HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-19 NCBC Agenda PktYakima City Council Committee
Neighborhood & Community Building Committee (NCBC)
Council Chambers, City Hall – 129 N 2nd St, Yakima, WA
Thursday October 19, 2017
2:00 p.m.
City Council City Staff
Councilmember Dulce Gutiérrez (Chair) Cliff Moore, City Manager
Councilmember Avina Gutiérrez Joan Davenport, Community Development Director
Councilmember Carmen Méndez Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Councilmember Holly Cousens (alternate)
Agenda
1) Board Appointed Reports – Standing Items
a) Transit Development Plan / Transit Related Issues (D. Gutiérrez) 11/08/2017 Agenda
b) Parks & Recreation Commission (D. Gutiérrez)
c) Henry Beauchamp Community Center (A. Gutiérrez)
d) Historic Preservation (A. Gutiérrez)
e) Yakima Planning Commission (A. Gutiérrez)
f) Bike/Pedestrian Committee (C. Méndez)
g) Homeless Network (C. Méndez)
h) TRANS-Action Committee (D. Gutiérrez)
i) Ethics & Equal Rights Committee (A. Gutiérrez) 09/07/2017 Minutes
j) Community Integration Committee (D. Gutiérrez) – 09/11/2017 & 09/25/2017 Minutes
2) WSU Equity Study Task 2 Deliverable (Martha Aitken and WSU Metro Center Representatives)
3) Naches Parkway Evaluation and Discussion
4) Other Business / Requests
a) Approve Minutes of 09/21/2017
b) Future Items
c) Recap of Deliverables for Next NCBC Meeting
d) Interpreter for Next Meeting (48-hr advance notice)
5) Audience Participation
Next Meeting: November 16, 2017
The complete agenda packet is available online at: https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/city-council-committees/
NCBC 001
DRAFT Agenda
Transit Citizens’ Advisory Committee
November 8, 2017
A. Welcome
B. Introductions
a. New Members
b. Visitors
c. Transit Planner position
C. Current Transit Services
a. Fixed-Route Bus Service
i. No bus service Friday, November 10, 2017 (Veteran’s Day) Thursday, November
23, 2017 (Thanksgiving) Monday, December 25, 2017 (Christmas) Monday,
January 1, 2018.
ii. New design for monthly bus passes.
iii. Potential route 10 change. (Selah)
iv. Luminaria Event December 8th, 9th from 6pm to 10pm
b. Dial-A-Ride Service
i. Normal operations.
c. Vanpool Service
i. 1 new vanpool group.
D. Grants
a. Possible Ellensburg Commuter expansion.
b. Regional Mobility Grant Program
i. New Transit shelters.
ii. Sidewalk improvements.
E. Open Discussion
F. Next Meeting Wednesday, February 7,2018
NCBC 002
NCBC 003
NCBC 004
NCBC 005
NCBC 006
NCBC 007
NCBC 008
NCBC 009
City of Yakima
Equity Study Analysis
Conducted by the WSU Metropolitan Center for
Applied Research & Extension
Draft Final Report
October 13, 2017
The Metropolitan Center for
Applied Research & Extension
WSU Everett
915 N. Broadway
Everett, WA 98201
206-219-2426
http://metrocenter.wsu.edu
NCBC 010
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
October 2017
Contents
Executive Summary/Intro: ........................................................................................................................ 2
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Scope of Work: .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Task 1, Part A: Summary of the City of Yakima’s Data Collection Methods ............................................. 6
Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Task 1 Part B: Process and Accuracy Audit Site Visit ................................................................................ 9
Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Task 2 Part A: Data Quality and Limitations............................................................................................ 11
Task 2 Part B: Confirm the input and output variables for the analysis ................................................. 12
Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Task 2 Part C: Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 13
Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Parks data analysis over time.............................................................................................................. 13
Current Analysis and Results ............................................................................................................... 19
Police Department calls for service .................................................................................................... 19
Fire Department calls for service ........................................................................................................ 21
Streetlights .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Code compliance requests .................................................................................................................. 25
Transit ridership .................................................................................................................................. 27
Bus stop benches and shelters ............................................................................................................ 29
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 33
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Appendix A – City of Yakima Report ................................................................................................... 34
Appendix B – Summary of Accuracy Audit Findings ........................................................................... 39
Appendix C – Demographic variables over time ................................................................................. 41
Appendix D – Project proposal ........................................................................................................... 50
NCBC 011
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
2
October 2017
Executive Summary/Intro:
On June 28, 2017 the City of Yakima entered into an agreement with WSU’s Metropolitan Center for
Applied Research and Extension (Metro Center) to analyze data from the city’s Equity Study
(https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/equity-study/ ) for the purpose of helping inform the 2018 budget
and future budget decisions.
WSU Metro team first met with Yakima City Council members on the Neighborhood and Community
Building Committee: Chair Dulce Gutiérez, Carmen Méndez and Avina Gutiérez, to clarify the scope of
work, define the specific variables and geographic dividing line to be analyzed, and the overall intent of
the study. The Metro Center then assembled a team comprised of experts in urban planning and
geospatial analysis to perform the activities required to complete the project. This report serves as the
final deliverable.
City staff, at the direction of City Council, has begun to examine the possibility of inequitable
development in Yakima. The city’s Equity Study is perhaps the first step in understanding what is
happening across the city, and was to be an essential part of the process of developing data-based
solutions. This report will assist the city in understanding the data uses and shortfalls of the previous
Equity Study, and provides supplemental information based on data developed by the WSU Metro
Center to help answer questions about the distribution of public resources. This report includes
characterization and analysis of six data sets provided by city staff:
● Public safety calls for service (location was mapped; future work should include response time)
● Street lights
● Code compliance requests
● Parks (excluding parks that have had privately donated funds or charge for use)
● Transit ridership, shelters, benches
● Tax parcels
In addition to examining the applicability of the data for the purposes of the Equity Study, the Metro
Center team also documented the methods of collection, storage, and sharing of these data between
departments. Our examination revealed that the most of data sets assessed in this contract were
developed using best practices, and are a professionally appropriate resource for the operations of their
associated departments. However, with the exception of the Parks and Recreation and Parcel data, they
are not suitable for evaluations of budgetary decisions and resource allocation over time. Thus, there
are significant limits to their utility in the Equity Study. The specific details of the utility of the data are
described in the body of this report. In short, the data are generally appropriate for their designed use in
city asset management but inappropriate for the equity questions proposed by city council.
Background
The City of Yakima has undergone many changes since it was incorporated in 1883. Economic and
demographic transitions, as well as geographic changes have been ongoing for the City as it adapts to
regional, and national influences. In the past thirty-five years, Yakima’s population has become more
diverse, more educated, and median family incomes have risen. However, although social conditions in
Yakima improved overall, as shown in these improvements have not been shared by all residents as
demonstrated by the ethnic segregation marked by 16th Avenue. Three graphs in particular show the
different trends that residents in eastern versus western Yakima have experienced between 1980 and
2015 (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3).
NCBC 012
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
3
October 2017
Figure 1: Percent Hispanic, east and west of 16th Avenue
Figure 2: Median family income, east and west of 16th Avenue
NCBC 013
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
4
October 2017
Figure 3: Percent of residents who are college graduates, east and west of 16th Avenue.
These figures show the significance of the dividing line of 16th Avenue, which has been identified by City
Council and City of Yakima staff as a demarcation line for this project. The figures also echo national
trends described in a report issued by the Lincoln Institute, Planning For Social Equity (2017). In this
report, it is noted that inequality is now at levels the U.S has not seen since the 1920s. As a reference for
understanding the forces leading to modern inequities in the City of Yakima, it may be useful to place
Yakima in the larger context of other cities across America that are facing similar situations.
(http://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/planning-social-equity)
NCBC 014
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
5
October 2017
Scope of Work:
WSU Metro team first met with Yakima City Council members on the Neighborhood and Community
Building Committee: Chair Dulce Gutiérez, Carmen Méndez and Avina Gutiérez, to clarify the scope of
work, define the specific variables and geographic dividing line to be analyzed, and the overall intent of
the study. The contract’s Scope of Work included the two tasks listed below.
Task 1: Validate Equity Study data
Methods
Confirm with City Council up to 6 data sets identified in Task 2 B, excluding US Census Bureau data, to
assess the validity of those data. For each data set selected we will conduct, as appropriate:
A. A process audit by interviewing City staff and reviewing documents associated with how these
data were collected, compiled, summarized, and made accessible to the public.
B. An accuracy audit of the data by randomly selecting a representative sample of data points, and
independently determining the accuracy through direct observations.
Task 2: Analyze existing Equity Study data to assess the geographic distribution of public
resources and funds (e.g. city, State, or Federal)
Methods
A. Assess the quality of the data to understand any qualitative concerns and limitations that would
impact data analysis or interpretation (i.e. period of time collected, geographically resolution of
the data, etc.).
B. Confirm the input and output variables for the analysis, and the geographical dividing line. Initial
request included the following 6 data sets, upon which this estimate is based:
o Input variable:
• Demographics, to include income, race, education level, marital status, home
owner or renter, property value and age
o Output variables:
• Public safety calls for service (location, response time)
• Street lights
• Code compliance requests
• Parks (exempt parks that are privately funded or charge for use)
• Transit ridership, shelters, benches
o Geographical dividing line
• 16th Avenue
C. Perform the appropriate statistical analyses to assess any relationships amongst the input and
output (i.e. response) variables.
On September 15, 2017 the Metro Center submitted an initial report for Task 1 (Appendix A) which
concluded that City of Yakima has a professional and appropriate process for collecting, storing, and
analyzing data, and a staff knowledgeable in the data infrastructure. Additionally, most of the data is
recorded and handled in a reasonable and professional manner for its original intent: to support the
city's geospatial data and land use planning. We note that the city’s GIS architecture has been developed
over more than 30 years, a positive quality which means that the city has a mature system in place.
NCBC 015
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
6
October 2017
Task 1, Part A: Summary of the City of Yakima’s Data Collection Methods
This section provides an overview of the methods used by City of Yakima employees to collect, store and
share data for five city-provided data sets: public safety calls for service, street lights, code compliance
requests, parks, and transit (ridership, benches, and shelters).
Methods
After receiving portions of the data and conducting an initial review, the Metro Center team met by
phone with City Manager Cliff Moore, Community Development Director Joan Davenport, and city staff
to clarify the intent of some portions of Task 1 of the Scope of Work, and to make sure there was an
understanding of the city’s interest in positive strategies for the future. Through this discussion we came
to understand that the language of the scope required clarification. Task 1 “Validate Equity Study data”
means something different in the academic realm and the applied real-world one. A technical data
validation process would be overly statistical, particularly with a “representative sample of data points”
across the various datasets, and would be both prohibitively expensive and, most important, would not
achieve the city’s objectives. Instead, we decided that we needed to know if the city’s data are being
collected and recorded in appropriate ways (Task 1, part A), and whether it is useful to the current
disparity analysis (Task 1, part B). Then, as appropriate, we would check for accuracy of the acceptable
data by ground-truthing through site visits (Task 1, part B) to complete Task 1.
For our process audit we reached out to city staff in multiple departments to learn about the internal
processes used to gather, compile, and store data for the Yakima Equity Study. Staff were uniformly
open and helpful in sharing with us their processes for data collection and handling, as well as the data
itself.
The Metro Center team contacted the City of Yakima’s Supervising Senior Analyst, Tom Sellsted to
obtain the five datasets of interest. After reviewing the data available, a Metro Center team member
spoke with Tom Sellsted and Jill Ballard to discuss the methods used to collect and display datasets in
the Equity Study’s ArcMap Online Story Maps. Mr. Sellsted also provided the Metro Center team with
contact information for the city data steward(s) of each of the five datasets, and the team scheduled
one-hour phone calls with each data steward. During these calls the Metro Center team asked questions
to identify and clarify our understanding of the methods used to collect the data used in the Equity
Study. We took detailed notes during the call and, in some cases, followed up with additional emails or
calls for clarification.
Findings
Public Safety Calls for Service
Public safety calls for Yakima Fire and Police services are recorded by the 9-1-1 dispatch center operated
by Yakima County’s Suncomm, which operates county-wide. When a call is received by Suncomm, the
call taker confirms the address and inputs it into a database shared with City of Yakima staff. As call
takers continue gathering more information from callers, a dispatcher simultaneously contacts the
appropriate agency to provide services to the caller. In this way, the location, type of response, services
provided, and department providing the services are all recorded in real time. Because this information
is being input directly into a database shared with the City of Yakima, current data on public safety calls
for service are continuously being recorded. This is the method used to record all calls received by
Suncomm, from all City of Yakima locations, and for all types of service needs. Data for the Fire
Department and Police Department calls for service are both recorded in the same way.
NCBC 016
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
7
October 2017
The data displayed in the story maps of the City of Yakima’s Equity Study is populated by the data in the
database shared by Suncomm and the City of Yakima. A code in the programming language Python (the
same language used by ArcMap, a geographic information system software) collects the real time data
being input into the database by Suncomm call takers, and displays it on the Equity Study story map.
Although the story maps only display the most recent month of data, Suncomm has been recording data
for Public Safety Calls for Service in a way that can be displayed on GIS maps since 2012. Calls that are
made directly to the Yakima Police Department are manually added to the database shared by the City
of Yakima and Suncomm. This is also the case for service requests from walk-in visitors to the Police
Department offices.
Street Lights
Digital maps of street light locations were developed over 15 years ago, and display the current
locations of street lights throughout the City of Yakima. At that time satellite photography was analyzed
to identify and geolocate street lights within the City. Since then, the digital maps have been updated as
needed to show the addition of new street lights, or the acquisition of street lights formerly owned by
Pacific Power.
The Public Works Department identifies damaged or non-functioning street lights in two ways. The first
way from phone calls and submissions on Yak Back from residents who observe a street light that needs
repair. There is not documentation of how many residents call rather than use the Yak Back application.
The second way that staff identify street lights that need maintenance is by driving along portions of the
City of Yakima street grid after dark between November and March. Starting with main arterials, and
streets around schools, and working their way along the grid to residential streets, Public Works staff
identify whether the street lights are functioning. In this way, all street lights are assessed by City staff
annually. In 2017 the Public Works Department is overseeing the installation of LED light bulbs in all of
the City’s street lights. During this upgrade process the GIS locational data is being updated and revised.
Residents can request a new street light be added to their street by contacting the City. Those requests
are prioritized by the City’s transportation engineers, who review crime statistic data, the cost of
installation, and the length of time a request has been on the list. The target for the spacing of street
lights is between 200 and 250 feet, but can be as far as 400 feet apart, depending on the dispersion of
the light by a given street light.
Code Compliance Requests
Data used in the Equity Study to show the locations and type of code compliance request are recorded
by the Yak Back web application. Only complaints made by the Yak Back web application are displayed
on the Equity Study story maps; those data do not reflect the code compliance requests made by phone,
or those initiated by Yakima Code Compliance Officers or other City staff.
When Code Compliance Officers receive code compliance requests, from either the Yak Back
application, phone calls, or from other city departments, that information is entered into the
SMARTGOV database used by the Code Administration Division. Because the code compliance cases
managed in SMARTGOV do not have a method for tagging whether a case was submitted by Yak Back or
other means, it is not clear how many cases are initiated by phone versus Yak Back. However, city staff
report that requests submitted via Yak Back make up the majority of requests. Yak Back provides an
anonymous means of contacting the City and can be used by anyone with internet access. However, Yak
Back is only available in English, and no other languages spoken by City residents. Both of these
characteristics are potential limitations to this type of request system.
NCBC 017
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
8
October 2017
After a code compliance request is made and a case is opened by Code Compliance Officers in
SMARTGOV, the officers update the information related to the case on a daily basis until the case has
been resolved. When resolved, cases are marked as “closed” in the SMARTGOV database, and no longer
receive updates unless re-opened. In this way, up-to-date information on the progress of code
compliance requests is available to city staff, and can be used to develop GIS maps as needed. The code
compliance data used for the Equity Study is a complete dataset from the year 2015. Staff mentioned in
our informational calls that those data reflect a typical year of code compliance requests, which vary by
season (requests to address weedy lots in the summer, for example), but do not vary much year to year.
Code Compliance Officers prioritize their responses to code compliance requests based on the degree to
which the case threatens public safety. There is not a formal criteria applied to prioritization decisions
made by the officers, this is left to their judgment.
Parks
The Yakima parks inventory is updated in every Comprehensive Plan cycle. During Comprehensive Plan
updates, the Yakima Parks and Recreation department (YPR) surveys the parks and their amenities,
takes note of needed improvements, and assesses current conditions. The updated inventory of parks
and their amenities is then compiled by YPR into a report, which is shared with the data analysts who
created the online Equity Study maps. The data analysts translate the parks data into GIS format, and
develop ArcGIS maps with attribute tables that describe information about each park, such as Capital
Improvement Plan spending, types of amenities, and completed projects.
Transit (Ridership, and shelters/benches)
Transit ridership in the City of Yakima is recorded by drivers on every bus by entering rider information
into an application on an iPad. Drivers enter rider information including the method of payment and the
number of passengers entering. The iPads on Yakima buses run a JavaScript application that submits
data to a database shared by Yakima Transit and the city GIS analysts. This data can be used to populate
Equity Study maps with ridership information as soon as it is recorded. There is no alteration or editing
of the data between when it is taken from the recordings of the bus drivers and uploaded onto the
Equity Study maps.
In the event of failure of an iPad or the network, manual devices for counting ridership are also available
to bus drivers. These manually recorded data can later be entered into the database by Transit staff to
maintain accurate ridership data.
The transit benches and shelter location data is the product of annual inventory survey that Yakima
Transit conducts. The GIS data is also edited as needed to reflect the removal or addition of benches and
shelters in the time between annual surveys. The condition of benches and shelters is informally
observed both by riders and bus drivers, who typically notify Yakima Transit maintenance crews if a
bench or shelter is damaged or needs maintenance.
Residents or Yakima Transit employees can suggest the placement of a bench or shelter. The criteria for
approving the addition of a bench or shelter focus primarily on the availability of space in the public
right of way and condition of the sidewalk, as well as the volume of riders who use that bus stop.
NCBC 018
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
9
October 2017
Conclusion
Our analysis suggests the City of Yakima has a professional and appropriate process for collecting,
storing, and analyzing data, and a staff knowledgeable in the data infrastructure. We found no major
sources of explicit bias in the collection, handling or storing of data. Additionally, most of the data is
recorded and handled in a reasonable and professional manner for its original intent: to support the
city's geospatial data and land use planning. We note that the city’s GIS architecture has been developed
over more than 30 years, a positive quality which means that the city has a mature system in place.
Task 1 Part B: Process and Accuracy Audit Site Visit
To complete the accuracy audit described in Task 1, part B, the Metro Center team reviewed the Yakima
Parks and Recreation (YPR) parks data. This data set was selected in part because of its general
applicability to the City’s Equity Study, specifically the ability to track parks over time. The accuracy audit
was conducted to verify by ground truthing the parks data provided by YPR, and to further assess
differences in parks on either side of 16th Avenue that may not be obvious in the data. It should be noted
that privately funded parks were included in this process and accuracy audit to increase the sample size
and provide a more comprehensive assessment however, per the scope of work, privately funded parks
are not included in the statistical analysis.
On September 12th, two members of the Metro Center team visited the City of Yakima. During this visit,
the team members were accompanied by Yakima Parks and Recreation staff, who provided information
and support. The objective of the visit was to review a sample of ten parks within the City to assess the
accuracy of the parks data provided to the Yakima City Council for use in the Equity Study. This section
details our methods and findings. Table 1 shows a summary of the parks visited and amenities reviewed,
and Table 2 shows a summary of the findings at each park.
Methods
The WSU team developed a set of criteria for selecting which parks to visit and perform direct
observations. The purpose of these direct observations was the confirmation of the amenities that are
listed in the parks data, and to compare the accuracy of the data on either side of 16th Avenue. The
following criteria were used to select ten parks for onsite observation:
● Geographic Location: Select parks that are entirely located on either the west or east side of
16th Avenue, and do not span across that dividing line.
○ For eight parks: select only parks that have not received funding from private donations
○ For contrast, select two additional parks, one on each side of 16th, that were built using
private donations
● Data Enumeration or Completeness: select parks for which data was not richly recorded and
amenities enumerated, to possibly provide the Yakima Parks Department with a more complete
inventory. This would include for example:
○ Counts of amenities rather than binary observation of presence vs. absence
○ Presence of parking lots
○ ADA parking compliance
● Variability: Select parks with different types of amenities (fields, usage type, bathrooms, courts,
etc.) as well as variations in size and age of park.
● Amenities: Parks in our sample were selected in pairs, one on the east side of 16th and one on
the west side that have the same type of amenity, and could have their condition and quality
assessed and directly compared.
NCBC 019
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
10
October 2017
Ken Wilkinson, Yakima Parks and Recreation Manager, and Jenise Sanders showed the Metro Center
team each park and answered questions pertaining to the current information for parks, and the history
of park development. During the visits to each park the Metro Center team members spent roughly ten
minutes walking through the park, and recording notes on data collection sheets. The team members
paid specific attention to the amenity that was selected for comparison (e.g., horseshoe pits at both
Milroy Park and West Valley Community Park). Additionally, the Metro Center team members took
photographs of the parks and the built environment of the surrounding neighborhood. Table 1 shows
the complete list of the parks visited.
Table 1. Summary of parks visited, and the amenities of interest
Side of
16th
Council
District
Park Name Amenity Comparison
E 1 McGuinness Picnic Shelters
W 3 Emil Kissel Picnic shelters
E 2 South 2nd St Open space
W 6 Gilbert Park Open Space
E 1 Milroy Park Horseshoe pits
W 7 West Valley Community park Horseshoe pits
E 2 Yakima Arboretum Arboretum (landscape,
maintenance)
W 3 Fisher golf course Golf course (landscape,
maintenance)
E 2 Kiwanis park (private funding) Recreation facilities - baseball fields
W 4 Franklin Park (private
funding)
Recreation facilities - Pool
Findings
The direct observations of the selected parks confirmed the accuracy of the documentation of the
amenities, approximate size, and location of the parks. Appendix B provides a summary of the audit
findings. While this data might be used for the Equity Study, there are observable differences in the age
and size of amenities between parks that aren’t described by the data provided. For example, while both
McGuinness Park and Emil Kissel Park each have one picnic shelter, the available data doesn’t describe
the size, age, or condition of each picnic shelter. By adding qualitative data to supplement the
quantitative, primarily binary data, the Equity Study can be better informed about the conditions that
residents in Yakima experience.
Although the data is limited in that regard, the Metro Center team found no evidence that bias has been
a factor in the differences observable between the parks on either side of 16th. Rather, the density of
the built environment and age of the city (and associated annexations) on either side of the dividing line
seems to have been the primary factor in determining the availability of amenities, and their quality.
NCBC 020
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
11
October 2017
It is clear from the YPR parks data and conversations with staff that a portion of the improvements to
Yakima’s parks have been made possible by contributions from several non-profit and service
organizations. Those improvements also do not appear to have been made with any intentional
geographic bias, and the city benefits from the generosity of those organizations. However, those
contributions have been accepted by City of Yakima without prioritization for which projects are to be
completed.
This means that improvements to parks by donation throughout the City have been made based on the
interest of the group providing the donations, and has not been intentionally directed to provide
improvements based on some equity criteria. Importantly, this finding provides an excellent opportunity
to move forward with future allocation decisions that increase the equitable distribution of parks
amenities. One essential component to realizing this opportunity is the development of prioritization
criteria for determining the order in which parks receive funding for improvements (from both public,
and private sources). Including meaningful considerations of equity in these prioritization criteria
provides the YPR with a valuable tool for guiding the donations and volunteer efforts of Yakima’s highly
engaged service organizations.
Conclusion
The completion of Task 1 Part B has led to a greater understanding of the quality, and an inference
about the reliability of the City of Yakima’s data, if the parks data can be an indicator of overall quality.
By making direct observations at ten parks with the assistance of Yakima Parks and Recreation staff, the
WSU team has been able to confirm the accuracy of the parks data provided for the Equity Study. Given
that the parks data can be analyzed to show its relationship between demographic “input” variables
over time, it is likely the only directly applicable dataset of the five “output” variables provided to the
WSU team. This was an important factor in choosing parks as the dataset for which to conduct an
accuracy audit.
The apparent absence of intentional bias in previous capital improvements made to Yakima’s parks
shows a dedication of the Yakima Parks and Recreation department to serve all residents of the City.
However, the Metro Center team has identified the opportunity to provide park improvements with an
increased emphasis on equitable distribution of parks and amenities by providing guidance or
suggestions regarding donations and efforts of service groups. This would likely entail developing a set
of criteria for prioritizing parks investments that includes indicators of equity (such as income,
educational achievement, property value, race, and distance to parks). This could be in addition to the
YPR’s current method of sharing comprehensive planning documents with service organizations to
inform them of all planned capital improvements to parks.
Task 2 Part A: Data Quality and Limitations
The city is to be commended for its long commitment to a citywide Geographic Information
System. However, it is important that staff and council recognize the limitations of that data to answer
questions for which it was not originally designed. Because the datasets were collected and developed
for purposes other than to assess disparity, they are insufficient to do so because they lack necessary
elements including but not limited to: an accurate recording of the date of resource development,
qualitative characteristics of variables, or the method that data is collected by the city (e.g. Yak Back).
In Appendix A, we provide a summary table of the data sets and the possible usage of each. We hope
this will help council understand possible approaches they might take, and what analyses are not
supported by the data as composed. Additionally, much of this work is part of Task 2, part B.
NCBC 021
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
12
October 2017
Task 2 Part B: Confirm the input and output variables for the analysis
Methods
Because the data provided were rather limited with regard to being able to answer the general
questions of an equity analysis, the Metro Center team developed additional datasets. We compiled
Census data from the decennial and American Community Survey (ACS) data sets for each of the
demographic “input” variables: income, race, education level, marital status, and homeowner or renter.
These data sets were collected for years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2015. It should be noted that the
1970 Census data contained no values for Yakima County, so analyses for 1970 were not possible.
Census data came from three distinct sources:
● 1970, 1980, 1990-time series data: NHGIS (https://www.nhgis.org/)
● 2000 Decennial data, US Census: Summary File 3, 2000
(https://www.census.gov/mp/www/cat/decennial_census_2000/summary_file_3.html)
● 2010, 2015 American Community Survey data: censusreporter.org
(http://censusreporter.tumblr.com/post/73727555158/easier-access-to-acs-data)
The Census data collected included:
● Total population
● Persons by sex
● Persons by age
● Persons by race (white, nonwhite)
● Persons of Hispanic origin
● Total households
● Total families
● Persons by nativity
● Persons 25 years and over by educational attainment
● Household income in previous year
● Family income in previous year
● Occupied housing units by tenure
● Marital status
● Poverty (percent of population below poverty level)
These data sets were used as input variables to run statistical analysis of output variables (Task 2, part
B), as well as to tell the demographic story of Yakima over time (Appendix C). Data for property value
and age was also collected. Since these data include time stamps, they allowed for a longitudinal
analysis of age and value through the years of census data available.
Data obtained from City of Yakima GIS staff were converted to a PostGIS database, used to run
tabulations, and then used to determine any correlations. For each data set and each field of interest,
tabulations of values were generated. These tabulations should prove useful as guidance for City of
Yakima staff in forming particular questions about data sets.
Overlay analyses were performed (e.g., point-in-polygon) to generate summaries by administrative unit.
Administrative units were represented by sociodemographic variables, and correlations and bivariate
scatter plots were generated for each pair of variables of interest. These correlations and bivariate
scatter plots are in the appendix of this report.
NCBC 022
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
13
October 2017
Task 2 Part C: Statistical Analysis
Methods
In the first set of analyses, historical boundaries (“annexations”) of City of Yakima were overlain with
contemporaneous Census data to provide estimates of the demographic conditions of Yakima as a
whole, and also stratified by the 16th Avenue geographical dividing line. In the GIS overlay process,
census tracts that are straddled by the city limits are “clipped.” The ratio of clipped area to original area
gives a value that can be multiplied by the original census enumeration to produce an estimate of the
enumeration within the clipped area (assuming a uniform distribution across the census tract). For
example, if a census tract had 4000 persons, and 75% of the tract was within the city limits, the estimate
of the number of persons in the portion of that tract within the city limits would be 3000
(4000∗0.75=30004000∗0.75=3000). For enumerated variables (i.e., counts of persons), the sum of these
area-weighted estimates was generated.
In order to perform longitudinal analysis of infrastructure data stored in the GIS, it is necessary to have
GIS data sets that include variables that represent when a feature of infrastructure was created or
installed. Parks were the only data encoded for historical analysis. For these analyses, infrastructure
data were selected to match the year of the census data, such that the GIS data selection represented
those infrastructure features that existed at the time of the census. The infrastructure data were then
overlain on the census data to generate tables in support of statistical analysis comparing potential
infrastructure accessibility and demographic pattern.
Parks data analysis over time
Historical analysis of parks was done using two separate methods. For both methods, any parks that had
received any private funding were excluded:
1. CHESTERLEY PARK
2. FRANKLIN PARK & POOL
3. HARMAN CENTER AT GALLEON PARK
4. KIWANIS PARK & GATEWAY SPORTS COMPLEX
5. LARSON PARK
6. MILLER PARK
7. NORTH 44TH AVE PARK
8. RANDALL PARK
9. ROSALMA GARDEN CLUB PARK
10. SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK
Scatter plots graphs present demographic variables of interest on the X-axis and per-capita area of
parks on the Y-axis, time-matched by year. The dots indicate census tracts, with census tracts east of
16th represented by orange dots, and west of 16th indicated by blue dots. It should be noted that for
these graphs, and the ones that follow in this report there is one census tract with a large per-capita
area across each year. In cases, where a census tract crosses 16th some pairs of points represent the
same tract ID, but the E and W chunks, respectively.
Throughout this report, graphs were selected that best illustrate the findings. All of the graphs created
for this study can be found at
https://gist.gis.washington.edu/yakima_equity/#3211_overlay_of_parks_with_census_tracts
See Figure 3 for a map of current parks and Yakima City limits. It should be noted that some of the parks
did not have a value for the “year created” field and were not included in this analysis; results would
differ with the use of a fully attributed data set.
NCBC 023
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
14
October 2017
Figure 3: Parks in Yakima with 2015 city limits
For both data sets, years were matched (e.g., for the 1980 census, only those parks that existed in 1980
were selected). A GIS intersection was performed to tabulate the total area of parks within each census
tract. Demographic characteristics of the tract and the area of parks within the tract graphed as XY
scatter plots. Also, because many tracts had no parks overlapping their boundaries, the number of
available points is small, therefore no formal statistical tests were performed.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show park data from 1980, plotting per-capita park area against the percent of
residents who were Hispanic and median family income, respectively. The obvious stratification in the X-
axis simply reflects the general segregation of ethnicity and income across the 16th Avenue divide.
Overall, the amount of park per capita is uniform across census tracts, with the exception of a single
west side tract having a relatively large area of park within the tract. This is tract 1100, at the southern
end of the City, intersecting Fairbrook Islands, Kissel Park, and Tahoma Cemetery, and with an estimated
population of 2244 persons.
NCBC 024
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
15
October 2017
Figure 4: Park area per capita by percent Hispanic, 1980
Figure 5: Park area per capita by median family income, 1980
NCBC 025
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
16
October 2017
These can be compared to graphs from 2015 (Figure and Figure ), which show similar patterns, but now
with a single east side tract having a relatively large per-capita area in park land. This represents tract
1602 at the far eastern side of the City, containing the large areas of Sarg Hubbard Park and the Yakima
Area Arboretum, but with an estimated population of only 791 persons.
The observed stratification in the X-axis reflects general sociodemographic differences between eastern
and western Yakima. The other trend seems to be that the amount of park area per capita was greater
for western Yakima in 1980, but as the City grew over subsequent years, the area of park per capita
became much more uniform across the 16th Avenue dividing line.
Figure 6: Park area per capita by percent Hispanic, 2015
NCBC 026
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
17
October 2017
Figure 7: Park area per capita by median family income, 2015
The results presented above should be interpreted with some caution for several reasons, a few of
which are enumerated as follows. First, the use of census areas in a GIS overlay analysis assumes that
there is a uniform distribution of persons across the census unit, which is generally not true. Second, not
all parks are equal in terms of the amenities they provide as attractors of activity. For example, use of a
cemetery is likely to be very different from use of a sports complex. Third, simple overlay ignores actual
location; having a park overlapping a census unit at one side of the unit does not provide equal
accessibility to all persons residing in the unit. Fourth, residents of a census unit that has no overlap with
a park may actually reside close to a park that lies in an adjacent census unit; in fact, some of these
persons may reside closer to a park than some of the residents in the adjacent unit but whose homes
are relatively far from the park.
Buffers of 1/4 mile, as a proxy for locations within reasonable walking distance, were generated for the
parks polygons; these buffers were then overlain on the census tracts to obtain estimated demographic
counts within and outside the buffers. The relative proportion of persons in each demographic category
was tabulated using the same year-to-year matching. Total area of parks per capita was tabulated for
each year with stratification by 16th Avenue.
While most demographic variables showed little change over the years (Figure ), it appears that within
the 1/4 area around parks there is an increasing trend of nonwhite persons, persons ≥ 65 years of age,
and with a larger share of properties are inhabited by owners rather than renters.
NCBC 027
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
18
October 2017
Figure 8: Demographic characteristics of the area within 1/4 mile of parks, 1980-2015
NCBC 028
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
19
October 2017
Current Analysis and Results
Most of the GIS data sets were not encoded for longitudinal analysis (that is, the features in the GIS do
not contain attributes representing the time at which the real-world features were
created/installed/developed). Therefore, analyses for specific data sets were restricted to examination
of current features and data sets with respect to current demographic data. These included public safety
calls for service, streetlights, code compliance requests, transit (ridership, benches, shelters).
The scatter plots presented here are the result of performing the statistical analyses per Task 2, Part C.
These plots also include the stratification by the 16th Avenue geographical dividing line. The scatter
plots here represent a selected set of demographic variables. The remaining graphs for each selected
GIS data layer are provided in the Appendix for 1980 and 2015, and for 1990, 2000, 2010 in an
associated zip file.
A general trend to be noted in these graphs is the obvious stratification between west and east sides of
Yakima in the X-axis. This simply is a reflection of the City’s underlying sociodemographic stratification.
While segregation itself is of concern, these graphs would indicate inequity in City-provided service only
if there appears to be increasing or decreasing trends (i.e., a visible slope in the point pattern); if the
point pattern appears to be uniform or random, that would be an indication of a lack of bias or inequity
in services.
Police Department calls for service
Police Department calls for service per capita are graphed in Figure , Figure 10, and Figure . The tracts
with the greatest number of per-capita calls were on the east side, but there appeared to be no
association between demographic characteristics and counts of calls per capita.
Figure 9: Police Department calls for service by median family income
NCBC 029
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
20
October 2017
Figure 10: Police Department calls for service by percent of residents who of Hispanic origin
Figure 11: Police Department calls for service by percent of residents who are renters
NCBC 030
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
21
October 2017
Fire Department calls for service
Similar to Police Department calls for service, there appeared to be no association between
demographic characteristics and count of Fire Department calls for service. It should be noted that there
is one tract on the east side that had a relatively high number of calls per capita. (Figure 12, Figure 13,
Figure 14)
Figure 12: Count of Fire Department calls for service per capita by percent of residents who
of Hispanic origin
NCBC 031
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
22
October 2017
Figure 13: Count of Fire Department calls for service per capita by percent of residents who
are renters
Figure 14: Count of Fire Department calls for service per capita by median family income
NCBC 032
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
23
October 2017
Streetlights
While there appears to be a greater number of street lights per square mile in the east side (Figure ,
Figure , and Figure ), this may be due to the greater street density in the older part of Yakima that was
developed previous to the newer areas on the east side. There appears to be no general association
between street light density and demographic variables that cannot be explained by basic principles of
urban form and historical development.
Figure 15: Street light density by percent of residents who are college graduates
NCBC 033
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
24
October 2017
Figure 16: Street light density by percent of residents who of Hispanic origin
Figure 17: Street light density by percent median family income
NCBC 034
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
25
October 2017
Code compliance requests
Code compliance requests per capita appear to occur in greater numbers on the east side, which is also
mirrored by being in areas of lower median family income, with higher proportion of residents of
Hispanic origin and who are renters (Figure , Figure , Figure ). These trends are likely a sign of greater
social disorder typical in areas of lower socioeconomic status. Code compliance requests originate from
residents, and therefore cannot be ascribed to any difference in services provided. However, as the data
were delivered without any consistent record-level information on either status or date of resolution, it
is not possible in this analysis to make any conclusions on questions of equity related to how the City
responds to such requests.
Figure 18: Code compliance requests by median family income
NCBC 035
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
26
October 2017
Figure 19: Code compliance requests by percent of residents who of Hispanic origin
Figure 20: Code compliance requests by percent of residents who are renters
NCBC 036
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
27
October 2017
Transit ridership
Patterns in transit ridership (Figure 21, Figure 22, and Figure 23) are similar to those of streetlights, and
are likely due to similar underlying urban characteristics. Transit is economically feasible only in areas of
relatively high residential density, which usually includes older developments. Newer, lower density, and
more car-dependent communities are generally not served by transit. These types of newer
developments also tend to have demographic characteristics that are different from areas that are well-
served by transit.
Figure 21: Transit ridership by median family income
NCBC 037
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
28
October 2017
Figure 22: Transit ridership by Transit ridership by percent of residents who are college
graduates
Figure 23: Transit ridership by percent of residents who are renters
NCBC 038
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
29
October 2017
Bus stop benches and shelters
Not surprisingly, the patterns of bus stop bench density (Figure 24, Figure 25, and Figure 26) are similar
to those of transit ridership.
Figure 24: Bus stop bench density by percent of residents who are of Hispanic origin
NCBC 039
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
30
October 2017
Figure 25: Bus stop bench density by median family income
Bus stop bench density appears to be higher in tracts with lower proportions of persons 65 years or
older. If a large number of riders are older, this could point to an opportunity for providing better
service for the elderly. However, the proportion of elderly is also greater on the west side, where transit
usage is lower, and where higher socioeconomic levels point to potentially less need for transit (if the
elderly have access to cars). In order to come to any conclusions on whether the elderly are underserved
in terms of bus stop benches, more data would be needed on the characteristics of individual transit
riders.
NCBC 040
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
31
October 2017
Figure 26: Bus stop bench density by percent of residents who are at least 65 years old
Figure 27:
NCBC 041
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
32
October 2017
Figure 28:
Figure 29:
NCBC 042
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
33
October 2017
Recommendations
Over the course of this project we have found that the city is doing professional work in the
development and management of the various data sets under their purview. This perhaps answers
implicit questions about the data's utility for city purposes: it is useful, but really only for the tasks for
which it was gathered. The city uses a variety of forms of gathering and using data, and the WSU team
was thinking regularly about equity implications of these tasks. Accordingly, we had a few suggestions
for the city to consider with regard to equity and the collection and use of city data. These are really just
starting points for conversation within city departments, council, or both.
● First, the Yak Back application is an excellent tool for getting information from residents.
However, it is only provided in English. Consider developing the app in at least Spanish to meet
the needs of both a significant number (and percentage) of the population and the east side of
the city more generally.
● Develop an anonymous way to find out the status of Yak Back complaints. Perhaps this is a case
number that someone could enter into the app to track it and see whether and how the case
had been resolved. This will provide closure and increase the perception of responsiveness by
the city. It may also reduce the number of duplicate or follow-up complaints.
● With regard to private funding for parks and other city resources or amenities, develop a set of
criteria that include equity and inclusion and address the current state of difference across 16th
Avenue. Use this criteria to rank possible investment opportunities for philanthropy, and
provide this rank ordered list or some part of it to community partners. Another related
suggestion might be to develop a policy that dictates that for any donation to a specific project
the city takes a percentage for the general funding of that project amenity across the city. For
example, if the city took ten percent of such park donations for general use for parks across the
city, a $10,000 gift towards a particular project would lead to $9,000 for that project and $1,000
for the parks general fund.
● Looking at the story that is represented by the east-west divide along 16th Avenue, council (and
department staff) might use current data and this report as an initial conditions statement, and
discuss what areas they have agency and resources to effect change. The legacy of annexation
and other development patterns is both a benefit and a challenge to overcome. For example,
parks are larger on the west side, likely because of the later annexation of larger, county,
parcels. It is unlikely though not impossible, that the city would be able to agglomerate
significant park acreage in the east side to match the west, and there may be better strategies
identified by council to address this disparity in more strategic ways. Understanding the
existence and some of the likely reasons for current conditions, without the major expenditure
required for historical analysis, can help productively move to a different state.
NCBC 043
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
34
October 2017
Appendices
Appendix A – City of Yakima Report
Appendix B – Summary of Accuracy Audit Findings
Appendix C – Demographic variables over time
Appendix D – Project proposal
Appendix A – City of Yakima Report
Introduction:
On June 28, 2017 the City of Yakima entered into an agreement with WSU’s Metropolitan Center for
Applied Research and Extension (Metro Center) to analyze data from the city’s Equity Study
(https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/equity-study/ ) for the purpose of helping inform the 2018 budget
and future budget decisions. The contract’s Scope of Work included two tasks listed below, with
variables to be used in the analysis, and the geographical dividing line specifically stated.
The Metro Center assembled a team comprised of experts in urban planning and geospatial analysis to
perform the activities required to meet the deliverables of the project. This report serves as the Task 1
deliverable and provides an overview of the Metro Center’s activities to analyze the data collection and
handling processes the City of Yakima employs with regard to the data used in the Equity Study, and a
preliminary summary of findings. This report also addresses aspects of Task 2, Parts A and B, much of
which could most efficiently and appropriately be implemented concurrently with Task 1.
Review of Scope of Work:
Task 1: Validate Equity Study data
Methods
Confirm with City Council up to 6 data sets identified in Task 2 B, excluding US Census Bureau data, to
assess the validity of those data. For each data set selected we will conduct, as appropriate:
A. A process audit by interviewing City staff and reviewing documents associated with how these
data were collected, compiled, summarized, and made accessible to the public.
B. An accuracy audit of the data by randomly selecting a representative sample of data points, and
independently determining the accuracy through direct observations.
Task 2: Analyze existing Equity Study data to assess the geographic distribution of public
resources and funds (e.g. city, State, or Federal)
Methods
A. Assess the quality of the data to understand any qualitative concerns and limitations that would
impact data analysis or interpretation (i.e. period of time collected, geographically resolution of
the data, etc.).
B. Confirm the input and output variables for the analysis, and the geographical dividing line. Initial
request included the following 6 data sets, upon which this estimate is based:
o Input variable:
• Demographics, to include income, race, education level, marital status, home
owner or renter, property value and age
o Output variables:
• Public safety calls for service (location, response time)
NCBC 044
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
35
October 2017
• Street lights
• Code compliance requests
• Parks (exempt parks that are privately funded or charge for use)
• Transit ridership, shelters, benches
o Geographical dividing line
i. 16th Avenue
C. Perform the appropriate statistical analyses to assess any relationships amongst the input and
output (i.e. response) variables.
Methods:
Clarify Intent
WSU Metro team first met with Yakima City Council members on the Neighborhood and Community
Building Committee: Chair Dulce Gutiérez, Carmen Méndez and Avina Gutiérez, to further clarify the
scope of work, define the specific variables and geographic dividing line to be analyzed, and the overall
intent of the study. After receiving portions of the data and conducting an initial review, the Metro
Center team met by phone with City Manager Cliff Moore, Community Development Director Joan
Davenport, and city staff to clarify the intent of some portions of Task 1 of the Scope of Work, and to
make sure there was an understanding of the city’s interest in positive strategies for the future.
Through this discussion we came to understand that the language of the scope required clarification.
Task 1 “Validate Equity Study data” means something different in the academic realm and the applied
real-world one. A technical data validation process would be overly statistical, particularly with a
“representative sample of data points” across the various datasets, and would be both prohibitively
expensive and, most important, would not achieve the city’s objectives. Instead, we decided that we
needed to know if the city’s data are being collected and recorded in appropriate ways (Task 1, part A),
and whether it is useful to the current disparity analysis (Task 1, part B). Then, as appropriate, we would
check for accuracy of the acceptable data by ground-truthing through site visits (Task 1, part B) to
complete Task 1. We hope this clarification is helpful.
If the city would like to pursue the academic level of statistical validation of their collected data, the
Metro Center could assist in providing suggestions about how that could be done.
City of Yakima Data
For our process audit we reached out to city staff in multiple departments to learn about the internal
processes used to gather, compile, and store data for the Yakima Equity Study. Staff were uniformly
open and helpful in sharing with us their processes for data collection and handling, as well as the data
itself.
The Metro Center team contacted the City of Yakima’s Supervising Senior Analyst, Tom Sellsted to
obtain the five datasets of interest. After reviewing the data available, a Metro Center team member
spoke with Tom Sellsted and Jill Ballard to discuss the methods used to collect and display datasets in
the Equity Study’s ArcMap Online Story Maps. Mr. Sellsted also provided the Metro Center team with
contact information for the city data steward(s) of each of the five datasets, and the team scheduled
one-hour phone calls with each data steward. During these calls the Metro Center team asked questions
to identify and clarify our understanding of the methods used to collect the data used in the Equity
Study. We took detailed notes during the call and, in some cases, followed up with additional emails or
calls for clarification. The description of the methods used by the City of Yakima will be included in the
final report.
NCBC 045
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
36
October 2017
Additional Data
To supplement city data from the Yakima Equity Study, we compiled census data from the American
Community Survey (ACS) for each of the demographic “input” variables: income, race, education level,
marital status, and homeowner or renter. These data sets were collected for years 1980, 1990, 2000,
2010, and 2015. These data will be used as input variables to run statistical analysis of output variables
(Task 2, part B), as well as to tell the demographic story of Yakima over time as discussed in the Metro
Center/City staff telephone conversation mentioned above.
Data for property value and age has also been collected. Since these data include time stamps, they will
allow for a longitudinal analysis of age and value through the years that we have census data.
Results and Analysis
Process and Accuracy Audit
Our analysis suggests the City of Yakima has a professional and appropriate process for collecting,
storing, and analyzing data, and a staff knowledgeable in the data infrastructure. Additionally, most of
the data is recorded and handled in a reasonable and professional manner for its original intent: to
support the city's geospatial data and land use planning. We note that the city’s GIS architecture has
been developed over more than 30 years, a positive quality which means that the city has a mature
system in place.
An accuracy audit was conducted on a sample of city parks, on both the east and west sides of 16th
Avenue, to assess parks data - one of the most complete and historically available datasets provided.
This audit will also add richness to the binary nature of the parks data, and will help us understand
whether there are qualitative differences in park resources across that geographic dividing line. The
results of that audit will be presented in the final report.
We found no major sources of explicit bias in the collection, handling or storing of data, but we do
recognize some sources of potential unintended consequences that may insert bias into the city’s data
collection for some of the datasets provided. These will be detailed in the final report.
Data Quality and Limitations
While the city is to be commended for its long commitment to a citywide Geographic Information
System, staff and council should understand that, because the datasets were collected and developed
for purposes than an analysis, or to assess disparity, most are insufficient to demonstrate either
disparity/inequity or associated causation. The original intent of the data collection ultimately limits our
ability to use the data to answer some of the current equity questions regarding past city practices: it is
simply invalid for those purposes based on the time period, scale, or collection method used.
In the Appendix, we provide a summary table of this data and its possible usage. We hope this will help
council understand possible approaches they might take, and what analyses are not supported by the
data. Much of this work is part of Task 2, part A.
Recommendations
We note that while the data is too variable in quality, especially with regard to availability over time, to
do historical examination of whether city resources have been distributed equitably, we think that a
current “snapshot” or examination of existing conditions is appropriate and warranted.
NCBC 046
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
37
October 2017
Most of the contemporary data statistical analysis on the correlation of demographic variables (such as
poverty, race, etc.) with geographic location is appropriate. And, when compared or cross-checked with
a historical analysis of the growth of the city through annexation and demographic change over 30
years, we think a reasonable story can be developed to answer some of the equity questions. Moreover,
we will be able to point to areas where the city may be able to implement future strategies that will lead
to positive outcomes.
Our understanding of the Code Compliance data, though, suggests that this dataset remains problematic
for analyzing equity due to the anonymous nature in which the data is collected. However, further
conversations with city staff might clarify for us some possible lines of inquiry for which the Code
Compliance data could be used.
Next Steps
We will complete any remaining portions of Task 2 Parts A and B, and complete the analysis in Task 2
Part C including the accuracy audit on parks data, historic and contemporary demographic maps and
historic demographic summary tables, and contemporary disparity/equity statistical analyses as
appropriate. The demographic maps will show “input” variables across the period 1980-2015. We will
then draft a final report of our findings for the city.
Timeline to Completion
Due to some of the challenges presented by the data, we request an extension of the contract to
October 31, or a mutually agreeable date.
Attachments
Appendix – Summary of Data Utility
Appendix 1 – Summary of Data Utility page 1
Output
Variable
Recommended use in
Equity Study
Limitations Recommendations
Public Safety
Calls (for
Service)
● Analyze current
disparities in
response times for
both Fire and Police
Services
● Analyze Fire and
Police services by
council district and by
16th Avenue dividing
line
● GIS Data are only available
from 2012 to present day (not
suitable for historical analysis)
● Walk-in cases to YPD are not
consistently tracked. The
database is shared with
SunComm
Street Lights ● Analyze current
disparities in street
light presence per
council district, by
demographic output
variables
● Historical data not available in
GIS format
● Define levels of service
(LOS) standards for
street lights throughout
the City of Yakima
NCBC 047
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
38
October 2017
Code
Compliance
Requests
● Display the data
spatially to identify
possible disparities
● Data in GIS format are only
available from 2015 to present
day (not suitable for historical
analysis)
● There are many confounding
factors that could lead to
disparities in types of code
complaints, and responses
● Create tag to identify
which code compliance
cases were received by
Yak Back, phone calls,
emails, or other
methods
● Develop documentation
of response
prioritization criteria
Parks • Analyze the
development of
parks in each council
district over time, by
population
• Analyze the
development of
parks in each council
district over time, by
demographic
characteristics
Appendix - Summary of Data Utility page 2
Output
Variable
Recommended use in
Equity Study
Limitations Recommendations
Transit
(Ridership)
● Historical data not available in
GIS format
● Obtain data for analysis
of disparities in level of
service for transit
Transit
(Benches)
● Review criteria for
placement of benches to
prioritize need as well as
feasibility, and ridership
Transit
(Shelters)
● Review criteria for
placement of shelters to
prioritize need as well as
feasibility, and ridership
(Note: The Appendix may be updated in the final report as warranted)
NCBC 048
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
39
October 2017
Appendix B – Summary of Accuracy Audit Findings
Park Name Data
Errors
(Y/N)
Reported Location and
Amenities
Observed Location and
Amenities
Notes
McGuinness
Park
No
errors
14th Ave & Swan Ave
● Playground
● Picnic Shelter
● Basketball court
● Asphalt pathway
14th Ave & Swan Ave
● (1) Playground
● (1) Picnic shelter
● (1) basketball court
● Asphalt pathway
Shelter fits four
picnic tables
Emil Kissel
Park
No
errors
3000 W Mead Ave
● Tennis Center (12
courts)
● (1) Restroom
● Playground
● Asphalt path
● Picnic Shelter
● Basketball court
3000 W Mead Ave
● (12) Tennis Courts
● (1) Restroom
● (1) Playground
● Asphalt path
● (1) Picnic Shelter
with grill
● (1) Basketball court
● Parking lot
(estimated* 83
stalls)
Picnic shelter
with grill, wall
on two sides
providing
shelter from
wind.
Gilbert Park No
errors
500 W Lincoln Ave
● Open Space
● Parking lot
500 W Lincoln Ave
● Open Space
● Parking lot
(estimated* 87
stalls)
South 2nd St
Park
No
errors
706 E Race St
● Open space
706 E Race St
11. Open space
Milroy Park No
errors
SE Corner of 16th & Lincoln
Ave
● Playground
● Restroom
● Volleyball court
● Horseshoe pits
SE Corner of 16th & Lincoln
Ave
● Playground
● Restroom
● Volleyball court
● Horseshoe pits
● Parking lot
(estimated* 29
stalls)
horseshoe pits
missing the
posts,
inoperable
West Valley
Community
Park
No
errors
1323 80th Ave
● (3) Picnic Shelters
● (2) Playgrounds
● (1) Restroom
1323 80th Ave
● (3) Picnic Shelters
● (2) Playgrounds
● (1) Restroom
Well
maintained
structures.
Horseshoe pits
NCBC 049
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
40
October 2017
● Horseshoe Pits
(unspecified
number)
● Basketball Courts
(unspecified
number)
● (4) Horseshoe Pits
● (2) Basketball
Courts
● (2) Parking lots
(estimated* 54, and
60+ stalls)
unmowed,
have tall
weeds.
Yakima
Arboretum
No
errors
1401 Arboretum Dr
● Open space
● Parking lot
● Jewitt center
(owned by
Arboretum, not
YPR)
1401 Arboretum Dr
● Open space
● Parking lot
(estimated* 135
stalls)
● Jewitt center
(owned by
Arboretum, not
YPR)
Fisher Golf
Course
No
errors
823 S 40th Ave
● 9-hole 3 par course
● Starter house
● Maintenance
building
823 S 40th Ave
● 9-hole 3 par course
● Starter house
● Maintenance
building
● Small parking lot
(estimated* 23
stalls)
Franklin
Park
No
errors
2101 Tieton Dr
● Outdoor pool
● (2) Small picnic
tables
● (1) Pavilion
● (1) Playground
● Tennis courts
(unspecified
number)
2101 Tieton Dr
● Outdoor pool
● (2) Small picnic
tables
● (1) Pavilion
● (1) Playground
● (6) Tennis courts
Previous capital
improvements
received
private funding
Kiwanis Park No
errors
1501 E Maple St
● Restrooms,
concessions
● Playground
● Picnic Shelters
(unspecified)
● (8) Baseball/softball
fields
● Basketball court
● Concrete skate park
1501 E Maple St
● Restrooms/concessi
ons
● (1) Playground
● (2) Picnic Shelters
● (8) Baseball/softball
fields
● (1) Basketball court
● Concrete skate park
● Large Parking lot
(estimated* 441
stalls)
Previous capital
improvements
received
private funding
NCBC 050
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
41
October 2017
1990 2000
2015 2010
1980
Appendix C – Demographic variables over time
All maps are available at http://gist.gis.washington.edu/yakima_equity/
Income - Median household income
1980 - 2010
NCBC 051
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
42
October 2017
1990 2000
2015 2010
1980
Marital Status – Percent Married
1980 - 2010
NCBC 052
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
43
October 2017
Income – Percent living below the poverty line
1980 - 2010
1980
1990 2000
2010 2015
NCBC 053
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
44
October 2017
Percent Non-White
1980 - 2010
1980
1990 2000
2010 2015
NCBC 054
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
45
October 2017
Percent Hispanic
1980 - 2010
1980
1990 2000
2010 2015
NCBC 055
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
46
October 2017
2010
Education Level - Percent college graduate
1980 – 2010
1980
1990 2000
2015
NCBC 056
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
47
October 2017
1990 2000
2015 2010
1980
Percent Renter Occupied
1980 - 2010
NCBC 057
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
48
October 2017
1990 2000
2015 2010
1980
Mean year home built
1980 - 2010
NCBC 058
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
49
October 2017
1990 2000
2015 2010
1980
Median Property Value
1980 - 2010
NCBC 059
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
50
October 2017
Appendix D – Project proposal
Objective:
To analyze data from the City of Yakima’s Equity Study to help inform the 2018 budget and future
budget decision.
Background
In May 2016, the Yakima City Council directed City staff to begin an Equity Study to research the
distribution of city funded services and improvements. This study was launched through the
encouragement of a private non-profit organization. The data collected to date have been made
available to the public on the City’s website at https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/equity-study/.
Representatives from the City of Yakima contacted WSU’s Metropolitan Center for Applied Research and
Extension (Metro Center) to assist the City with addressing equity concerns of Council Members around
resource allocation.
About the Metro Center
The Metro Center helps Washington’s cities and metropolitan communities create vibrant economies,
healthy communities, and sustainable environments. We do this by connecting decision-makers with the
expertise of Washington State University to produce practical solutions to the challenges of growth.
Using a project-based and client centered approach, the Metro Center remains flexible to respond to
emerging needs, and help communities build capacity to create sustainable solutions for the future.
About our process
The Metro Center compiles a unique team for each project with the necessary expertise and attributes
to successfully complete all project goals. Team members include WSU faculty and staff; however, we
also utilize external partners as needed for a project. Potential partners were contacted during the
creation of this draft to ensure that the Metro Center has the ability to undertake and fulfill the actions
proposed below. Their input and expertise is incorporated into this proposal.
Project Tasks:
Task 1: Validate Equity Study data
Methods
Confirm with City Council up to 6 data sets identified in Task 2 B, excluding US Census Bureau data, to
assess the validity of those data. For each data set selected we will conduct, as appropriate:
A. A process audit by interviewing City staff and reviewing documents associated with how these
data were collected, compiled, summarized, and made accessible to the public.
B. An accuracy audit of the data by randomly selecting a representative sample of data points, and
independently determining the accuracy through direct observations.
City of Yakima Responsibilities
City staff will make original data available for an audit and staff members will be available for questions.
NCBC 060
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
51
October 2017
Metro Center Deliverable
We will provide a written report of our findings to the City with an option for an in-person or remote
presentation.
Task 2: Analyze existing Equity Study data to assess the geographic distribution of public
resources and funds (e.g. city, State, or Federal)
Methods
A. Assess the quality of the data to understand any qualitative concerns and limitations that would
impact data analysis or interpretation (i.e. period of time collected, geographically resolution of
the data, etc.).
B. Confirm the input and output variables for the analysis, and the geographical dividing line. Initial
request included the following 6 data sets, upon which this estimate is based:
a. Input variable:
• Demographics, to include income, race, education level, marital status, home
owner or renter, property value and age
b. Output variables:
• Public safety calls for service (location, response time)
• Street lights
• Code compliance requests
• Parks (exempt parks that are privately funded or charge for use)
• Transit ridership, shelters, benches
c. Geographical dividing line
i. 16th Avenue
C. Perform the appropriate statistical analyses to assess any relationships amongst the input and
output (i.e. response) variables.
Metro Center Deliverable
We will provide a written report of the process we used for the analyses, results of the analyses, and an
interpretation of the data, with an option for an in-person or remote presentation.
City of Yakima Responsibilities
City staff will make all data sets, including any meta-data available to the WSU team in mutually agreed
upon format(S), documentation as to how data were collected, accessed, and / or manipulated as well
as being available to answer questions as needed.
Timeline
Completion by 90 days from initiation of the contract, or mutually agreeable date.
Budget: $25,100
The budget includes personnel, materials, travel, and WSU’s required 26% indirect costs.
Personnel
Includes all salaries, wages and benefits of project personnel required to implement project tasks as well
as administrative aspects of the project including, but not limited to, meetings, reporting, and
communication.
Materials
Materiel costs will be minimal and may include photocopying and binding of final reports.
NCBC 061
The WSU Metropolitan Center for Applied Research & Extension
City of Yakima Equity Study Analysis – DRAFT Final Report
52
October 2017
Travel
Travel costs will be incurred only as necessary to complete project tasks and will include: travel to and
from Seattle and Yakima, hotel and meals while in travel status, and local ground travel, as set by the
U.S. General Services Administration.
Indirect Costs
A Facilities and Administration (F&A or Indirect Cost) rate of 26% is added to all direct project costs.
NOTE: These are preliminary estimates only, and have not been reviewed by WSU contracting or finance
offices. As such, they are subject to modification as part of the formal contracting process. These
estimates include a good faith assessment of the appropriate Facilities and Administration (F & A or
Indirect Cost) recovery rates (26% for most activities herein), which may also be changed after formal
review. These estimates are provided to facilitate discussion and negotiation, but do not constitute a
formal offer or the basis of a formal contract – which may only be executed by the WSU Office of
Research Support and Operations. All expenses regarding the venue, food, and rentals are to be paid for
by the funder.
NCBC 062
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chair Dulce Gutiérrez and Members Avina Gutiérrez and Carmen
Méndez, Neighborhood and Community Building Committee
FROM: Sara Watkins, Senior Assistant City Attorney
DATE: October 16, 2017
SUBJ: Naches Parkway
_______________
Dear Chairwoman Gutiérrez and NCBC Members:
This memorandum addresses a number of options regarding Naches Parkway
and its regulations and status for your discussion at your meeting on Thursday,
October 19, 2017.
1. Naches Parkway
Currently Naches Parkway is designated not as a park but a “parkway.” Such
term is not defined in the municipal code. Neither is the term “park” in Title 13.
However, the parkway acts in part as a median strip between the northerly and
southerly lanes of travel along North and South Naches Avenue. It is not really a
park, and there is no trail or other pathway through the entire parkway. On some
sections there is a sidewalk.
2. Amendments to Chapter 13.20
YMC 13.20 addresses the curfew for parks. If the goal is to ensure that the
parkway is not being used between 10:00pm and 6:00am, a solution would be to
add, by specific name, the Naches Parkway (and the other pathways if desired)
to the Park Curfew ordinance. That way, YPD could enforce the park curfew
along the Naches Parkway as well as in the other parks.
There are specific requirements in the parks curfew ordinance that must be met
before someone can be cited for a violation, including that the park has
conspicuously posted signs warning against entry into or remaining in the park
during prohibited hours. YMC 13.20.030(B). Further, a person can’t be
convicted for violating the curfew unless a police officer warns them of the curfew
beforehand. YMC 13.20.030(C). A violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor.
3. Amendments to Chapter 13.16
Similarly, the Parks Rules and Regulations can be amended in a number of
different ways to address the specific matters pertaining to Naches Parkway.
1
NCBC 063
There already are some rules and regulations that mention “parkways” or
“boulevards” specifically which apply to the Naches Parkway, or otherwise refer
to all parks properties. For example, trash is not to be thrown on the “grass,
walks or driveways” but must be placed in trash cans provided. YMC 13.16.080.
Further, there can be no posting of signs or circulars in any “parkway.” YMC
13.16.060. No horses, mules or ponies are allowed “on any city boulevard.”
YMC 13.16.095. Animals are not allowed to run at large in any “parkway.” YMC
13.16.110.
Therefore, the Naches Parkway already has rules and regulations outlined in the
parks code provisions. If there are additional rules and regulations in the code
that the Council would like the parkways to be specifically subject to, staff could
add the word “parkway” or “boulevard” or “trail” (for the two other trail facilities) to
those specific provisions. It would be relatively easy to go through the ordinance
and add the words “parkway, pathways and trails” to the ordinance sections that
have relevant regulations that pertain to these properties and could aid YPD
and/or codes in enforcement of the park rules and regulations on the parkway,
pathway and trail properties.
4. Defining “parks,” “parkways,” and “trails.”
There are no definitions in the Parks Rules and Regulations ordinances. This
creates a situation where it may be confusing or ambiguous as to what the terms
mean. A section could be added defining these, and other park terms in the
ordinance. Staff would need to go through the ordinance and determine what
terms should be added to a definition section.
In so doing, staff would still need to determine, if desired by the Council, where
to insert additional language consistent with the definitions section. It will require
an analysis of the entire code section and re-drafting for consistency.
2
NCBC 064
Neighborhood & Community BuildingCommitteeOctober 19, 2017Naches Parkway Designation to Naches ParkQuick FactsNaches Parkway is 15 blocks long and stretches from Race Street north to H StreetEach block is approximately 40 feet wide and 435 feet long Total square footage of each block is approximately 17,500 square feet Each block is grass covered with mature trees Some of the trees on the parkway are quite large and are reaching the end of their life span A few large trees have been removed over the past few years Col. John J. WeisenburgerNCBC 065
NCBC 066
NCBC 067
NCBC 068
ONE TIME COSTOne time costs consist of the determination of amenities to place along the parkway.Benches start at $600 eachPicnic Tables start at $1,500 eachTrash receptacles are inexpensive. Decorative trash receptacles are $500 or more.Signage $80 per signANNUAL PROJECTED INCREASEDMAINTENANCE COSTS The estimated increase cost of annual maintenance of the parkway would be $8,500. Costs include:Additional labor for trash removal [Estimated 1.5 hours per day time needed to empty trash cans]Fees for trash disposal. NCBC 069
NCBC 070
NCBC 071
NCBC 072
NCBC 073
NCBC 074
NCBC 075
NCBC 076
NCBC 077
NCBC 078
NCBC 079
NCBC 080
Yakima City Council Committee Minutes
Neighborhood & Community Building Committee (NCBC)
City Council Chambers, City Hall
September 21, 2017
Committee Members Staff
Dulce Gutiérrez, Chair Joan Davenport Scott Schafer
Carmen Méndez Cliff Moore Ken Wilkinson
Avina Gutiérrez (excused absence) Rosalinda Ibarra Alvie Maxey
Holly Cousens (Alternate, not present) Randy Beehler
Chair Dulce Gutiérrez called the meeting to order at approximately 2:05 p.m.
Board Appointed Reports – Standing Item
Transit Development Plan/Transit Related Issues – Maxey reported that the Transit Development Plan was
approved. The Committee requested that the November 8th agenda be included in the next NCBC packet.
Parks & Recreation Commission – Wilkinson stated that Parks Commission is reviewing the Parks and
Recreation Comprehensive Plan. He also provided an update on the Randall Park parking lot project which is
being performed by the Streets Division.
Henry Beauchamp Community Center (HBCC) – Wilkinson recapped the HBCC quarterly meeting where
Adrianne Garner presented a report on programs and activities provided at the center.
Historic Preservation (HPC) – Nothing new reported.
Yakima Planning Commission – One position vacancy stills remains on the commission.
Bike/Pedestrian Committee – Mendez reported that the committee is reviewing the Bike Plan. Some
discussion ensued about whether the Committee reviewed and provided input on the Transit Development
Plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan.
Homeless Network – Moore briefly reported that Transform Yakima Together (TYT) is seeking funds to
manage winter weather shelters. Davenport added that the scoring committee is reviewing several
applications for winter weather funding. She also mentioned that the Homeless Network (CoC) and the
Homeless Planning Policy Council have held back to back meetings. Moore mentioned that TYT is
proposing that City Council consider an extension of the lease agreement at their current location; further
discussion continued on the topic.
TRANS-Action Committee –D. Gutiérrez announced that nominations are being accepted for positions on
their executive board; elected officials are encouraged to apply. Participation for the fair booth to promote
the agency’s purpose and increase engagement was discussed. The last meeting was held in conjunction with
DRYVE (Driving Rural Yakima Valley’s Economy).
Ethics & Equal Rights Committee (EERC) – Maria Rodriguez reported that additional meeting minutes will
be provided soon. She stated that the final report will be presented at an upcoming Council meeting.
Community Integration Committee (CIEC) – Arthur Alcazar reported their upcoming meeting dates are
September 25th and October 9th.
Update on Trial Period for Council Meeting Subtitles – In response to the Committee’s request, Beehler
updated on whether vendors allowed for shorter term periods for providing captioning services. He found
that of the providers he researched none of them offered contract length terms of less than one year. Nothing
further, no action taken.
Community Integration Exploratory Committee (CIEC) Presentation – Three members of the Community
Integration Exploratory Committee (Arthur Alcazar, Laura Armstrong, and Anita Quintana) presented their
3rd quarter report, previously presented to City Council on September 19th. The main focus for the third
quarter was executing a community survey. They concluded that the survey was a good pilot project;
however, it did not provide conclusive data. A preliminary outline for the structure of their final report was
handed out to the NCBC members present. They identified three key objectives which will be explained in
their final report: civic pride/sense of belonging; integration lens on policy making; and community outreach
and education. If the City Council decides to move forward, a framework for the implementation of a
Page 1
NCBC 081
permanent committee will be provided in their final recommendation. The NCBC members appreciated the
information they received and look forward to their final presentation.
Summary Status of Equity Study Analysis Project – Davenport summarized the first deliverable report from
Washington State University Metropolitan Center for Applied Research regarding the equity study analysis
project. Due to limitations in data availability, the WSU team determined that the City data did not include
the kind of information expected for this analysis. Therefore, WSU submitted a letter requesting an
additional 30 days to deliver the final report and ensure that the City receives a useful end product. The
current contract expires September 26th. The committee members expressed frustration about the timeliness
issues. Moore will discuss with Legal staff what options the City has to address their concerns.
Conclusion Report of Council Internship Program – As part of the City Council’s mentorship/internship
program, the Planning Division and Legal Department provided three high school students a paid
summer internship opportunity. Some of the duties performed included the sidewalk collector field
project, administrative office tasks, and attend meetings and required trainings. The salaries and
benefits amount totaled $10,289.30 which was paid from the ACLU settlement. D. Gutierrez noted
that the process has begun for the second year program. Mendez and Gutierrez agreed that the
success of the program be featured in an upcoming newsletter.
Approval of Minutes – A motion was made by Méndez, seconded by D. Gutiérrez, to approve the minutes of
08/17/2017 as presented; motion carried unanimously.
Recap of Deliverables – Staff reviewed the following list of deliverables from this meeting:
• Information about Naches Parkway; modifying the Park ordinance to include parkways or convert
Naches Parkway to a park – add to next month’s NCBC agenda
• Information on the WSU contract issues
• Feature the Council mentorship/internship program in the newsletter and/or press release
• Provide the November Transit Advisory Committee agenda in the October NCBC meeting packet
D. Gutiérrez announced that Spanish interpretation services are available; however, require a 48 hour
advance notice.
Audience Participation – Luz Gutierrez commended the success of the internship program. She spoke about
Academia America which provides citizenship education for limited English speakers and helps integrate
people into the community. She also invited the committee members to participate in an exploratory
committee being put together by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, RCDR, and the City to develop a
strategic plan for a proposed Centro de la Raza.
Adjourn – D. Gutiérrez adjourned this meeting at 3:05 p.m.; the next meeting is October 19, 2017.
Approved by:
Date Approved:
Prepared by: Rosalinda Ibarra, Community Development Administrative Assistant
Page 2
NCBC 082