, and Revenue There are currently no capacity or non -capacity projects planned for the six or 23 -year period 4.2 Fire and Emergency Services Overview The City of Yakima Fire Department (YFD) provides emergency and non -emergency fire, rescue and medical services to the City The Fire Department operates under the mission of "provid(ing) all-risk emergency and non -emergency services to the community"; "commit(ing) to serving with courage and compassion as stewards of public trust", and, "leav(ing) a positive and genuine impact on all who call upon (the Department) " (Mission Statement, 2016) DRAFT, March 2016 41 1 I YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ' As of January, 2015 the YFD provides services to the cities of Union Gap and Yakima County Fire Protection District 11 (Broadway) through an interlocal agreement (YFD, 2016) YFD does not provide EMS transport Two private ambulance operators, ALS and AMR, provide these services to those needing transport (Soptich, 2016). Inventory ' The facilities used by YFD include 6 active stations, 2 inactive stations, a maintenance shop, and a drill facility. In total, the Department operates out of 67,255 square feet with 9 engines, 1 ladder truck, and ' various other fleet vehicles that support the Department's work. The facilities host 104 FTEs and 12 reserve personnel (Soptich, 2016) Exhibit 77 summarizes the capital facilities for the YFD Exhibit 77. Current Facilities I Station 95 &Drill 807 East Nob Hill Blvd. 10,939 2 Engines, tech rescue, utility Facility 2 Engines, ladder truck, rescue, 2 command, Station 91 401 North Front Street 12,540 brush, multiple staff units Station 92 7707 Tieton Drive 8,032 Engine and brush Station 93 511 North 40th Ave. 9,188 Engine, platform truck, rehab unit, utility Station 94 2404 West 6,568 Engine, tender, 2 ARFF units Source Deputy Chiet Mar k Soptich, City of Yakima Fire Department, personal communication, 2016 Washington Ave. 115 employees, with the following range of positions: • 1 Chief Station 95 &Drill 807 East Nob Hill Blvd. 10,939 2 Engines, tech rescue, utility Facility Station 96 by 107 W. Ahtanum Rd. 5,470 2 Engines and 1 bush unit agreement Union Gap Maintenance 2200 Fruitvale Blvd 6,500 Maintenance truck Shop Race Station 4,988 General storage Fruitvale Station 2200 Fruitvale Blvd 3,000 Total 67,255 Source Deputy Chiet Mar k Soptich, City of Yakima Fire Department, personal communication, 2016 The Fire Department is staffed with a total of 115 employees, with the following range of positions: • 1 Chief • 2 Deputy Chiefs ■ 2 Administrative Positions ■ 8 Day Positions • 90 Firefighters • 12 Reserve Positions DRAFT, March 2016 42 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Level of Service Fire facilities have capital needs based on facility location and staffing These two factors feed into a unit's response time, which Is how LOS is generally measured Response time is defined as the amount of time between the initial call for assistance and the arrival of the full first alarm response to an Incident The department also measures turnout times (the time between a call and when apparatus are mobilized) and travel times (the time before the first engine company arrives) (YFD, 2016). The length of response time is mitigated by distributing stations throughout the city strategically, the type of equipment available at each of the facilities, and the level of staffing Exhibit 78 shows the response time policies and the 2015 recorded average response time, as well as how often the Department met the policy Exhibit 78. Response Times — Yakima Fire Department Fire Suppression Turnout Time* Travel Time ** First Full Alarm Assignment*** EMS Turnout Time Travel Time 120 seconds, met 90% of the time 110 64% 240 seconds, met 90% of the time 238 58% 480 seconds, met 90% of the time 429 69% 90 seconds, met 90% of the time 85 62% 240 seconds, met 90% of the time 208 71% Note The Fire Department also measures turnout and response times for special operations, aircraft rescue and firefighting, and wildland fires *Time between the initial call for assistance and the departure of the initial response apparatus **Time of travel between the turnout and arrival of the first engine company or EMS response. ***The time it takes for arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a fire suppression incident Source City of Yakima Fire Department, 2016 Annual Report, 2017 The current adopted level of service for response time Is 8 minutes In 2016, the department met this level of service 69% of the time, with an average response time of just over 8 minutes However, the 2016 Annual Report indicated that there has been an Increase in number of calls and type of responses, which has changed the scope of service needed by YFD (YFD, 2016) As calls and incident types increase, the department could experience pressure on Its ability to provide services at the Identified LOS standard, leading to a need for changes to the operations and facilities Projects, Cost, and Revenue There is currently one project planned for 2017, which is the construction of an apparatus and equipment storage building at Station 95 with an estimated cost of $407,000 In 2014, the Fire Department commissioned a local architectural firm to provide a cost estimate for remodeling and modernizing the city's 2 circa 1973 fire station facilities At the same time, an evaluation was completed on failing concrete and asphalt surfaces at all 5 city -owned fire station facilities Together, the estimate totaled approximately 10 million dollars - with nearly 1 million of that estimate representing DRAFT, March 2016 43 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN the concrete and asphalt projects Small projects relating to the identified needs have been undertaken, but otherwise there have been no additional steps taken. 4.3 Law Enforcement Overview Yakima's Police Department (YPD) occupies its main facility in Downtown Yakima, the Law and Justice Center, which is shared with courts, legal, and corrections The department has 185 uniformed and support personnel (Seely, 2016). The Department responds to almost 80,000 calls for service each year, and does patrol, detective, and special operations work with officers working in the Gang Unit, K-9 Patrol Unit, Narcotics K -9's, SWAT, Traffic, Narcotics, and School Resource Officers (About YPD, 2016) The City Jail, which began operations in 1996, has 13 employees (three Corrections Sergeants and ten Corrections Officers) The full-service Jail facility has capacity for 78 prisoners. (YPD, 2015) Inventory The Department is in need of a new facility downtown and a satellite facility in the west side precinct in order to efficiently provide police services to a growing city The ideal location was found to be near 64th and Nob Hill or Tieton Drive The current overall space need was found to be 70,500 square feet, in a Space Needs Assessment prepared in 2014 This contrasts the existing 26,000 square feet that YPD is currently operating out of (see Exhibit 79) (Seely, 2016) Exhibit 79. Current Facilities I — Yakima Police Department (2016) Total Source. Captain Jay Seely, City of Yakima Police Department, personal communication, 2016 Level of Service 26,000 26,000 LOS standards for law enforcement operations in Yakima are based on the ratio of officers to population The number of officers employed relates to the capital investments of the Department, since increasing the staffing levels will have implications for the space and equipment used by the officers The LOS policy ' is generally impacted by location, socio -economy characteristics, demographics, size of a city, and other local dynamics. ' The current LOS policy for YPD is 18 officers per 1,000 residents (see Exhibit 80) Using the LOS of 18 officers per 1,000 residents, the department currently has a deficit of 20 officers. Since population growth will lead to increased demand for police services, with current staffing levels there would be a deficit of ' 62 officers by 2040 (when population is expected to increase to over 110,000). Given that YPD is already operating out of a constrained space, the addition of 60 officers will add to the need for new and expanded capital facilities ' The effective LOS in Yakima is currently Just under 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents With this LOS, the current deficit is one officer If this LOS is considered acceptable, 38 additional officers would need to be added by 2040. Although the addition of 38 new officers would require less new facility space and vehicles ' than the LOS of 18 officers per 1,000, significant capital investments would still be needed. IDRAFT, March 2016 44 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 80. LOS Analysis — Yakima Police Department LOS Standard =1.8 Officers Per 1,000 Population 2016 93,410 168 148 -20 2022 100,094 180 148 -32 2040 116,431 210 148 -62 Effective LOS Standard = 1.6 Officers Per 1,000 Population 2016 93,410 149 148 -1 2022 100,094 160 148 -12 2040 116,431 186 148 -38 Source Captain Jay Seely, City of Yakima Police Department, personal communication, 2016 Projects, Cost, and Revenue There are no short- or long-term capital projects currently identified for law enforcement It has been identified that the police department needs a new facility in the downtown area as well as a standalone facility in the west side precinct to ensure efficient police services as the city continues to grow The Space Needs Assessment conducted in 2014 by Loofburrow/Wetch Architects and Moyer and Associates found that there is a current need for 70,500 square feet of space (significantly larger than the current 26,000 square feet) In addition, the best location for a west side precinct was determined to be 64th Avenue near Nob Hill or Teiton Drive with a facility size between 15,000 and 20,000 square feet To date, a search of potential existing buildings to be remodeled in the downtown area was completed. Three buildings were identified, but engineering studies determined that costs associated with bringing those buildings up to code would be too great The 2014 study included a $100 million recommendation to expand the existing police facility footprint. Since the process occurred in 2014, no additional steps have been taken The department's future strategy includes investing in a larger facility and a west side precinct, but no projects have been budgeted or planned for 4.4 Parks Overview The City of Yakima Parks system includes Parks, Pathways, a Golf Course, a Cemetery, and Parkways The facilities are managed by Yakima's Parks & Recreation Division. Parks & Recreation serves within the city limits The Tahoma Cemetery, which is part of the Parks Department, has been in business since 1889 and was added to the Washington Heritage Register of Historic Places in 2004 Inventory Yakima has 40182 acres of parks and recreation facilities Exhibit 81 provides a list of parks facilities in Yakima, broken down by district and classified by park type Park types include Regional, Neighborhood, Community, Mini, Pathway, Parkway, Golf Course, and Cemetery. DRAFT, March 2016 45 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Exhibit 81. Parks Inventory by District (2016) Facility Loceitilon Park Type Size (Acres) ' District 1 12.23 Milroy Park 16th and Lincoln Neighborhood Park 3.63 Cherry Park 4th and Cherry Mini Park 0 5 ' McGuinness Park 14th and Swan Mini Park 1 91 Miller Park 4th and E Neighborhood Park 3.96 Walter Cirtman Parkway Willow St: 10th -6th Pathway 0.7 - - - 5th Ave Roundabout 5th and Fruitvale Mini Park 0.13 Naches Ave Parkway Parkway 1.4 ' District 2AA"pqM104.6 Kiwanis Park Fair and Maple Community Park 34.3 Yakima Area Arboretum 1-82 and Nob Hill Community Park 60 MLK Park 9th and Beech Neighborhood Park 401 SE Community Park 8th and Arlington Neighborhood Park j 36 S 2nd Park 2nd and Race Mini Park 05 t Naches Ave Parkway Parkway 1 84 Fair Ave Islands Fair Ave near Kiwanis Park Mini Park 0.3 District 3 114.33 Gardner Park Pierce and Cornell Neighborhood Park 9.13 Perry Soccer Complex 16th and Washington Community Park 10 ' Tahoma Cemetery S 24th Ave Cemetery 60 Kissel Park 32nd and Mead Community Park 17 1 Fisher Golf Course 40th and Arlington Golf Course 18 2 Sozo Sports Complex District 4 32.28 ' Raymond Park 1st and Arlington Mini Park j 2.17 Lions Park and Pool 5th and Pine Neighborhood Park 4.38 Portia Park 12th and Yakima Mini Park 0.52 Larson Park 12th and Arlington I Neighborhood Park 4.4 Rosalma Garden Club 16th and Tieton Mini Park 0.45 ' Franklin Park 21st and Tieton Community Park 17.66 Tieton Terrace Park 26th and Walnut Mini Park 0.42 S 6th Parkway 6th and Tieton Parkway 017 ' Naches Ave Parkway Parkway 2 11 District 5 53.1 ' Elks Memorial Park 8th and Hathaway _ Community Park 1266 Chesterley Park 40th and River Rd Community Park 31 2 Powerhouse Canal Pathway Powerhouse Rd Pathway 8 ' Summitview Park 11th and Summitview Mini Park 076 River Rd Pump Station 40th and River Rd Mini Park 0.48 District 6 16.81 h- - - _ Gilbert Park 49th and Lincoln Neighborhood Park 11.62 IDRAFT, March 2016 46 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN n Gailleon Park/Harman Center N 44th Parkway District 7 Randall Park West Valley Community Park Fairbrook Islands Total Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 201E 65th and Summitview Neighborhood Park .1 5 N 44th Lincoln to Uplands Parkway 0,69 Pathway 8.7 68.47 48th and Viola Community Park 4024 80th and Wide Hollow Community Park 262 Fairbrook Addition Mini Park 203 Based on a 2 -acre per 1,000 population standard for Neighborhood/Mini Parks, the City of Yakima has a current deficit of park lands, and will have a deficit of 173 acres by 2040 if no additional 401.82 Exhibit 82 lists the total park acreages by park types Exhibit 82. Park Acres by Park Type (2016) Mini Park j 102 Neighborhood Park 49 3 Community Park 249.3 Pathway 8.7 Parkway 6.2 Golf Course 18.2 Cemetery 60.0 Total 401.8 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016 Additional information about parks and recreation in Yakima, including more specific information about park properties, is available in the 2017 Yakima Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Level of Service The Yakima Parks and Recreation Department level of service analysis is included in Exhibit 83. Only the Neighborhood and Community Parks are assigned levels of service standards Exhibit 83. Parks Level of Service wa 31Lanaara = c acres per i,uuu rur weignournuua/ivnnt rar" 2016 93,410 1868 595 -1274 2022 100,094 2002 595 -1407 2040 116,431 232 9 595 -1734 LOS Standard = 5 acres per 1,000 for Community Parks 2016 93,410 467.1 249.3 -217.8 2022 100,094 500.5 249.3 -251.2 2040 116,431 5822 2493 -332 9 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2016, City of Yakima 2025 Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, 2006 Based on a 2 -acre per 1,000 population standard for Neighborhood/Mini Parks, the City of Yakima has a current deficit of park lands, and will have a deficit of 173 acres by 2040 if no additional Neighborhood DRAFT, March 2016 47 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Parks are added. Based on a 5 -acre per 1,000 population standard for Community Parks, the City has a current deficit of 217 acres and will have a deficit of over 300 acres by 2040 if no additional Community Park lands are added. Projects, Cost, and Revenue Exhibit 84 contains a list of parks capacity and non -capacity capital projects planned through 2040. [The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Is currently under update and this project list Is subject to change.] Exhibit 84. Parks Projects (2016$) Category I (Capacity) 0 0 Bonds/ Grants/ Land Acquisition Donations / Parks 0 Capital 0 Bonds/ Grants/ Outdoor Pool Donations/ Parks 50,000 Capital 0 Bonds/ Grants/ Land Acquisition Donations/ Parks 0 Capital Spray Park - W.V Grants/ Donations/ Community Parks Capital Category II (Non -Capacity) Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ McGuinness Parks Capital Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ Cherry Parks Capital Basketball Court - Donations/ Grants/ Cherry Parks Capital 1 125,000 Donations/ Grants/ Picnic Shelter - MLK Jr. Parks Capital Replace Parking Lots - Donations/ Grants/ Randall Parks Capital Replace Walkways - Donations/ Grants/ Randall Parks Capital Replace Filtration Donations/ Grants/ System - Lions Pool Parks Capital Restroom - MLK Jr. Donations/ Grants/ Parks Capital Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ MLK Jr. Parks Capital Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ Gardner Parks Capital )RAFT, March 2016 0 6,000,000 0 6,000,000 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 400,000 0 400,000 125,000 0 0 125,000 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 75,000 0 75,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 150,000 0 0 150,000 100,000 0 0 100,000 1 I 150,000 0 0 150,000 175,000 0 0 175,000 I 0 1 125,000 0 125,000 125,000 0 0 I 125,000 48 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Playground -Raymond Donations/ Grants/ 0 100,000 0 100,000 Parks Capital Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ 125,000 0 0 125,000 Chesterley Parks Capital Replace Playground - Donations/ Grants/ 0 125,000 0 125,000 Miller Parks Capital Basketball Court - S/E Donations/ Grants/ 75,000 0 0 75,000 Community Parks Capital Picnic Shelter - S/E Donations/ Grants/ 0 50,000 0 50,000 Community Parks Capital Picnic Shelter -Kissel Donations/ Grants/ 0 50,000 0 50,000 Parks Capital Irrigation Filtration Donations/ Grants/ System - Tahoma parks Capital 25,000 0 0 25,000 Cemetery Replace Bulkhead - Donations/ Grants/ 0 100,000 0 100,000 Lions Pool Parks Capital Replace Slide - Donations/ Grants/ 250,000 0 0 250,000 Franklin Pool Parks Capital Playground -Larson Donations/ Grants/ 0 125,000 0 125,000 Parks Capital Replace Picnic Shelter Donations/ Grants/ 0 50,000 0 50,000 - Larson Parks Capital Resurface Walkways - Donations/ Grants/ 0 100,000 0 100,000 W.V Community Parks Capital City of Yakima Parks and Recreation Department, 2016, BERK, 2016 4.5 Transportation: Streets and Transit Streets and Transit See the 2040 Transportation System Plan under separate cover Street Lights The 2040 Transportation System Plan also includes projects related to street lights Street lights are one of many of Yakima's expenses each year The City of Yakima maintains 4,925 street lights The approximate cost for power consumption is around $300k per year which works out to about $61 per light per year The City is in the process of converting street lights to energy-saving LED lights There is no adopted level of service standard. 4.6 Wastewater Overview The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (YRWWTP) processes wastewater from homes and businesses in Yakima, as well as Union Gap, Terrace Heights, and Moxee The plant currently receives a DRAFT, March 2016 49 I YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ' monthly flow of around 13 millions of gallons per day (MGD) on average, with peak flows during irrigation season when infiltration adds around 4 MGD to the warm weather flows. Current plant capacity is rated near 22 MGD ' There are pockets of land in the City that are not served by sewers due to the land being vacant, challenging physical conditions, or past development allowed on septic systems. The City lacks a system- wide sewer plan to identify the specific locations of new trunk lines, engineering, and the cost of new ' lines The City conducted a sewer system plan update in 2016, which considers future land use and growth. ' Although the YRWWTP has capacity for anticipated growth, the System Plan focuses on maintenance and expansion of the conveyance system See the Capital Facility Plan Appendix for additional information. Inventory Yakima has a total capacity of 21.5 million gallons per day at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is in District 2 Exhibit 85 shows an inventory of the system, including the treatment plant, pipe miles, lift stations, and maintenance appurtenances. In 2009, the facility was upgraded to remove gas chlorination disinfection and install ultra violet disinfection capabilities Continued upgrades will allow for the re -use of resources, expanded capacity, improved environmental performance, and reduced electrical costs (City of Yakima, 2016). Exhibit 85. Inventory of Wastewater Facilities (2016 District 1 29 2 1 463 16 District 2 39 2 3 633 16 21 5 11 District 3 48 0 0 1,022 21 District 4 45 2 2 769 17 - District 5 48 1 2 L.09 23 District 6 61 0 2 1,443 24 - District 7 59 0 0 1,322 - 22 - Outside of City 22 0 0 212 10 - Total 351 7 10 6,962 21.50 Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Level of Service ' The Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (YRWWTP) has long-term capacity to serve at current levels. A 2014 evaluation of loading and capacity done by the Water and Irrigation Division, shown in ' Exhibit 86, indicated that there is capacity for hydraulic loading through 2074, organic loading through 2043, and solids loading through 2052. Capacity expansions are mandated when loading reaches 85% of the plant's rated capacity for a particular loading parameter for three consecutive months I Exhibit 86. YRWWTP Unit Loading and Capacity Utilization Projections (2016) • ' 2014 Maximum Month Total Loading 1105 MGD 38,175 ppd BOD 25,037 ppd TSS IDRAFT, March 2016 50 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2014 Population 110,413 110,413 110,413 2014 Maximum Unit Loading 100 gpcd 0 35 Ibpcd 0.23 Ibpcd Service Area Population at 100% Capacity 215,000 152,571 167,826 Year at 100% Capacity 2074 2043 2052 Permitted Maximum Month Loading 215 MGD 53,400 38,600 Source City of Yakima, 2016, Mike Price, Wastewater/Stormwater Manager, City of Yakima, 2016 Exhibit 87 provides the LOS analysis for wastewater treatment, focusing on the capacity for treating maximum monthly pounds of organic material The YRWWTP has capacity to treat up to 53,400 pounds of organic material With current maximum monthly load levels of 342 8 pounds of organic loading per day per 1,000 population, the facility will have surplus treatment capacity of over 3,000 pounds in 2040 Exhibit 87 Wastewater LOS Analysis LOS Standard = 342.8 pounds of maximum monthly organic loading per 1,000 population 2016 111,696 38,175 53,400 15,225 2022 121,102 41,390 53,400 12,010 2040 147,379 50,371 53,400 31029 "The Wastewater service area population includes the City of Yakima, Union Gap, and Terrace Heights Source Source City of Yakima, 2016, Mike Price, Wastewater/Stormwater Manager, City of Yakima, 2016 Projects, Cost, and Revenue Although the YRWWTP has capacity to accommodate the additional service area population through 2040, it is anticipated that there will be conveyance and treatment capital projects. Future projects include an industrial waste bioreactor that treats food processing waste, the removal and use of phosphorous as fertilizer, recovery of methane biogas to operate WWTP systems, and conversion of biosolids into quality fertilizer (City of Yakima, 2016). In additional, more stringent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System restrictions may contribute to capital needs if system upgrades are needed to comply with limits on discharge quality Exhibit 88 shows the planned wastewater projects through 2040 Exhibit 88. Wastewater Planned Projects (2017 — 2040) Category 1 (Capacity) Conveyance Fees/Bonds Treatment Fees/Bonds Category II (Non -Capacity) Conveyance Fees/Bonds Treatment Fees/Bonds Source. City of Yakima, 2016 4,000,000 6,000,000 9,000,000 70,000,000 83,000,000 5,000,000 70,000,000 81,000,000 35,200,000 36,000,000 31,000,000 37,000,000 t 238,000,000 309,200,000 238,000,000 306,000,000 ' DRAFT, March 2016 51 1 u YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4.7 Stormwater Overview ' Yakima's stormwater collection area includes the City of Yakima, as well as some of the West Valley area outside of city limits. With hot, dry summer weather and cold, dry winters, the majority of the annual precipitation occurs between October and March Runoff typically occurs during rapid warming events ' and is tied closely to the snowfall conditions in the Cascades. In accordance with the NPDES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit the City requires development to provide on-site ' stormwater management to mitigate these impacts. Level of service standards require stormwater quantity and quality treatment to be consistent with the City stormwater manual Seethe Capital Facilities Plan Appendix for additional information. Inventory Yakima has a total of 135 miles of storm pipe and 5,300 catch basins The full inventory of stormwater facilities by Council District are listed in Exhibit 89. Exhibit 89. Stormwater Facilities Inve District 1 1253 165 27 80 District 2 12 76 598 57 103 District 3 2795 647 51 227 District 4 2203 1,025 16 202 District 5 16.88 565 66 146 District 6 19.04 1,185 289 59 District 7 2357 1,115 235 114 TOTAL 134.76 5,300 741 931 Source- City of Yakima, 2016, Mike Price, Wastewater/stormwater Manager, City of Yakima, 2016 Level of Service 14 3 1 14 4 22 62 Level of service is regulated by the city's code and design standards that comply with state regulation. All new development must meet water quality, runoff, and erosion control requirements of the local and state regulations In 2005, Yakima County and the Cities of Yakima, Union Gap, and Sunnyside entered an Interlocal Governmental Agreement for compliance under the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit The Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington provides the design and management practices for facilities in compliance with federal, state, and local jurisdictional requirements As the City grows, developments will be required to install new conveyance and stormwater management ' systems Maintaining level of service through 2040 will require maintaining the existing system and ensuring new facilities are constructed in accordance with the Municipal Stormwater Permit. ' Projects, Cost, and Revenue There is one stormwater improvement project planned at the North 49`h Avenue drainage from from ' Englewood Avenue to Gilbert Park The capital project is planned for the years 2017 through 2019, and will cost $440,000 (2016$). IDRAFT, March 2016 52 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4.8 Water Overview Water and irrigation services in Yakima are provided by the Yakima Water/Irrigation Division, which is owned and operated by the City of Yakima, and the non-profit Nob Hill Water Association (which is partially located within the City) (Nob Hill Water, 2016). Some areas are under served, water service is extended on request and new development pays for the extension of infrastructure Yakima Water/Irrigation Division The City's water system generally serves central and eastern Yakima The City's Water System Plan Update for 2017 estimates a service population of 70,800 in 2010 growing to 72,624 in 2015 Yakima Water/Irrigation Division is supplied by a surface water treatment plan on the Naches River and four active wells that are used for seasonal emergencies and to meet peak demands. The City has developed a draft Water System Plan Update (pending 2017) that is designed to meet the target growth and land use plan of this Comprehensive Plan The Water System Plan Update estimates 233 gallons per day (gpd) per equivalent residential unit (ERU), and applies that to the projected land use and associated population growth With the Comprehensive Plan Update, one-third of the expected population target is anticipated in the City's water service area and the rest in the Nob Hill Water Association service area Inventory The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division is serving over 73,000 customers with the facilities identified in Exhibit 90. There are a total of 2,464 fire hydrants, 1,590,619 feet or pipe, and 6,755 valves Exhibit 90. Water Facilities Inventory — City of Yakima Water Division (2016) District 1 283 169,883 830 District 2 394 247,456 1,159 District 3 504 307,576 1,429 District 4 406 245,620 11167 District 5 554 350,506 1,539 District 6 56 45,165 203 District 7 115 75,025 339 Out Side City Limits 137 149,388 89 Total 2,449 1,590,619 6,755 Source City of Yakima, 2016, David Brown & Mike Shane, Water Department, City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Level of Service The Yakima Water Division works to provide water to those in the service area, targeting capacity at or above the maximum day demand (MDD) The Yakima Water System Plan projects future water demand in order to identify needed system improvements, including supply, pumping, storage, and piping The system considers the different demands associated with different land uses (such as single-family, multi- family, commercial, industrial, and government) One measure used is the MDD since it helps with understanding what the maximum demand on the system may be at any given time Exhibit 91 shows the projected MDD for 2015 through 2040 The current system capacity is 21.6 millions of gallons per day (MGD), and in 2040 there will be an additional 1.7 MGD of capacity beyond the projected MDD 1 DRAFT, March 2016 53 1 1 1 Exhibit 91. Water LOS Ana YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015 73,722 184 21.6 3.2 2020 75,623 189 21.6 2.7 1 2025 77,573 19.3 21.6 23 2030 79,573 19.8 216 18 2035 81,625 20.3 21.6 1.3 2040 83,730 20.8 21.6 0.8 Source City of Yakima, 2016, Draft City of Yakima 2017 Water System Plan, 2016, HDR, 2017, BERK, 2017 Projects, Cost, and Revenue Currently the only capacity project planned for the water system is an Aquifer storage and recovery project, which includes work on two wells The project is anticipated to occur in the 2023 — 2040 time frame and will cost $10 million (2016$) Non -capacity water capital projects for the 2017 — 2040 planning period are still pending. Nob Hill Water Association The West Valley area of Yakima is served by the Nob Hill Water Association. The Association's residential population, estimated at around 30,000 in 2015, is expected to grow at 14% throughout the planning period to a population of over 40,000 in 2040 This growth will have a proportionate effect on the Association's water demands. The Association's average day demand is expected to increase from 4 43 MGD in 2015 to 6 87 MGD in 2035 Its maximum day requirement is expected to increase from 6,160 gallons per minute (gpm) in 2015 to 9,550 gpm in 2035. The Association has sufficient water rights to serve its entire water service area through buildout, provided that it can continue to provide a majority of new developments with separate irrigation systems using water from the Yakima Valley Canal Company and Yakima Tieton Irrigation District To formalize this strategy, the Association has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the irrigation providers, the City of Yakima, and Yakima County The Water System Plan identifies a need to drill a new well in the 6 -year planning period (2016-2022) and to add another well in the 23 -year planning period. Other improvements include the need for standby storage and booster pump station improvements The Water System Plan uses a standard of 309 gpd/ERU. Inventory The Nob Hill Water Association served over 28,000 customers in 2016, with some of the customers located within the City of Yakima. The Association has over 870,000 feet of water main lines (Nob Hill Water Association, 2015) Level of Service The Nob Hill Water System Plan has an average day demand that is expected to increase from 4,434,000 gallons per day in 2015 to 6,873,000 gallons per day in 2035. Its maximum day requirement is expected to increase from 6,160 gpm in 2015 to 9,550 gpm in 2035 Exhibit 92 shows the Nob Hill Water District's estimated population according to the Comprehensive Plan's analysis, as well as the Nob Hill System Plan's estimated population to serve. The System Plan estimates greater growth in the water district than this Plan does, indicating that the Water Association is sufficiently planned for future growth, and will have a surplus of capacity. DRAFT, March 2016 54 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015 28,151 31,000 2,849 2040 41,066 51,536 10,470 Difference 12,916 20,536 7,620 Growth Rate 1 52% 2.06% 0.54% Source (Gray & Osborne, Inc , May 2015), BERK Consulting 2017 Projects, Cost, and Revenue Nob HIII Water had a 6 0% rate Increase and the addition of new service fees in January of 2016 to help pay for new Infrastructure, Including a new well, new reservoir, and mainline replacements The Comprehensive Plan determined that a new well will need to be drilled and a new reservoir will need to be constructed by 2022 for around $5 million From 2012 to 2015, over 8,500 feet of main line was replaced (Nob HIII Water Association, 2015) 4.9 Irrigation Overview The City of Yakima was originally developed on Irrigated farmland, with Irrigation provided by several private Irrigation systems Eventually, urban development replaced farmland The Irrigation systems were left and suitably modified to irrigate lawns, gardens and small farms. To date, the City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division maintains two water delivery systems; one for potable water and one for irrigation water (City of Yakima, 2012) The separate, non -potable irrigation system Is composed of more than 60 systems and sub -systems, and serves approximately 2,100 acres of developed land and 11,000 customers It serves almost 50% of the total potable water service area Some areas are served by deteriorating steel mains that require frequent repair Service Is provided by a staff of seven and one-half (7 8) employees which amounts to 0 709 FTE per 1,000 accounts The level of service has increased to an acceptable level after the refurbishment of over 32 miles of pipe line The City has Invested over $15,000,000 Into the Irrigation system The level of service has been developed providing minimum design pressure of 20 psi The Nelson Dam, an Irrigation diversion structure, is In falling condition and Is under review for the most cost effective refurbishment This review is through a partnership with Yakima County Flood Control Zone District, Yakama Nation, Washington Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife, US Bureau of Reclamation and National Marie Fisheries Inventory The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division maintains over 85 miles of pipe and 545 valves The inventory of facilities, Identified by district, Is Identified In Exhibit 93 Exhibit 93. Irrigation Facilities Inventory (2016) District 1 127 18.1 District 2 88 139 District 3 71 9.8 11 DRAFT, March 2016 55 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN District 4 71 194 District 5 151 T District 6 0 00 District 7 37 9 4 Total 545 85.4 Note- District 6 is not served by City irrigation. Source City of Yakima, 2016, David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016, BERK, 2017 Level of Service The City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division currently serves Irrigation with a total of 85 miles of pipe for over 50,000 customers The City has invested over $15 million in the irrigation system, which went toward refurbishing 32 miles of pipe line in order to bring the system up to an acceptable level of service The level of service standard provides for minimum design pressure of 20 psi. Currently, there are 16 miles of pipe per 1,000 customers served. Assuming this is an appropriate level of service, 6 24 miles of pipe will need to be added to maintain this level of service through the addition of new customers by 2040 LOS Standard = 1.6 miles of pipe per 1,000 served 2016 53,297 85.27 85.35 0.08 2022 54,420 8707 85.35 (1.72) 2040 57,246 91.59 85.35 (6.24) Source City of Yakima, 2016, David Brown, City of Yakima Irrigation, 2016, BERK, 2017 Projects, Cost, and Revenue Current Council policy calls for the refurbishment of the irrigation systems, the cost of that alternative is bonded debt, loans and cash from rates If a grant were to become available then the amount of debt to be borne by local constituents would be reduced. Routine operations and preventive maintenance activities for the supply, storage, pumping, and distribution components are discussed in the 1999 Irrigation Master Plan Exhibit 95 shows the Irrigation planned projects, both of which are non -capacity projects that will be funded through a combination of bonds and rates Category II (Non -Capacity) Nelson Dam Refurbishment Bond/Rates $10,000,000 $0 $0 $10,000,000 and diversion consolidation Steel Pipe Replacement Rates $600,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $4,200,000 Source. City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 IDRAFT, March 2016 56 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4.10 Schools Overview The City of Yakima is primarily served by the Yakima School District and the West Valley School District. In May of 2015, Yakima School District had 15,768 students and 881 teachers. East Valley School District had 3,107 students and 179 teachers (C)SPI, 2015). Yakima School District Inventory Exhibit 96 provides a list of the Yakima School District facilities inventory Exhibit 96. School Inventory — Yakima School District (2016) District 1 Barge -Lincoln Elementary 219 E I St 628 41 153 Garfield Elementary 612 N 6th Ave 548 31 177 District 2 Adams Elementary 723 S 8th St 713 44 16.2 Washington Middle 510 S 9th St 749 47 15.9 YV-Tech 1120 S 18th St 76 5 15.2 District 3 Ridgeview Elementary 609 W Washington Ave 638 38 168 McClure Elementary 1222 S 22nd Ave 617 34 181 Nob Hill Elementary 801 S 34th Ave 496 26 191 Lewis and Clark Middle 1114 W Pierce 825 44 School 18.8 District 4 Hoover Elementary 400 W Viola 788 35 22 5 McKinley Elementary 621 S 13th Ave 471 27 174 Franklin Middle School 410 S 19th Ave 847 42 202 A.C. Davis High School 212 S 6th Ave 2101 108 195 District 5 Roosevelt Elementary 120 N 16th Ave 537 31 173 Robertson Elementary 2807 W Lincoln Ave 532 29 183 Discovery Lab 2810 Castlevale Rd 206 13 15.8 Stanton Academy 802 River Rd 300 19 15.8 District 6 Gilbert Elementary 4400 Douglas Dr 594 36 165 District 7 Whitney Elementary 4411 W Nob Hill Blvd 543 31 175 Wilson Middle School 902 S 44th Ave 836 43 194 Eisenhower High School 702 S 40th Ave 1932 95 203 DRAFT, March 2016 57 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Source. Yakima School District, personal communication, 2016 Level of Service Levels of service for schools are typically based on student capacity and student generation Future growth is anticipated to require improvement or expansion of existing facilities Assuming that the current service level of a student -teacher ratio of 18.3 is maintained, by 2040, 142 additional teachers will be needed to serve the additional students coming to the school district In order to accommodate 142 additional teachers, more space will need to be added to the district's facilities to continue serving at the current level. Exhibit 97. Yakima School District LOS An LOS Standard = 18.3 Student -Teacher Ratio 2016 28,178 14,977 819 _ ^819 0 2022 30,186 16,044 877 819 -58 _ 2040 33,081 17,583 961 819 -142 *Number of households based on a calculation using school district population estimates and the 2014 ACS household size of 2.73 **Student generation rates per household are calculated based on the current ratio of .51 students per household in the school district. Source City of Yakima, 2016, Yakima School District, 2016, BERK, 2017 ' Projects, Cost, and Revenue In 2017, around 38 cents of every dollar of property tax revenue in the City of Yakima will go to the Yakima School District. Another 18 cents of every dollar goes to State of Washington Schools ' Per pupil revenues and expenditures in the Yakima School District were about $10,000 in 2016 Per pupil revenues and expenditures in the West Valley School District were dust under $9,000 in 2016 (OSPI, 2015). ' West Valley School District ' Inventory Exhibit 98 shows the inventory of schools in the West Valley School District The District has schools in District 6, District 7, and outside the city boundaries. There is a total of 843,000 square feet of school facilities. ' District 6 March 2010 Exhibit 98. School Inventory— West Valley School District (2016 58 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Apple Valley Elementary 7 N 88th Ave 324 20 162 37,096 Wide Hollow Elementary 1000 S 72nd Ave 372 23 162 61,140 Summitview Elementary 6305 W Chestnut Ave 31S 23 13 7 33,848 District 7 West Valley Junior High 7505 Zier Road 840 45 18.7 127,977 West Valley Middle School 1500 S 75th Ave 778 40 19.4 108,415 Outside City Boundaries Cottonwood Elementary 1041 S 96th Ave 431 25 172 60,021 Mountainview Elementary 830 Stone Rd 183 17 107 30,600 Ahtanum Elementary 3006 S Wiley Rd 260 22 118 46,449 West Valley High School 9800 Zier Rd 1,040 51 204 239,691 Freshman Campus 9206 Zier Rd 398 21 18.9 97,547 Total 4,941 287 17.2 842,784 Source West Valley School District, personal communication, 2016, OSPI 2015-2016 Level of Service Level of service for schools is generally based on student capacity Assuming that the current service level of a student -teacher ratio of 17 2 is maintained, by 2040, 152 additional teachers will be needed to serve the additional students coming to the school district. In order to accommodate 152 additional teachers, more space will need to be added to the district's facilities to continue serving at the current level Exhibit 99. West Valley School District LOS Analysis LOS Standard = 17.2 Student -Teacher Ratio 2016 8,513 4,041 287 287 0 2022 9,581 5,666 329 287 -42 2040 12,769 7,551 439 287 -152 *Number of households based on a calculation using school district population estimates and the 2014 ACS household size of 273 **Student generation rates per household are calculated based on the current ratio of 59 students per household in the school district Source City of Yakima, 2016, Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2017, BERK, 2017 Projects, Cost, and Revenue The 2016 — 2017 budget included around $22 million in capital projects Additional West Valley School District capital projects are pending. Exhibit 100 West Valley School District P Central Office Modifications $550,000 DRAFT, March 2016 59 1 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Construction of New Buildings $20,550,000 High School HVAC Replacement $500,000 Mountainview Site Improvements $355,000 Total Expenditures $21,955,000 Source West Valley School District, 2016 The West Valley School District had six outstanding bonds in 2016, which included a high school bond levy and construction bonds (Exhibit 101) The debt is paid with revenues from taxes Exhibit 101. Outstandine Bonds 7/15/2016 1 $24,500,000 1/1/2007 $27,800,000 12/1/2012 $9,330,000 6/1/2013 59,225,000 4/23/2014 $9,300,000 1/6/2015 $13,575,000 Total Bonds $93,730,000 Source. West Valley School Dmipct, 1016 $1,400,000 $1,020,000 $8,975,000 $9,010,000 $9,020,000 $13,575,000 $43,000,000 4.11 Airport Overview ' The Yakima Air Terminal covers 825 acres and is owned and operated by the City There are two active runways located at McAllister Field, which provide primary air transportation for the City and County. ' Many of the planned capital projects in the Master Plan address expansion and upgrades to meet FAA criteria Additional information about the Air Terminal can be found in the 2015 Airport Master Plan Inventory Existing airport facilities at the Yakima Air Terminal include the following ■ Two active runways and a full parallel taxiway system ■ Runway and taxiway lighting systems ■ Visual and electronic navigational aids ■ General aviation hangars and tiedown aprons • A passenger terminal building • Support facilities • Airport offices DRAFT, March 2016 60 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ' CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN • Maintenance building (City of Yakima, 2015) Level of Service The facility assessment in the Yakima Airport Master Plan identifies that the passenger terminal will need to be expanded by 2020 or sooner to maintain an acceptable level of service for passenger air service. Commercial, cargo, and passenger air service is expected to continue to have a growth in demand The Master Plan identifies the mission of developing and maintaining an airport that serves the region with reliable and safe air service at a facility that is compatible with the community Projects, Cost, and Revenue The Airport Master Plan includes a CIP through 2030, with implementation planned in the following phases • Phase I Short-term five-year period from 2015 to 2020. Projects assigned to Phase I are shown on a year -by -year basis, consistent with the FAA's (CIP) format ■ Phase II. Mid-term five-year period from 2021 through 2025 Projects are allocated to specific years. • Phase III Long-term period from 2026 through 2030 These projects are grouped together (City of Yakima, 2015). Exhibit 102 provides the identified air terminal projects from the Airport Master Plan and Exhibit 103 describes the identified funding sources for the Air Terminal CIP. Category I (Capacity) West Itinerant Apron $1,460,000 $0 $0 $1,460,000 East Itinerant Apron $0 $1,160,000 $0 $1,160,000 Land Acquisition $900,000 $0 $0 $900,000 Terminal Building $0 $500,000 $15,000,000 $15,500,000 ARFF Vehicle $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Category II (Non -Capacity) Lighting replacement and pavement marking $221,890 $1,250,000 $0 $1,471,890 Lighting replacement project $75,000 $500,000 $0 $575,000 SRE Blower $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000 Security Gates $650,000 $0 $0 $650,000 Wildlife hazard assessment $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000 Source City of Yakima, 2016, Airport Master Plan, 2015 Over the 20 -year period, about $59 million of capital projects are planned Funding sources for the projects include • AIP Entitlement Grants and Discretionary Grants from the FAA Entitlement grants are granted using a formula based on the annual enplaned passengers at an airport The Yakima Air Terminal is DRAFT, March 2016 61 I ' YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN also eligible to receive discretionary grants based on specific projects and the ranking method used by the FAA to allocate a specific grant WSDOT State Aviation Grants. WSDOT Aviation provides project -specific grant funding. Typically, ' WSDOT Aviation requires a 50% match • Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) Commercial service airports may impose a passenger facility ' charge of up to $4.50 per passenger. PFCs can be used for AIP eligible projects, as well as debt service payments on eligible projects • Private Financing Private businesses can finance improvements that benefit that business Privately ' financed projects include hangers, cargo facilities, and privately used parking aprons Other airport revenues include direct revenues derived from fuel taxes, aircraft storage fees, and other ' facility use fees, such as landing fees and rental fees Exhibit 103 shows the anticipated funding sources for the $61 million in total project costs for the 2015 20 -year CIP. � I Exhibit 103. Air Terminal Anticipated CIP Funding Sources for 20 -Year CIP (2013$) Airfield Projects $10,068,321 $250,000 $3,328,011 $13,646,332 Terminal Construction $19,167,525 $0 $2,276,340 $21,443,865 T_ General Aviation Projects $6,690,022 $0 $814,786 $7,504,808 Pavement Management Projects ' Total Projects Source- Airport Master Plan, 2015 4.12 Solid Waste Overview $15,087,258 $51,013,126 $946,797 $1,196,797 $2,200,999 $8,620,136 $17,735,055 $61,330,059 The City of Yakima's Refuse Division provides weekly garbage collection to over 26,000 households located within the City of Yakima Customers are charged weekly by the size of their bin, with additional charges incurred for items placed outside of the bin, overfilling bins, additional collection trips, yard waste, and temporary metal bins (City of Yakima, 2016) All refuse is collected by refuse and recycling division staff of the department of public works or a licensed collector or taken to the sanitary landfill for disposal (YMC 4 16, 2016) All solid waste collected is taken to Yakima County facilities in accordance with interlocal agreements and the Yakima County Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (January 2017). Inventory The refuse division has 20 employees and 22 refuse trucks The Division operates 12 5 daily routes, which include 10 refuse routes and 2 5 -yard waste routes Customers can pay for 96 -gallon refuse carts, 32 - gallon refuse carts, and 96 -gallon yard waste carts Annually, around 32,000 tons is collected, with around 90% of the tonnage categorized as garbage and around 10% categorized as recycled yard waste. DRAI'T, March 2016 62 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ' I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Level of Service The Solid Waste and Recycling Division operates under the mission of protecting the public health and safety of the City of Yakima and its residents through providing solid waste services that are efficient, cost effective, and environmentally responsible If the current rate of garbage per household is steady (about 123 tons per household), and there is an increase of about 5,985 households, there would be an increase of garbage of 7,365 tons, a 16 8% increase (see Exhibit 104). LOS Standard =1.23 Tons per Household Per Year 2016 37,719 46,394 46,016 08% 2022 39,619 48,731 46,016 5.9% 2040 43,704 53,755 46,016 168% Source City of Yakima, 2016, BERK, 2017 Projects, Cost, and Revenue Planned capital projects over the 2017 — 2040 period for the Solid Waste and Recycling Division are not yet identified The Solid Waste and Recycling Division is an enterprise fund so rates are set to ensure reliable, competitively priced service for the customers An operating reserve of 12% (or 45 days) is maintained and reserves allow for replacement of trucks without interruption of service. At this time, no new trucks are planned to be purchased. Existing trucks will be replaced with newer trucks in accordance with their replacement schedule DRAFT, March 2016 63 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN REFERENCES About YPD. (2016). Retrieved from Yakima Fire Department. https.//yakimapolice org/about/ AKEL Engineering Group (August 2013) 2013 Draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Fresno, California Prepared for the City of Yakima. Cascade Natural Gas (2014). Integrated Resource Plan. Cascade natural Gas. (2016). About Us Retrieved from Cascade Natural Gas: http //www cngc com/utility-navigation/about-us Cascade Nautral Gas (2015). About Us. Retrieved from cngc.com. http.//www cngc com/utility- navigation/about-us City of Yakima (2012) Water/Irrigation Division Retrieved from City of Yakima: https'//www yakimawa gov/services/water-irrigation/files/2012/05/Irrigation-history pdf City of Yakima. (2015). Airport Master Plan. Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field City of Yakima (2016) 2017 Preliminary Budget Summary City of Yakima (2016) Refuse Division. Retrieved from City of Yakima. https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/refuse/ City of Yakima (2016) Wastewater Operations/Maintenance Retrieved from City of Yakima: https•//www.yakimawa.gov/services/wastewater-treatment-plant/operations-maintenance/ Gray & Osborne, Inc. (May 2015). Nob Hill Water Association Draft Water System Plan Yakima, Washington Nob Hill Water Association. MDU Resources Group, Inc (2014). 2014 Annual Report Form 10-K Proxy Statement. Mission Statement. (2016). Retrieved from City of Yakima Fire Department https.//yakimafire com/mission-statement/ New Vision (2016) Utilities Retrieved from New Vision: Yakima County Development Association. http.//www ycda com/why-Yakima/utilities html Nob Hill Water (2016) History Retrieved from Nob Hill Water: https://www.nobhillwater.org/history Nob Hill Water Association (2015) The Water Line: Edition 65. OSPI. (2015). Washington State Report Card. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Pacific Power. (2016). Pacific Power Retrieved from https //www paaficpower net PacifiCorp (2015) 2015 Integrated Resource Plan Volume 11- Appendices Seely, J (2016, August) Captain, Yakima Police Department. Soptich, M. (2016, August 19). Deputy Chief, Support Services City of Yakima Fire Department Williams (2016). Northwest Pipeline Retrieved from Williams http //co williams com/operations/west- operations/northwest-pipeline/ WUTC. (2016). Washington Utilitiesond Transportation Commission Retrieved from Regulated Industries http //www utc wa gov/regulatedlndustries/Pages/default aspx YFD (2016) 2015 Annual Report City of Yakima Fire Department. YMC4.16. (2016). Retrieved from Yakima Municipal Code: http://www.codepublishing com/WA/Yakima/ DRAFT, March 2016 64 YAKIMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE I CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN YPD (2015) 2014 Annual Report. City of Yakima Police Department 1 DRAFT, March 2016 65 1