HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2018 16A Council General Information1
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDASTATEMENT
Item No. 16.A.
For Meeting of: September 11, 2018
ITEM TITLE: Council General Information
SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Clear Tee, City Clerk
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
1. Memo to Council in response to Public Safety Committee questions about RV parking in the
City.
2. Gang Free Initiative final report by Steve Magellan as requested by Council on August 6,
2018.
3. Preliminary Council Agenda
4. City Meeting Schedule
5. Preliminary Future Activities Calendar
ITEM BUDGETED:
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
BOARD/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
O RV questions response
D GFI final report
O info
Upload Date
8%3012018
9/4/2018
9,/6/2018
Type
Co\,er Memo
Coyer Memo
Coker Memo
2
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor Coffey and the Yakima City Council
From: Cliff Moore, City Manager
Date: September 11, 2018
Re: Public Safety Committee questions
Council,
At the most recent Public Safety Committee meeting, committee members asked several questions about
RV parking for persons otherwise homeless:
1. What is the RV parking capacity at Camp Hope? On the day staff checked there was one RV
parked at Camp Hope. Camp staff believe that there would be capacity to park 10 — 12 RVs at the
camp any given time. Camp rules, consistent with the lease between the City and Transform
Yakima Together and City code, do not allow for individuals to live in RVs parked at the
camp. Further no RV park or RV facilities are contemplated by the Lease Agreement.
Camp Hope's rules require that all persons using the site for temporary homeless shelter be
housed in the dormitory style tents or be located within the family area. This is driven, in part, by
case law regarding privacy rights. A tent, RV or house is considered one's home for purposes of
privacy rights-- meaning that one's RV or individual tent is private property and the neither the
agency managing an RV or homeless camp, nor the City have the right to enter without
permission. This issue was a concern over the summer of 2016 when the homeless camp was
established on the City owned parking lot on the corner of 3' St and Walnut. Because individuals
were allowed set up their personal tents, the city did not have any way to know what activities
were happening inside.
2. Is RV Parking allowed on City Streets? City Code 6.91.080 governs the Parking of
Recreational Vehicles on City Streets:
Parked recreational vehicles.
(1) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to recreational vehicles parked on
any residential street for a period of not greater than twenty-four hours.
(2) Recreational vehicles may not be used as accessory dwellings unless otherwise
specifically permitted by the city.
(3) All recreational vehicles parked on city streets shall abide by the parking rules and
regulations of the city, including, but not limited to, Chapter 9.50 YMC. (Ord. 2016-012
§ 1 (part), 2016).
In short, according to City code as it now stands, RVs can be parked on a City street in one
location for up to 24 hours; parking beyond 24 hours would be a violation. Living in an RV and
moving every 24 hours would constitute a violation of section 2 above. The only locations where
RVs are specifically permitted by the City would be permitted RV parks.
3
Recently the King County Superior Court ruled that a homeless person using his RV as his
residence had the right to avoid that RV being sold to pay impound and penalty fees after it was
towed when he refused to move the RV after receiving notice to do so. The court found that the
City could not attach a lien on the RV (which essentially makes it impossible to collect the
impound costs), giving the homeless man homestead rights in his RV, and that the fees and costs
appropriated against him for violating the parking ordinances violated the 8t' Amendment against
excessive penalties. The judge found that based on his income, the penalty was excessive since it
was more than his monthly income (among other reasons). The City of Seattle appealed the
ruling, but it has not yet been heard by the Court of Appeals.
3. Could individuals live in RVs if the city were to allow them to park on the parcel currently
under consideration for a permanent low barrier shelter? This would be challenging for
several reasons. Essentially this would create an RV park which is not currently an allowed
zoning use at this location without a development permit. To open a campground/RV park on
that property it requires a Type 3 review and a public hearing in front of the hearing
examiner. This is a process which takes time. The proposed re -zone of the parcel from suburban
residential to general commercial has been driven by the understanding that the ultimate plan for
this parcel is that it would accommodate a permanent low barrier shelter; the re -zone application
does not contemplate an RV park as a use without a permit. In the General Commercial zoning
district, Campgrounds/RV parks are Type 2 (still heightened) review. In addition, RV parks are
required to have appropriate water connections, sewage dumping stations and electricity. Services
are not available to that property at this time.
4
The Yakima Gang Free Initiative
A Retrospective (2010 — 2015)
By Steven A. Magallan, MS
Magallan Consultancy, LLC
5
This document was prepared under City Contract No. 2017-152 from the Office of the City
Manager, City of Yakima. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in
this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the City of Yakima, the City Manager, or the Yakima City Council.
6
Yakima Gang Free Initiative: A Retrospective
Introduction:
The City of Yakima has a long history of gang suppression, intervention, and prevention efforts
dating back to the 1970s and the role out of the Juvenile Crime Act (1968). The city's efforts
have been primarily through the Yakima Police Department and limited partnerships with local
agencies and community-based organizations—Gang Intervention Project (1995), Gang
Resistance Education and Training (1998), and Safe Streets (2007) to name a few. It's important
to recognize that over the years these efforts have reached thousands of Yakima youth at
critical periods of their lives with life -changing experiences. Many of whom attribute their
ability to avoid gangs and associated problem behaviors to those experiences.
More recently, response and suppression efforts by the Yakima Police Department have
adopted national best practices in confronting the modern gang and its members. The
implementation of these strategies have led to increases in successful prosecutions for crimes
related to gang activity and an overall declining trend in crime.
In January 2010, the Yakima City Council considered options to addressing surges in gang -
related violent crimes including the development of a comprehensive anti -gang initiative—a
first for the city. Given the community's experience with gangs and gang related crime the
following principles were selected to guide the City of Yakima through the formation and
implementation of the initiative:
• The gang problem is not one that we can arrest our way out and expect sustained
success.
• Success in addressing the gang problem will require the engagement of community
members, social service providers and the faith based community.
• Additional resources are required in the areas of suppression, prevention and
intervention.
• Greater coordination among the city's efforts and those of other agencies engaged in
suppression, prevention, and intervention is required.
The Gang Free Initiative (GFI) was officially launched in March 2010 with the appointment of a
project manager and the selection of 27 local stakeholders to serve as the GFI Steering
Committee. The Steering Committee's primary focus was to conduct planning leading to the
development and promotion of strategies, programs, and activities aimed at reducing gang
related crime and violence. City Council approved the hiring of a GFI Strategic Consultant to
facilitate the community assessment, planning, and development activities and to assist in the
implementation of the GFI Action Plan.
What Worked:
The GFI has much to celebrate. First and foremost was the completion of a comprehensive
community needs assessment. The assessment provided the Steering Committee with an in-
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 1
7
depth understanding of the gang phenomenon specific to the City of Yakima. The community
assessment and subsequent community profile remain relevant to this date. The format was
created to accommodate routine updates (every 3 to 5 years) with minimal investment. Second
was the GFI general fund appropriation—another first for the City of Yakima. The funding would
support the expansion of social service to meet the needs of gang -involved youth and those at
greatest risk of gang involvement. Additionally, GFI funding would be used to move service
partners toward evidence -based programs and activities. Finally, since its inception, a total of
$611,817 have been brought into the City of Yakima and surrounding communities to support
gang prevention and intervention activities. Outside sources supporting GFI efforts over the
past six years include:
• Criminal Street Gang Prevention Intervention Project (2012)- $105,000
Led by the Yakima County Juvenile Court, CSGPIP funded the Yakima County Gang Resistance
and Intervention Project (GRIP) that included a network of gang prevention activities under
multiple community-based strategies embedded within two core functions—interventions
targeting gang involved youth and youth at high risk of gang involvement (i.e., relatives of
known gang members), and preventing further gang proliferation by enhancing positive youth
development opportunities in high risk communities. GRIP paralleled Yakima GFI Action Plan.
The GFI Community Profile was the primary tool in determining appropriate community
interventions. The following program objectives were crafted for this project:
Objective 1: Funded a Gang Intervention Specialist to conduct outreach to 120 gang involved
and high-risk youth over the 11 -month project period.
Objective 2: Provide 120 gang involved and high-risk youth over the 11 -month project period
with positive youth development programming, behavioral health interventions, family
reunification, outreach targeting chronically truant youth and their families, academic support,
school re -integration, and case management including home visits, referral and family
advocacy.
GRIP activities took place in three regional Youth Development Centers (YDC) managed by a
coalition of local stakeholders and service partners. Communities hosting centers include Upper
Yakima Valley (Region 1) -Yakima; Mid Yakima Valley (Region 2)-Toppenish; Lower Yakima Valley
(Region 3) -Sunnyside.
A total of 155 youth were served in Yakima County; 79 of whom were from the City of Yakima.
• Title V Disproportionate Minority Contact (2013) - $104,000
Led by the Yakima Juvenile Court, Title V DMC funded the Yakima County Youth Services Bureau
(YSB) to reduce overrepresentation of minority youth in the justice system. Over the 21 -month
project period the Youth Service Bureau worked with support from regional Community
Accountability Boards (CAB) to open 3 Youth Development Centers (YDC) in strategic locations
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 2
8
in Yakima County. The YDC's were patterned after the Day/Evening Reporting Center model
modified to support the pre -adjudicated youth with prevention and early intervention services.
Service centers were located in Yakima, Toppenish and Sunnyside.
Objective 1 was to reduce the number of minority youth referred to juvenile court. The YDC
was the primary strategy for accomplishing this objective. Juvenile justice officials along the
decision continuum had the option of deferring future actions for participation in intensive
intervention (i.e., FFT, MST, MRT, academic support, & life skills education). Each YDC
attempted to develop capacity to maintain a weekly caseload of 20 youth for a total of 60
countywide.
Objective 2 was to establish a framework for management and coordination. The primary
strategy for this objective is the addition of an countywide Project Coordinator, Expansion of
the Gang Commission, and establishment of Community Accountability Boards.
Objective 3 was to engage 240 youth in evidence -based prevention and intervention services
designed to mitigate the effects of the contributing mechanisms. Multiple strategies include
positive youth development programming (including community service), behavioral health
interventions, family reunification, outreach targeting chronically truant youth and their
families, academic support and instruction aimed at improving school success, school re-
integration, and case management including home visits, referral and family advocacy.
Objective 4 is to establish local funding streams in support of a comprehensive community
youth development initiative. The strategy focuses on the creation of an YSB with county fund
support coupled with municipal funding for regional service delivery.
The City of Yakima (Region 1) was the only region to provide outcomes.
Targeted Outreach 74
Completed WARNS 48
Completed Referrals 29
Completed Idividual Needs Assessments 19
Completed Individual Treatment Plans 12
Completed Behavioral Interventions 4
• At -Risk Youth Intervention Services (2014) - $103,906
The ARYIS project was awarded to YPAL and targeted 30 youth in evidence -based prevention
and intervention services designed to mitigate the effects of the environmental influences to
gang membership and associated problem behaviors. Project strategies included outreach
targeting chronically truant youth and their families, case management including home visits,
referral and family advocacy, curriculum -based life skills training, academic support and
instruction aimed at improving school success, and school reintegration, and positive youth
development programming including arts, culinary arts, wrestling and boxing. YPAL was able to
reach 119 youth with these services.
MagaIlan Consultancy, LLC 3
9
• Washington Fruit (2015) - $150,000
Washington Fruit partnered with the City of Yakima to address much needed updates in the
Miller Park Community Center for the purposes of better serving the residents of northeast
Yakima. Updates including major and minor remodels continue to date.
• Gang Repression Intervention and Prevention (2015 - 2018) - $248,867
The GRIP project was awarded to YPAL and targeted 105 youth in evidence -based prevention
and intervention services designed to mitigate the effects of the environmental influences to
gang membership and associated problem behaviors. Project strategies include outreach
targeting chronically truant youth and their families, case management including home visits,
referral and family advocacy, curriculum -based life skills training, academic support and
instruction aimed at improving school success, and school reintegration, and positive youth
development programming including arts, culinary arts, wrestling and boxing. No evaluation
data is available for this project.
The funding described above supported the following core GFI program components:
Youth Development Centers: multidisciplinary team approach designed to deter youth from
delinquency via a variety of community-based treatment interventions for at -risk and
delinquent youths. (W. Early, K. Gregory, A. Hand, J. L. Blankenship, and S. F. Chapman. 2010.
"Experimental Community -Based Interventions for Delinquent Youth: An Evaluation of
Recidivism and Cost Effectiveness." Unpublished manuscript. Howell, J. C. 2003. Preventing and
Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework.)
Academic Support: promotes academic and nonacademic development of young people.
(Grossman, J. Baldwin, M. L. Price, V. Fellerath, L. Z. Jucovy, L. J. Kotloff, R. Raley, & K. E. Walker.
2002. Multiple Choices After School: Findings From the ESS Initiative.)
Youth Development: program provides at -risk youths with alternatives to what they seek
through gang membership. (Arbreton, A., J.A., & W. S. McClanahan. 2002. Targeted Outreach:
Boys and Girls Clubs of America's Approach to Gang Prevention and Intervention.)
FFT & MST: family -based prevention and intervention programs that addresses complex and
multidimensional problems. (Sexton, T. L., & C W. Turner. 2010. "The Effectiveness of
Functional Family Therapy for Youth With Behavioral Problems in a Community Practice
Setting." Journal of Family Psychology 24(3):339-48. Timmons—Mitchell, J., M. B. Bender, M. A.
Kishna, & C. C. Mitchell. 2006. "An Independent Effectiveness Trial of Multisystemic Therapy
With
Additionally, peripheral initiatives also benefited from the comprehensive community
assessment and GFO coordination efforts including the following:
• Drug Free Communities Support Program (ESD105, 2011-2016; $625,000)
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 4
10
• Drug Free Communities Support Program (Safe Yakima, 2017-2022; $625,000)
• Community Prevention and Wellness Initiative (ESD105, 2013 -Present; $100,000
annually)
• Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse and Violence (Safe Yakima, 2014 -
Present; $40,000 annually)
Third was the expansion of the 211 [telephone] Information Network to include a gang hotline
and prescreening mechanism led by People for People. Finally, GFI was successful in creating
the Youth Development Team in collaboration with Yakima County Juvenile Court, Central
Washington Comprehensive Mental Health Services, Yakima School District, and Yakima Police
Department. The GFI Youth Development Team was designed to maximize the collective impact
of the many and varied resources available to address the youth gang problem. The Youth
Development Team (YDT) was at the core of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model and critical
to identifying and delivering intervention and prevention services.
These achievements were possible because of the exceptional support provided by the Yakima
City Council and Office of the City Manager. A stand -out characteristic of the GFI was the active
participation of Council members at each stage of the initiative and their willingness to consider
new and innovative approaches.
Barriers to Success:
While past and present suppression, prevention, and intervention efforts aimed at gang crime
and violence have been substantial, imbalance remains as does a lack of skilled coordination.
Much of the imbalance is due to a lack of sufficient resources directed toward prevention and
intervention. When compared to suppression resources, the community desire to reduce
and/or eliminate gang activity with prevention and intervention strategies has not been met
with local and state funding levels sufficient to effect community -level change. There are;
however, plausible explanations as to why funding has remained insufficient. One of which may
be rooted in the perceived unwillingness among key community partners to deploy personnel
and resources in a manner that achieves the desired outcomes and greatest impact expected
by the community they serve. Another may be a lack of fidelity if not open resistance to
evidence -based programs and strategies. Finally, and perhaps the most crucial to achieving
community -level change is the inability of traditional mainstream helping systems to reach and
fully engage gang members and those most at risk of gang membership with the much-needed
intervention and prevention services.
The GFI was modestly successful in engaging key community partners; however, of the 20 plus
agencies that attended the GFI Potential Bidders Meeting 5 responded to the official Request
for Qualifications (11221-P). The primary reason for the lack of interest was the amount of the
grant awards. Potential partners were primarily concerned with augmenting existing federal
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 5
11
and state funding sources with GFI funding without consideration to program modifications in
support of GFI goals and objectives. Additionally, there was a feeble attempt to expand existing
services to target youth at the highest risk for or active gang membership. Community-based
agencies with whom GFI partnered struggled to identify, engage, and sustain services with this
population. Training and technical assistance would have mitigated these issues; however,
attempts to provide training and technical assistance were met with aggressive resistance. GFI
Project staff reported comments such as: "this is our program; it works for us" and "we have
been doing this for years". One partner went so far as to opt out of the partnership rather than
accede to GFI recommendations. Social services providers are often locked into funding sources
that limit if not prohibit program modifications outside of their intended purpose. GFI
recommended significant program modifications and complete overhauls to meet the service
objectives described in the action plan. The local conditions verified by the community
assessment revealed that those most in need of gang prevention and intervention services
were not receiving them under the existing social services system—this truth persists to this
day.
The value of evidence -based practices has been fully inculcated among practitioners across
sectors. The past 40 years of science and technology have focused on providing evidence of
what works. Federal and state legislation require publicly funded initiatives be limited to
programs proven effective through multiple independent studies. The issue confronted by the
GFI involved local affiliates of national organizations whose programs lacked the rigorous
scientific research required of an evidence -based program. While successes may have been
achieved, national organizations and their affiliates systematically deemphasized the
importance of maximized impact and sustainability not to mention cultural relevancy with
internal, self-serving research designs. Partnerships with local affiliates proved difficult to
sustain due to an unwillingness to address program deficiencies with independently
researched, evidence -based adaptations which made it difficult to secure matching state and
federal dollars.
Unaffiliated and/or independent community based organizations lacked the resources to fully
implement evidence -based programming due to high initial investments for training and
curriculum. GFI was created to bridge this gap but funding was limited. Alliances with other
local funding agents such as the United Way and Yakima Valley Community Foundation were
proposed but never realized.
Outreach to the highest risk neighborhoods, families, and youth was a primary objective of GFI.
Outreach would feed the YDT mechanism ensuring that high risk youth were fully engaged in
prevention and intervention services. The biggest issue regarding GFI Outreach was the lack of
cooperation between the partner selected to lead outreach efforts and the outreach
mechanisms that would ensure a broad reach (211, marketing campaign, school district).
Additionally, the outreach leadership's operational philosophy was "one -child -at -a -time".
While this philosophy may appeal to those at arm's length; community -level change requires
MagaIlan Consultancy, LLC 6
12
system -level improvements backed by organizational change and a philosophy of "every -child -
all -the -time". This is one component that was fully funded in my opinion but poorly executed
by the partner. Again, GFI lacked sufficient leverage with the partner to effect necessary
changes.
The issue involving the lack of skilled project coordination is much more complex due to the
external nature of the task. The primary responsibility of a project coordinator is to keep the
project and all related processes running smoothly. Internal coordination differs from external
in that all related internal processes are interconnected and interdependent. External project
coordination relies on partnership agreements and, ultimately, sufficient leverage to bring
about the desired effect. This dynamic is better illustrated by state and federal initiatives with
attached funding mechanisms. The initiatives designee (federal/state employee) manages the
relationship between multiple grant recipients to ensure goal and objective alignment urging
adjustments at the risk of a reduction in or loss of funding. The first year of GFI implementation
outsourced the coordination services and a Project Coordinator was hired from a small pool of
applicants. The Coordinator struggled to define her relationship with the service partners and
the Project Manager was unable to dedicate sufficient time to training and coaching. This lack
of competency in the coordinator to fulfill the duties required of the position coupled with the
small contractual amounts proved fatal to the GFI Coordination function.
In Year 2 of Implementation, coordination services were brought in-house. The issue with this
change in dynamic was that the new coordinator had multiple duties including emergency
management. GFI coordination devolved into grant/contract management. In hindsight,
greater cooperation with the United Way and the Yakima Community Foundation may have
resulted in more influence over service partners. A common practice that persists to this day is
the request for a Letter of Support/Commitment. Since most funding agents require these
letters accompany applications, the city of Yakima should adopt a more discerning fulfillment
process; one that considers each request in the context of the city's priorities.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The City of Yakima invested heavily in creating a system for investigating and responding to
juvenile crime and violence within the context of criminal street gangs. The city should renew
its commitment to conducting routine community needs assessments and resources analysis.
In doing so, the city preserves its role as convener driving resource development activities with
consideration to not only the greatest need but also the opportunity for maximum impact.
Funding should begin locally (city, county, local foundation and fund-raising mechanisms) with a
focus on core service delivery, capacity and competency. Because most state and federal
funding is project -specific and 3 to 5 years in length, it should be viewed as an opportunity for
expansion and enhancement through innovation as opposed to a primary source of program
funding.
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 7
13
The GFI Action Plan is a good place to start. Implementation should be phased in with an
emphasis on building a funding cooperative (i.e., foundations, districts, faith -based) as a
dedicated revenue generating mechanism. Several models exist for how to accomplish this
including licensing, fees, fines and levy's. Phase two should incorporate a resource assessment
and gap analysis. Licensing requirements that include standards of practice for service
providers is an area requiring attention. Phase three of implementation should include a
required professional development (training and TA) component.
With regard to the funding level needed for full implementation, there are several cost benefit
models from which to derive a formula. The Wallace Foundation provides one such model.
Average participant costs are between $2,940-$6,510 for programs serving elementary and
middle school students based on region and community size. Based on the need determined by
the 2011 Community Profile which established a gang involvement (membership and affiliation)
rate of 15%, you can deduce a GFI implementation budget of between $1,550,115 and
$3,432,397. (YSD Middle School Enrollment 3,515 x 15% = 527.25 at high risk for gang
involvement. 527.25 x $2,940 - $6,510 = GFI Budget.)
Respectfully submitted on October 16, 2017 by Steven A. Magallan, Magallan Consultancy LLC.
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 8
14
RESOURCES
City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative. City of Yakima Community Profile: A comparative analysis of
the social, economic, and environmental influences supporting the existence of youth gangs and
associated problem behaviors. (2011) City of Yakima.
City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative. Community Action Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to the
Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression of Youth Gangs. (2012) City of Yakima.
City of Yakima Strategic Plan. Public Safety Strategy #4: City of Yakima GFI Implementation Plan.
(2013) City of Yakima.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Best Practices to Address Community
Gang Problems — OIIDP's Comprehensive Gang Model; Second Edition. (2010) National Gang
Center.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 0.1.DP Comprehensive Gang Model: A
Guide to Assessing Your Community's Youth Gang Problem. (2009) Institute for
Intergovernmental Research.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 0.1.DP Comprehensive Gang Model:
Planning for Implementation. (2009) Institute for Intergovernmental Research.
Rehabilitation Administration/Juvenile Rehabilitation. Youth Employment Support Services Final
Report. (2015) Washington State Department of Social and Health Services.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Strategic Prevention Framework:
Guide to Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation. (2011) Statewide Epidemiology Outcomes
Workgroup.
University of Washington Center for Strong Schools. Washington State Criminal Street Gang
Prevention and Intervention Multi -Site Evaluation: Final Report. (2013) Washington State
Partnership Council for Juvenile Justice.
Magallan Consultancy, LLC 9
15
YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL
September 18, 2018
City Hall Council Chambers
5 p.m. Executive Session; 6 p.m. Business Meeting
EXECUTIVE SESSION
1, Executive Session to review the performance of a public employee
BUSINESS MEETING
1. Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Interpreter Services
4. Open Discussion for the Good of the Order
A. Presentations / Recognitions / Introductions
Larson Gallery presentation
ii. 2018 Solid Waste Division's Summer Mentorship - Internship Presentation
5. Council Reports
A. Council Partnership Committee recommendation regarding Larson Gallery letter of
support
B. Council Healthy Communities & Neighborhood Building Committee report regarding alley
gates east of the Salvation Army between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue between Chestnut
Avenue and Yakima Avenue
6. Consent Agenda
Items listed are considered routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion without
discussion. A Council member may request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda and, if approved,
it will be placed on the regular agenda for discussion and consideration.
A. Project Completion and Contract Acceptance for DW Excavating Inc. - Project 2448 N.
49th Ave Drainage
B. Project Completion and Contract Acceptance for Reclaim Company - Project 2384 Rebid
Pond Maintenance Randall Park
C. Project Completion and Contract Acceptance for TTC Construction, Inc. - Project
SW2468 DID #38 Emergency Repair.
D. Resolution authorizing Rent-A-Car agreement between The Yakima Air Terminal -
McAllister Field and ARLS LLC dba Avis Car Rental
E. Resolution authorizing Rent-A-Car agreement between The Yakima Air Terminal-
McAllister Field and The Carey Company dba Budget Car and Truck Rent.
F. Resolution authorizing Rent-A-Car agree nt between the Yaki Ar Ter
McAllister Field and The Hertz Corporation dba Hertz Rent-A-Car
16
G. Resolution adopting Yakima Transit's Transit Develop nt Plan for 2018-2023 and
annual report for 2017
H. Resolution authorizing an Agreement with the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
(YVCOG) for sharing Transit planning information for Yakima Transit to be eligible for
State and Federal funding opportunities through YVCOG.
7. Public Comment
Community members are invited to address items that are not listed on the regular business meeting
agenda. A guideline of three (3) minutes per speaker is in place in order to allow as much opportunity as
possible for audience participation. A speaker's time may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor
and/or the consensus or vote of the Council. Written communication and e-mail messages are strongly
encouraged.
DEPARTMENT ITEMS
8. Resolution authorizing a contract with Landau Associates for environmental consulting services
related to the Mill site and related road development, not to exceed $240,000
9. Other Business
10. Adjournment
The next meeting will be a City Council Special Meeting on September 20, 2018, at 5 p.m. at City Hall
in the Council Chambers
11. Council General Information
A. Council General Information
B. 2nd Quarter Municipal Court Statistic Report
Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Council meeting shall be the
voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Council. The views or beliefs
expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Council,
and the Council does not endorse the religious beliefs or views of this, or any other speaker.
A Council packet is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and on-line at wwwyakimawa.gov.
The City provides special accommodations, such as hearing devices, wheelchair space or language
interpreters, for City meetings. Anyone needing special assistance please contact the City Clerk's
office at (509) 575-6037 at least two business days prior to the meeting.
CITY MEETING SCHEDULE
For September 10, 2018 — September 17, 2018
Please note: Meetings are subject to change
orday. September 10
8:30 a.m.
10:30 a.m.
3:30 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
Pension Boards — 1St Floor Conference Room
City/County study session — Council Chambers
Civil Service Commission — Council Chambers
Community Integration Committee — Council Chambers
Tuesday, September 11
10:00 a.m. County Commissioners — Council Chambers
11:00 a.m. Bid opening — Council Chambers
5:30 p.m. City Council executive session — Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. City Council meeting — Council Chambers
Wednesday, September 12
10:00 a.m.
3:00 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
Bike & Ped Committee — 2nd Floor Conference Room
Planning Commission — Council Chambers
Parks and Recreation Commission — Council Chambers
Thursday, September 13
9:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
1:30 p.m.
Hearing Examiner — Council Chambers
Healthy Communities & Neighborhood Building Committee — 2nd Floor
Conference Room
Yakima Regional Clean Air — Council Chambers
17
Meeting
Daterlinte
Mon. Sept. 10
0:30a.D1.
1O:3Om.m.
5:30 p.m.
Tues. Sept11
11:30 a.m.
5:30 p.m.
Wed. Sept. 12
1U:O0o.nn.
1:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m,
5:30 p.m.
� + `
Thur. Sept. 13
S:0]a.mn.
10:00 a.m.
1:00 p.m,
1:30 p.m.
Office of Mayor/City CouncH
Preliminary Future Acflvities Calendar
Please Note: Meetings are subject to change
Organization Meeting Purpose Participants
18
Pension Board meetings
City/County Study Session
Community Integration
Committeenneetinw
Chamber Board meeting
City Councfl Executive
Session
Cit Council meetin•
Meeting Location
Board Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Board Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled K8eetin.�
Gutierrez
Council
White
White
Council
Council
lst Floor Conference Room
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
Chamber of Commerce
Council Chambers
Bike & Ped Committee
Yakima County lntegration
Plan Committee
Planning Commission
Homeless Network of
Yakima
Parks & Recreation
Commission
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Council Chambers
2nd Floor Conference Room
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Dept. of Ecology
Council Chambers
Neighborhood Health
Scheduled Meeting
Council Chambers
(T) County -City
Intergovernmental
Committee meeting
Healthy Communities &
Neighborhood Building
Committee
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Board Meeting
Seniors Inc. Board meeting
Hill, Mendez,
Coffey
Coffey, VVhde,
Funk
Yakima Regional Clean Air
Scheduled Meeting
Hill
Mendez
CM Conference Room
2nd Floor Conference Room
Harman Center
Council Chambers
Mon. Sept. 17
1:30 p.m.
Scheduled Meeting
YVCOG
Tue. Sept. 18
10:00 a.m.
5:00 p.m.
� -
�.'
6:00 *m.
Wed. Sept19
12:00 p.m.
12:00 p.m.Board Meeting
Brownfields workshop
City Council Executive
Session
Cit Council meetin•
010 Board meeting
YPAL Board Meeting
Scheduled Event
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Board Meeting
Mendez
Council
Council
Cousens
White
Convention Center
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
{}|C
WA Fruit Community Center
2:00 ,rn.
Thur. Sept. 20
8:30 a.m.
5:00 p.m:
Sun. Sept. 23
1:30 p.m.
TRANS -Action meetin
Partnership Committee
meeting
2019 budget discussion
and •re aration
Mayor welcome - WA State
Judges Conference
Scheduled Meetin
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Event
Gutierrez
Coffey, Hill,
Mendez
Council
Coffey
19
WSDOT
CM Conference Room
Council Chambers
Convention Center