Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/05/2010 08 2011 Budget Forecast and Public Hearing Set Dates for 2011 Ad Valorem Tax and 2011 Proposed Budget
ITEM TITLE BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No 8A & 8B For Meeting Of. October 05, 2010 Presentation of the 2011 General Government Budget Forecast and Set Dates for Public Hearings on A. 2011 Ad Valorem Tax, and B 2011 Proposed Budget SUBMITTED BY City Manager and the Finance Department CONTACT PERSON Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director Accounting and Budget or Rita DeBord, Finance Director (# 509 / 575-6070) SUMMARY EXPLANATION 2011 Budget Forecast: Attached is the 2011 General Government Budget Forecast for the City of Yakima for Council information and reference as you deliberate on the 2011 budget. Staff is submitting this information to Council approximately two weeks earlier than normal in order to provide Council and the public more time to read and review the proposed changes and reductions to the 2011 budget prior to (a) the November elections, at which time the voters will be asked to vote on ballot measures which could have a significant negative impact on the City's future revenues and the related services, and (b) when Council will need to make their final decisions regarding the 2011 budget. Continued on next page Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) Motion to set dates Contract Mail to (name and address) Funding Source APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL Phone City Mana• er STAFF RECOMMENDATION Set Dates noted below for public hearings on the 2011 Budget BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION 2011 Budget Forecast, cont: Please note the enclosed Forecast includes information regarding the General Government budget (general fund, street and traffic fund and parks fund) only The balance of the City-wide budget will be presented to Council at your next regular business meeting, on October 19, 2010, as staff was not able to prepare the entire 2011 Budget Forecast prior to this meeting Refer to the Table of Contents in the attached Budget Forecast to identify the specific information that is enclosed, and general information regarding the information that will be submitted at a later date Set Dates of Public Hearings regarding the 2011 Budget: It is necessary and desirable to schedule two public hearings regarding the 2011 Budget, as follows A. Set date of public hearing regarding the 2011 Ad Valorem Tax (property tax) for Tuesday, November 16, 2010, during Council's regular business meeting* B Set date of public hearing on the proposed 2010 budget for Tuesday, November 16, 2010, during Council's regular business meeting* * Note Council business meetings are held in Council Chambers in City Hall, the business meetings commence at 6 00 pm, however, the public hearings commence at 7 00 pm 2011 budget Eorecast City of • Washington Origina('Yakima City .1 -fa(( Built 1885 Quasquicentennia(- 125 'Years Incorporated 1886 Equipment Rental $5.0 Million Water & Irrigation $14.0 Million Wastewater $36.3 Million CITY OF/f Washington 2011 BUDGET FORECAST �... �..._.. & Risk Management $12.4 Million Police, Courts, Fire (Public Safety) $40.2 Million Transit $7.7 Million Stormwater $2.9 Million Non -Utility Capital Improvement $18.3 Million City Administration $6.5 Million Information Systems & Other Services $7.4 Million Jther Operating Funds $15.5 Million Streets, Engineering, Planning & Codes $5.8 Million Parks and Recreation $4.0 Million Community & Economic Development $2.4 Million $189.8 MILLION Preface —1 CITY OF Y N Washington VISION STATEMENT To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant, safe, and strong Yakima community MISSION STATEMENT To provide outstanding services that meet the community's needs To govern responsibly by effectively managing and protecting public resources To build trust in government through openness, diverse leadership, and communication To strategically focus on enhancing Yakima's quality of life STRATEGIC DIRECTION PRIORITIES Maintain and Improve Public Health and Safety Efficiently Manage Public Resources and Ensure Fiscal Stability Promote Economic Development and Diversification Preserve and Enhance Yakima's Quality of Life Provide Responsive Customer Service and Effective Communications Build and Utilize Strategic Partnerships ADOPTED MARCH 2009 Preface — 3 CITY OF Vl�F.Lut 2011 BUDGET FORECAST TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS I. INTRODUCTION Transmittal Memo Executive Summary Budget Highlights II. GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Partially Enclosed - Balance of material to be submitted at a later date) Year in Review Revenue Trends Expenditure Trends IIL GENERAL GOVERNMENT — DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION To be submitted at a later date: IV. WHAT YOU PAY AND WHAT YOU GET V. OTHER FUNDS VI. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND EXHIBITS I. THREE-YEAR BUDGET COMPARISON II. POLICY ISSUE SUMMARY III. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT MODEL (MAP) Preface — 5 INTRODUCTION: TRANSMITTAL MEMO OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 129 North Second Street City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6040 MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 5, 2010 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council SUBJECT: City Manager's 2011 Preliminary Budget Forecast Message Pursuant to the provisions in the City Charter, I am presenting the 2011 Budget Forecast for the City of Yakima. The proposed total City Budget for 2011 is $189.8 million, is balanced within existing reserves, and is 7.5% less than the 2010 amended budget. The proposed City General Government Budget for 2011 is $56.8 million, and is also balanced within existing resources in accordance with the Council's "Priorities of Government Model," adopted last year. The General Government Budget for next year is 5.2 % less than the 2010 amended budget. Moreover, since 2009 the General Government Budget has been decreased by 9%. Today, like many local government entities throughout Washington State and across the nation, the City of Yakima is at a crossroads. A persistent national economic recession has severely curtailed the City's traditional sources of income, resulting in chronic funding shortfalls. Additionally, ballot initiatives which restrict and reduce financial support to fund basic government services continue to be advanced in Washington State. At the local level, this has contributed to the consistent depletion of basic resources to pay for core essential municipal services such as police, fire, streets, parks, planning and others. Substantial spending reductions and other cuts in services have become a way of life for all governments for the past several years. I have helped to develop and administer 38 budgets during my career with the City of Yakima. This is my last budget as your City Manager. In that time, the City has faced and overcome many financial challenges, maintained essential services and remained fiscally stable. However, at no point during my tenure have the budget needs been so great nor have the City's ability to maintain its basic government services in the future been as threatened as they are today. The hard reality is that the City's present funding and tax revenues are not capable of sustaining current municipal services. Unless and until those and other key economic factors change, a continued erosion and outright elimination of many of the City's basic programs and services is inevitable. Introduction: Transmittal Memo • Section I —1 Tax revenues are the primary source of funding for the General Government portion of the City's budget, which includes police, fire, parks, finance, information systems, planning, streets and other services. For the past several years, the City's sales tax revenues, which equal nearly 30% of all revenues, have been on a downward trend. Sales tax revenues in 2009 were lower than 2008 and are down even more in 2010. The same is expected for 2011. Other general government revenues such as property taxes, state shared revenues, and utility taxes have also been declining, limited or reduced by voter approved initiatives. Overall, General Government revenues for 2011 are projected to be less than this year's actual projections, and future revenue growth is highly uncertain. The City of Yakima has established a consistent track record of living within our means. Over the past three years, as the economy has faltered and tax revenues have declined, the City has made reductions in General Government programs, services and staff levels in order to maintain a balance between revenues and expenditures. From 2009 through 2010, the City has reduced spending by over $5.6 million and eliminated 30 full time positions in its General Government budget. Most City employees' salaries have been frozen several times in recent years and furloughs have been implemented this year for 225 employees. The elimination of the 30 positions represents over 60,000 hours of labor no longer being provided to the residents of our community. Expenses have been cut, operations have been consolidated, efficiencies have been increased, and available outside funding sources have been maximized. Despite these efforts, the City has had to spend nearly 45% of its reserves over the past two years in order to balance its budget. As a result, General Fund Reserves are now at the bare minimum to maintain needed cash flow and cover emergencies. Yakima is not unique in facing difficult choices regarding public services. In Washington State, most cities are cutting services, staff and programs significantly. The City of Lynnwood is planning to lay off a quarter of its workforce by the end of this year. Bellevue is proposing to close park restrooms, limit weekend hours at its community center, postpone bike lane and sidewalk construction, and layoff 25 staff. King County plans to eliminate 500 employees, including 28 deputy sheriff positions. Federal Way is slated to cut 46 staff positions, including 18 in its police department. Spokane anticipates reducing its workforce by 120 employees, including 47 police department staff and 28 fire fighters. Vancouver expects to let go more than 100 employees and close a fire station. The State of Washington also faces a crippling budget shortfall now and for the next biennium. Over the past decade, there have been several Initiatives on the ballot that reduced municipal government revenues, and 2010 is no exception. In November, citizens will be asked to vote on Initiatives 1100 and 1105; both would eliminate liquor profits and I-1105 would also eliminate the liquor tax, if approved. Both initiatives close state liquor stores and privatize the sale and distribution of liquor, though they have different effective dates and different impacts to state and local governments. The revenues received from liquor profits and taxes are dedicated to public safety services in our City. Should I-1100 or I-1105 be approved by voters, the City of Yakima could expect to see its public safety revenues reduced by over $1.1 million annually. 2 — Section I • Introduction: Transmittal Memo In order to attain a balanced General Government Budget next year, the spending reductions proposed in this Forecast total $2.3 million An additional reduction of up to $1.3 million may be needed to accommodate the potential loss of liquor taxes and profits, as well as unknown labor settlements and state pension mandates. If all reductions are made, the total would be $3.6 million and eliminate up to 30 more additional staff positions next year and reduce other services across the entire "Priorities of Government Model" in proportion to their share of available budget resources. Simply put, if all of the proposed reductions are implemented, the City cannot maintain the current level of services it provides to the community. The cumulative effects of reductions in personnel and level of service implemented over the past several years have been significant. While this budget proposal is balanced within existing resources, the additional expenditure reductions in city services are alarming. As a result, given the adverse impact of the budget reductions on public services presented herein, I feel obligated to also submit a tax proposal for your consideration, this year, to help mitigate some of the proposed budget cuts included in this Forecast. This is the first major tax proposal to help balance the City's budget that I have made in more than a dozen years and it is not made lightly. I am proposing that the City Council consider approving an increase in the tax applied to City owned water, wastewater, refuse and stormwater utilities, as well as to private water and refuse services. I am also suggesting that the tax increase proposal include a provision to sunset in three years to allow an opportunity to determine if the economy will recover and other spending reductions can be made in the interim. Should the proposed utility tax increase be adopted, an average household in Yakima would pay less than five dollars more per month. The total amount raised through this tax would be approximately $2.1 million. Even if utility taxes were to be increased, not all of the $3.6 million in reductions included in this Forecast could be avoided. However, the potential decreases in City services to our community would be far less dramatic. In the nearly four decades that I have been privileged to serve here, Yakima has experienced tough times and has repeatedly proved its resilience and ability to overcome, adjust and we will do so again. City Management is prepared to assist the Council in every way we can to help you reach final decisions on the City budget for 2011 and the services we will deliver to the public this next year. Respectfully submitted, City Manager Introduction: Transmittal Memo • Section I — 3 INTRODUCTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary provides a high-level overview of the 2010 year-end forecast and the proposed 2011 budget, along with significant issues that have affected the City's fiscal position in the past year and / or anticipated to have a material impact in 2011. More details regarding these issues can be found in the "Budget Highlights" pages at the end of this Section and / or in Section II – General Government Budget. 2010 YEAR END FORECAST Current revenue projections indicate that 2010 year-end General Government revenues will be slightly less than 2009 Actual revenues (or $57.1 million); with a decrease of 0.4% projected in 2011 (to $56.9 million). The 2010 General Government revenue budget was anticipated to be $58.1 million over the prior year—a modest growth estimate of 1.3%; however, several major revenues lagged behind estimates. The underlying economic crisis extended the drop in Sales Tax and interest rates into 2010. Additionally, the City's success in fighting crime caused a reduction in State Shared Revenue dedicated for Criminal Justice; while the mild winter and underlying rate adjustments resulted in a sharp decrease in Natural Gas utility tax. These revenue reductions necessitated City management to devote significant time and effort during the year focused on reducing 2010 expenditures more than $1 million below the City Council's original authorized budget levels. Current expenditure projections indicate that 2010 year-end General Government expenditures will be ($1.2) million less than budgeted (refer to Section II for more information on the budget reductions). Management's unwavering focus on reducing the City's 2010 expenditures resulted in projections that 2010 year-end expenditures will be less than budgeted in all General Government operating funds and in total for all funds, city- wide. This was a very difficult task, with serious consequences to some municipal services; however, it was of critical importance that these reductions be made in order to maintain the City's fiscal stability going into the coming year, which is not expected to offer much economic relief – as is reflected in the following chart. Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I – 5 2010 VS. 201 1 EXPENDITURE BUDGET COMPARISON 0) (TRADITIONAL BUDGET MODEL) I0 vs. II 2010 20I0 AMENDED YEAR-END AMENDED 201 I BUDGET FUND ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET % CHANGE General $49,298,806 $50,257,377 $47,741,765 (5.0%) Parks 4,133,782 4,218,655 4,006,862 (5.0%) Street & Traffic 5,308,117 5,424,662 5,041,006 (7.1%) TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 0) $58,740,705 $59,900,694 $56,789,633 (5.2%) Community Development (2) $5,024,318 Utilities / Other Operating 58,938,969 Capital Improvement 40,510,007 Contingency / Risk Mgmt Rsys (3) 3,003,551 Employee Benefit Reserves 13,252,961 General Obligation Bonds 3,240,202 LID Debt Service 406,000 Water / Sewer Revenue Bonds 2,863,042 Trust and Agency Funds 10,000 TOTAL CITYWIDE BUDGET (4) $185,989,755 $5,705,566 $2,223,457 (61.0%) 61,579,587 58,800,017 (4.5%) 54,328,841 41,537,299 (23.5%) 3,056,265 9,902,608 224.0% 13,974,705 14,041,113 0.5% 3,290,202 3,350,077 1.8% 407,000 285,000 (30.0%) 2,863,042 2,862,054 (0.0%) 15,000 5,500 (63.3%) $205,120,902 $189,796,758 (7.5%) (1) General Government - The 2011 General Government expenditure budget is approximately $3.1 million or 5.2% below the 2010 amended budget. (2) The 2011 budget includes an estimate of the 2011 grant awards only. The 2010 amended budget includes the 2010 grant awards and awards carried forward from the previous years. (3) 2011 Risk Management fund includes $7.0 million to mitigate contamination from the former landfill at the sawmill site, which is anticipated to be funded 100% by insurance claim reimbursement. (4) Citywide Expenditures - The Citywide Expenditure budget is approximately $14.8 million or 7.3% below the 2010 amended budget. 2011 PROPOSED BUDGET AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS CITY WIDE BUDGET > 2010 Year -End Expenditure estimate of $186 million is approximately (9.3%) less than the amended budget of $205.1 million. This savings is primarily due to management's strict spending controls and the deferral of some capital projects that will not be completed by year-end. > 2011 Proposed Expenditure budget is approximately $189.8 million; (7.5%) less than the 2010 amended budget of $205.1 million. > 2011 Projected Revenue is approximately $182.5 million or 4% greater than the 2010 year-end estimate of $175.2 million. The primary revenue increase is from Federal/ State grants and loan proceeds, thus is restricted in its use. 6 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary The proposed 2011 total city-wide expenditure budget of $189.8 million is balanced within existing resources and reflects a decrease of (7.5%) from 2010, despite numerous actual and projected increases in the costs of providing existing services. This was only accomplished as a result of significant mid -year reductions in 2010 expenditures and additional significant budget and service reductions are included in the proposed 2011 budget. GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET > 2010 Year -End Expenditure estimate is approximately $58.7 million, or ($1.2 million), below the amended budget of $59.9 million. > 2011 Proposed Expenditure budget is approximately $56.8 million; (5.2%) less than the 2010 amended budget of $59.9 million. > 2011 Projected Revenue budget is approximately $56.9 million or .4% less than the 2010 year-end revenue estimate of $57.1 million. The proposed 2011 General Government (taxpayer supported) budget consists of three separate Funds: the General Fund, the Parks Fund and the Streets and Traffic Fund. Over 68% of these tax supported budgets are devoted to public safety services in the 2011 budget; this includes Police, Fire, Courts and support to these departments from the Information Systems, Finance, Legal, and Human Resources divisions. Significant budget and service reductions have been proposed throughout the 2011 General Government Budget. Staff has worked diligently for several years to be more efficient and to do more with the same or fewer resources. Historically, the City has absorbed cost increases, reallocated resources, reduced costs and focused on efficiency improvements for so long that it is now operating extremely lean; which causes major budget reductions to result in major reductions in related services. The proposed 2011 General Government expenditure budget reflects a decrease of approximately (5.2%) from the prior year, (refer to Section III for more information regarding the proposed budget / service reductions). This reduction in budget and related services is due to the combination of a continued reduction in projected revenues and projected increases in the costs of providing existing services. Therefore, at this reduced expenditure level, the City cannot continue to sustain the 2011 proposed service levels in the future without significant growth in revenues, or other reductions in spending on programs and services. Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I — 7 PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT (POG) BUDGET MODEL The City Council is vested in the effort to provide the highest priority services to our citizens. As part of this effort, the City Council adopted a budget model / methodology for budget development referred to as the Priorities of Government Model. Council adopted six Budget Priorities for the City's General Government expenditures, as listed in priority order: Budget Priorities: 1. Maintain and Improve Public Health and Safety 2. Efficiently Manage Public Resources and Ensure Fiscal Stability 3. Promote Economic Development and Diversification 4. Preserve and Enhance Yakima's Quality of Life 5. Provide Responsive Customer Service and Effective Communications 6. Build and Utilize Strategic Partnerships The City Manager and Department Heads utilize both the Council's Strategic Priorities and the Budget Priorities as guiding principles upon which programs and services are developed, assessed, budgeted and, when necessary, reduced or eliminated. The City's budget is a critical tool utilized by Council and staff to continually move the City closer to the Council's ultimate vision for the City: to create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant, safe and strong Yakima community. For development of the prior year (i.e. 2010) budget, Council directed staff to allocate the projected 2010 revenues among the six Budget Priorities in the same relative percentage that each held of the total 2009 adopted General Government budget. Additionally, Council authorized staff to utilize a portion of the projected 2010 year-end cash reserves — in an amount equivalent to the amount that exceeds 7% of the 2011 General government Budget; which was projected to be approximately $1.5 million at that time — for Public Health and Safety's 2010 budget in addition to the allocation noted above. The use of reserves to help fund critical services within the Public Safety Budget Priority in effect increased this priorities percentage allocation of resources going into 2011. Last August the Council reviewed the application of the POG model prior to the development of the 2011 Forecast budget. Because reserves have been significantly reduced by almost half to minimum levels during the past two years of economic downturn, Council reaffirmed the application of the model without any use of reserves. The budgeted reductions are therefore spread among the priorities to bring the expenditure budgets within the relative percentage of revenue allocation. The following pie chart depicts the proposed 2011 budget and related budget allocations to Council's six Budget Priorities. 8 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary Public Health & Safety $38,990,680 68.8% Public Health & Safety Resource Management Economic Development Quality of Life Customer Service & Communications Strategic Partnerships 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSED BUDGET (BY BUDGET PRIORITY) TOTAL — $56,662,446 Resource Management $8,256,347 14.6% Strategic Partnerships $557,289 1.0% Quality of Life $4,009,864 7.1% Economic Development $2,959,020 5.2% Customer Service & Communications $1,889,248 3.3% 2010 VS. 201 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE COMPARISON BY BUDGET PRIORITY (Numbers in Thousands) $38,991 $40,938 $2,959 $8,256 $9,031 $3,179 $4,010 ■ 2011 Proposed Budget - $56,662 ■ 2010 Amended Budget - $59,900 .$1,889 $1,875 I $557 $580 $4,298 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 Thousands Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I — 9 The previous bar chart graphically reflects the 2011 proposed budget compared to the 2010 amended budget (the current authorized expenditure level), for each of the Budget Priority categories. Due to the projected reduction in General Fund revenues in 2011 from that of the prior year, four out of the six budget priorities were allocated fewer (absolute) dollars in the proposed 2011 budget than they received in their 2010 budgets. The two Budget Priority categories that received a minimal increase in their 2011 budget were (1) Customer Service and Communications — due mostly to increased costs associated with the acceptance of payments through electronic formats (this increase will be offset by additional revenues from the utilities) and (2) Strategic Partnerships — due to increased costs associated the City / County consolidation of Purchasing (cost increase should be mostly offset by additional revenues from the County). It should be noted that the actual reductions experienced by the various operating budgets is much larger than what is reflected in the above chart due to many significant increases in the cost of providing existing (2010) service levels. That is, the cost in 2011 of providing existing services is greater in many areas than their 2010 budget amount — thus, reductions had to be made to get down to the 2010 budget level in addition to the reductions required to go further to meet the lower 2011 budget level. 20 I 1 BUDGET ALLOCATION The following chart provides a comparison of the 2010 Adopted Budget (in both dollars and relative percentage each Budget Priority received of the total budget) to the 2011 Budget. This demonstrates that the 2011 Forecast budget as presented is ratably allocated in the same percentage as the 2010 budget. To accomplish this, a budgeted policy issue amounting to $2.3 million has been developed. There are also other issues that may negatively affect the 2011 budget, including the liquor initiatives; other decreases in state shared revenue; pension system rate increases; and labor settlements. In order to be able to respond to these other threats of decreased revenue or increased costs, additional reductions have been listed (but not yet budgeted). 10 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary Revenue (1) Reliance on Reserves (2) Total Resources Priority of Government Public Health & Safety Resource Management Economic Development Quality of Life Customer Service & Comm. Strategic Partnerships Total 2011 PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT BALANCE BUDGET GENERAL GOVERNMENT 2009 ACTUAL 2010 ADOPTED 2010 AMENDED 2011 PROPOSED 2011 201 I BUDGETED PROPOSED REDUCTIONS $58,035,233 1,482,206 $59,517,439 68.6% $40,858,079 68.8% 68.8% 15.1% 8,750,081 14.6% 14.6% 5.4% 3,174,055 5.3% 5.2% 7.3% 4,290,254 7.1% 7.1% 2.8% 1,864,820 3.2% 3.3% 0.8% 580,150 1.0% 1.0% 100.0% $59,517,439 100.0% 100.0% Non -Recurring Expense (Retirement Cash Outs) Total Estimated Increase in Cash Estimated Beginning Cash Balance Estimated Ending Cash Balance ($1,482,206) 5,846,379 $4,364,173 Percent of 2011 Annual Expenditure Budget in Reserve (1) Year End Estimated Revenue $57,077,844. 2010 Reduction due to drop winter), Interest Earnings and loss of High Crime revenue (lower cri (2) Allocated by Council for Public Safety (3) Contingency reductions for loss of revenue for Liquor Tax Initiatives, unresolved labor settlements, other. $56,863,960 0 $56,863,960 $38,990,680 $1,749,525 8,256,346 369,826 2,959,020 152,760 4,009,864 49,000 1,889,248 0 557,289 0 $56,662,447 $2,321,111 $127,187 $56,789,634 $74,326 4,750,845 $4,825,171 8.50% in Sales Tax, Natural Gas Tax (mild me rate). SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Police Fire Municipal Court Finance City Management / Legal Community & Economic Development Street & Traffic Operations Parks & Recreation Furloughs (5 Days) Total increased state pension contribution, POG REDUCTIONS $817,608 643,000 0 185,741 38,585 389,903 201,274 45,000 0 SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTIONS $303,341 377,000 0 31,000 74,333 52,647 135,662 89,500 218,458 $2,321,111 $1,281,941 GRAND TOTAL $3,603,052 Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I —11 SUMMARY BY PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT BUDGETED SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTIONS REDUCTIONS Public Health & Safety PS $1,749,525 $814,058 Resource Management RM 369,826 238,672 Economic Development ED 152,760 86,904 Quality of Life QL 49,000 113,820 Customer Service/Communications CS 0 22,000 Strategic Partnerships SP 0 6,487 TOTAL Organizational Unit $2,321,111 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT $1,281,941 $3,603,052 2011 Dollars in Millions Forecast Budget 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Police 21,835,261 Fire 8,629,702 Streets & Traffic Op. 5,041,006 Parks 4,006,862 Transfers (1) 2,442,275 Information Systems 2,228,738 Police Pension* 1,404,590 Financial Services 1,381,498 Code Administration 1,330,361 Utility Services 1,305,084 Municipal Court* 1,234,194 Legal 1,139,157 Engineering 752,250 MI Planning 678,679 . City Manager 514,336 • Indigent Defense 480,000 n Purchasing 452,835 • Human Resources 447,436 MI Records 411,555 11 City Hall Maintenance 352,127 TI Intergovernmental* 257,439 0 City Council 203,061 i Nonrecurring Expenses 127,187 State Examiner* 103,000 II Hearings Examiner* 31,000 Probation 0 Sundome* 0 District Court* 0 Total $56,789,633 Fire Pen & Benefits • Personnel O Non -Personnel All Other 24.3% Streets Parks 8.9% 7.1% Police, Fire & Courts 59.7% % of Total Budget 38.4% 15.2% 8.9% 7.1 % 4.3% 3.9% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.2% 2.0% 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% $1,572,265 © 2.8% 12 - Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary The 2011 Proposed Budget broken down by Department, as reflected in the bar chart above, provides a clear picture of the resource requirements of each functional area within the City and how each area compares both to each other and to the total General Government budget of the City — in dollars and staffing levels. The Police Department consumes nearly 40% of the $56.8 million General Government budget, while the Fire Department consumes another 15%; no other single Department utilizes more than 10% of the total General Government budget. The Streets / Traffic Department budget (8.9%) and the Parks and Recreation Department budget (7.1%) come in a distant 3rd and 4th place for the utilization of available resources. This has been the relative utilization of General Government resources for many years, and continues to be the Council's Budget Priorities Allocation for the coming year. Refer to Exhibit I for 2011 revenue and expenditure budget information by fund. PROJECTED ENDING CASH BALANCE (RESERVE) General Government resources consist of annual revenues and cash reserves. Prudent fiscal management dictates that adequate reserves be maintained to help ensure the City is prepared to meet any number of unbudgeted and / or unforeseen circumstances that may arise, without requiring major disruptions to normal business operations. Reserves are typically utilized for many different business purposes, including: provide for emergencies; cover temporary cash flow needs; take advantage of one-time, unanticipated opportunities; fund unbudgeted policy issues authorized by Council; provide grant matching funds; and / or cover revenue shortfalls, accommodate unforeseen expenditures and other contingencies. 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CASH BALANCES General Parks & Recreation Street / Traffic Operations TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 2011 2011 2011 2011 201 I 201 I EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ENDING BAL PROJECTED PROPOSED As % OF BEGINNING ENDING As A % OF REVENUE EXPENDITURES DIFFERENCE REVENUE BALANCE BALANCE EXPENDITURE $47,787,665 $47,741,765 $45,900 0.1% $3,012,846 $3,058,746 6.4% 4,034,485 4,006,862 27,623 0.7% 369,088 396,711 9.9% 5,041,810 5,041,006 804 0.0% 1,368,912 1,369,716 27.2% $56,863,960 $56,789,633 $74,327 0.1% $4,750,846 $4,825,173 8.5% In 2010, the City Council approved fiscal policies to maintain operating reserves for General Government activities through the strict adherence to two basic guidelines: (1) maintain a budgeted year-end General Government cash balance of no less than an amount equal to approximately one month's operating expenditures (i.e.: approximately 7% to 8% of annual general government expenditures), and (2) during budget development, provide for the utilization of no more than a 3% contingency reliance on reserves to balance the budget. The 2011 General Government budget is balanced with no reliance on reserves, so that rule 1 (i.e minimum reserve levels) could be applied, and in fact the ending reserve for 2011 General Government is 8.5%. Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I —13 Cash reserves are an integral and critical component of responsible fiscal management and business planning. Standard and Poors, a national rating agency, included two references to the City's general fund reserves in explaining the City's credit strengths that influenced their most recent (August 2009) reconfirmation of the City's "A+" credit rating. Standard and Poors stated in their report that the City has a "track record of very strong general fund balances and good financial policies and practices, including a minimum general fund balance threshold and the use of a financial forecasting model". Beg. Reserve Balance Revenue Total Resources Expenditure Budget GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESERVES — USAGE AND BALANCE COMPARISONS J End. Reserve Balance Percent of Annual Expenditures Inc/(Dec) in Reserves f/ Prior Year (1) Percent of Expenditure Budget (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2010 2011 2010 CURRENT UPDATED 2009 AMENDED YEAR-END MANAGEMENT VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE (I) PROPOSAL (4 — 2) $8,622,738 $6,413,707 $6,413,707 $4,750,845 57,290,718 58,072,948 57,077,844 56,863,960 65,913,456 64,486,655 63,491,551 61,614,805 ($2,871,850) 59,499,749 59,900,694 58,740,706 56,789,633 (3,111,061) $6,413,707 $4,585,961 $4,750,845 $4,825,172 10.8% 7.7% 8.1% 8.5% ($2,209,031) (3.7%) ($1,827,746) ($1,662,862) $74,327 (3.1%) (2.8%) 0.1% (1) Utilization of reserves in 2010 includes $155,000 cash outs and approximately $1.5 million allocated to Public Safety The chart above reflects several key aspects of the City's fiscal condition: ➢ Revenues: The 2010 year-end revenue estimate is less than 2009 actuals; this revenue reduction strained City resources past the point of the City's ability to maintain existing services during the year — many budget and service reductions were implemented mid -year to help reduce costs and minimize the negative impact on reserves, and further reductions are proposed in the 2011 budget. 2011 projected revenues reflect a decrease from the 2010 year-end estimate of .4% and 2% below the 2010 amended budget. ➢ Expenditures: The 2010 year-end expenditures are projected to be $1.2 million less than the amended budget. The 2011 proposed expenditure budget is nearly $2 million less than the 2010 year-end estimate and approximately $3.1 million less than the 2010 authorized expenditure level. With these reductions 2011 budget is balanced without using existing reserves. 14 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary > Reserves: A comparison of the 2009 beginning and ending reserve balances reflects a use of one fourth of the reserves during that year, (approximately $8.6 to $6.4 million). Even though the City implemented a mid -year budget reduction, 2010 year-end projections indicate a utilization of reserves of approximately $1.7 million during this year, thus using $3.9 million or 45% of the beginning reserves in this 2 -year period. While a major purpose for holding reserves is to provide funding for critical City services during times of temporary economic strife such as what the City — as well as the nation — is experiencing, the City's reserve balance at the end of 2011 is projected to be close to the recommended minimum balance and should not be depleted further. The 2011 budgeted year-end reserve level is just over 8% of the total 2011 general government budget. This is within the reserve guidelines, as noted on the previous page. SUMMARY Due to the significant negative impact of the national recession on the local economy, and the related reduction in the City's 2010 General Government revenues, the City utilized reserves and instituted significant budget reductions during 2010 in order to manage the budget within available resources; however, the current level of services is simply not sustainable into the future should revenues continue to fall (or increase at rates significantly less than the costs of providing the related services). Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I —15 INTRODUCTION: BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS For two years now, staff has been closely monitoring the financial crisis and economic recession that has gripped our entire nation, our State and our local economy. Staff has prepared, and continually updated, 2010 and 2011 revenue projections for the City based on the volatile economic condition of our region. The stability of the City's fiscal condition — and that of most every city and state in our nation — has steadily worsened over the past 18 months. Out of necessity, the City historically has closely monitored and restrained costs. Unlike our current situation, in past years, it has been the local agricultural industry that was the sole significant economic driver for the City. Since the forces of nature are largely unpredictable and can have significant negative impacts on agriculture, the only prudent approach to fiscal management for the City of Yakima has always been one of caution and restraint, so that the City was able to "ride out the storms" without huge fluctuations in services to our citizens. However, these are very different times, involving a national crisis in our financial markets that has thrown both the national and local economies into an economic recession that is much deeper — and likely much longer lasting —than anything we've experienced in decades. Some economists have stated that the recession is over (i.e. the economy is not still shrinking), however, there is also a general consensus that it could take several years to return to pre -recession levels. Interestingly enough, our agricultural based economy that has historically resulted in lower median incomes and higher unemployment rates has not declined as much as other areas, probably because the demand for food stays relatively constant, even when other segments of the economy are in severe distress. INITIATIVES 1 100 & 1 105 If approved by the voters, Initiatives 1100 & 1105 each impact a significant revenue stream for cities and counties. We currently get money both from liquor board profits and liquor excise tax. In 2009, Yakima received $580,000 in liquor profits and $412,000 in liquor excise tax, and the 2011 budget is built with $630,500 and $427,700 respectively. This revenue is dedicated for criminal justice and is used primarily to enforce laws associated with drunken behavior. I-1100 maintains the liquor excise tax but eliminates the liquor profits distribution (by December 31, 2011) since the system would be privatized and profits go to the retailers. I-1105 removes both the liquor excise tax and liquor profit distributions by April 1, 2012. I-1105 suggests that the Liquor Control Board (LCB) recommend to the Legislature a new tax rate that generates the same amount of revenue state and local governments receive now. The question is whether that will really happen — the Legislature doesn't have to pass a new liquor tax. And if I-1053 (the Eyman initiative) passes, it makes it far more challenging to enact new or replacement tax rates on liquor sales. That initiative requires a 2/3 vote by the Legislature or a citizens vote to raise taxes. So it gets a lot more complicated. 16 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights Privatization will increase the number of retail outlets selling liquor and, according to the Office of Financial Management, will increase consumption by 5% initially. Yakima has 3 liquor sales outlets under the current system, and it could possibly increase to 109 outlets with the passage of either initiative — there could be an impact on our local law enforcement. Right now the Liquor Control Board's enforcement program currently has a 94% compliance rating at the state run and contract liquor stores, and a 76-84% compliance rate for other alcohol suppliers. That means the state is making sure stores are not selling to underage drinkers or intoxicated customers. They go into stores with underage testers to see if stores will sell to someone under 21. The Liquor Control Board is expected to have sufficient funding from other sources to continue their current enforcement operations. However, according to the Liquor Control Board they do not expect to increase enforcement funding to account for the substantial change in the number of liquor retailers. Currently, there are 315 liquor retailers and the State Auditor's Office estimates over 3,300 liquor retailers in a privatized system. Without compliance checks, liquor sales and consumption basically are on the honor system. If the state fails to increase funding for the LCB's enforcement program, it will increasingly fall to the City to monitor all of the additional liquor outlets and the existing restaurants and taverns so that they do not become public safety problems. It is reasonable to assume that if these compliance measures are not kept up, the City could see an increase in DUI's, public intoxication, and underage drinking, which in turn could be more of a drain on local law enforcement. To address the potential impairment in this revenue, additional cost reductions have been identified for potential use should the either or both of these initiatives pass in the November election. 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET — OVERVIEW The current year-end revenue projections for the City are significantly below the budgeted and authorized expenditure levels for 2010; therefore, management throughout the year has taken aggressive steps to reduce 2010 expenditures well below the previously authorized levels in an effort to minimize our reliance on reserves. Budget Priorities: During 2010, the City Council reviewed and reaffirmed the City's Vision, Mission, and Strategic Priorities (as listed in the information before the first tab in this Budget Forecast). Additionally, the Council Budget Committee recommended, and the full City Council approved, the re -affirmation of six Budget Priorities, noted in priority order: Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I —17 • Maintain and Improve Public Health and Safety • Efficiently Manage Public Resources and Ensure Fiscal Stability • Promote Economic Development and Diversification • Preserve and Enhance Yakima's Quality of Life • Provide Responsive Customer Service and Effective Communications • Build and Utilize Strategic Partnerships City management placed significant emphasis on these priorities in their operating decisions and in the administration and development of the 2010 and 2011 budgets. Additionally, cost containment and efficiency improvements continue to be a focus and an emphasis in every expenditure decision. TAXES Management has included no new or increased taxes in the proposed 2011 budget as presented in this Forecast. > Sales Tax: The General Government budget includes revenue projections that reflect an estimated decrease of approximately (2.0%) in sales tax revenues from 2010 to 2011. > Property Tax: The 2011 budget is based on a 1% increase in the property tax levy, as currently allowed by state law, or approximately $155,000, plus a 0.7% or $107,500 increase for new construction for a total increase of $262,500. It should be noted that recent information from the Yakima County Assessor's Office indicates that new construction is estimated to be 1.7%. When coupled with an increase for recent annexations, the 2011 revenue budget could conservatively be increased by an additional $170,000 for Council consideration during upcoming deliberations. BUDGET REDUCTIONS / PERSONNEL CHANGES Due to the serious drop in revenues received in 2010 and projected for 2011, significant reductions and / or elimination in both budget and services were necessary in order to balance the 2010 and 2011 budgets within available resources and maintain a minimum reserve level. > The 2011 General Government budget is $59.6 Million or ($2.6 million) less than the 2010 amended budget. These reductions include about $2.0 million in salary and benefit reductions; and more than 21 fewer net FTE positions. > The City is proposing to the labor unions, and has budgeted a freeze on salary and wages (0% increase), for 2011; for all employees except those represented by Teamsters for Police Management; their contract had been settled prior to the request for the wage freeze. The City is in various stages of negotiation with all other bargaining units. Note: this represents the fourth salary and wage freeze over the past ten years (2001, 2007, 2010 and 2011). 18 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights POLICY ISSUES Although there are many important and vital needs throughout the various departments of the City, there are few new Policy Issues included in the proposed 2011 budget as there simply is no funding available to support additional programs, services or the related budget expenditures. Per Council direction, 2011 Policy Issues exclude Outside Agency requests. The City continues to receive both significant fiscal and quality of life benefits from our outside agencies. However, due to the severe reductions in revenue projections, all discretionary funding to Outside Agencies was reduced 50% in the 2010 budget, and eliminated in the proposed 2011 budget. Other significant Policy Issues include: > An Irrigation operating rate increase of 5.5% per year over the next 4 years. > Wastewater Treatment Facility capital improvements of $12 million, as identified in the current capital plan, to be funded by a combination of revenue bonds; Public Works Trust Fund loan; State Revolving Fund loan, and capital transfers from the operating fund. Because an existing debt service payment is completed, a rate increase for the new debt service is not being proposed at this point in time. > A revised proposal to acquire 2 fire apparatus using a state-run lease program. > A reorganization in Public Safety Communications including the addition of 2 positions to be supported by a potential increase in the Countywide 911 excise tax. There are also several minor fee increases being proposed to better match market conditions. The complete listing of proposed policy issues is included in Exhibit II. CHANGES IN FUNDING AUTHORIZATION The 2010 budget was adopted with a reduction of 22.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions, and the transfer of 5.6 positions to non -General Government funds. As discussed previously, the revenue fell below expected levels, and in mid -2010 management brought a reduction proposal that included the elimination of 6 newly vacated positions. Although the savings in 2010 were less than what is listed below because of the timing of the vacancies and related benefit cash -outs, the 2011 budget is reduced by the total of $409,100 as a result. The following positions have been excluded from the 2011 budget to arrive at the baseline prior to the application of the required additional POG reductions: Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I —19 FUND / DEPT POG PRIORITY DESCRIPTION 015 -Finance RM Financial Services Specialist 031 -Police PS Police Officer 051 -City Hall Maintenance RM Building Maintenance Specialist 131 -Parks & Recreation QL Aquatics Specialist 131 -Parks & Recreation QL Parks Superintendent 141- Streets ED & PS Street Maintenance Specialist ANNUALIZED BASE SALARY & BENEFITS REMARKS $59,300 From 5 to 4 FSS's to process Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivables, Cash Receipts $77,800 Reduction in School Resource Officer funding - Yakima School District $51,500 Building Superintendent now only remaining permanent FTE to support City Hall $51,300 From 2 to 1 permanent FTE to support 2 pools $109,200 Responsibilities spread to other supervisors $60,000 Maintenance schedule adjusted The following chart summarizes the General Government (i.e. tax -supported) position eliminations identified in the policy issue submitted to balance the 2011 budget. There are several other personnel changes included in the budget, including position downgrades, and reallocations to other funds where appropriate. The detail of all of the proposals, including the related dollar amounts of the reductions, is included in Section III. The column titled "POG Reductions" is incorporated in the budget as presented. The "Supplementary Reductions" are not currently budgeted, but presented to be a concise summary of other options currently identified if additional reductions are needed. 20 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights 2011 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PERSONNEL GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERMANENT POSITIONS POG REDUCTIONS DEPARTMENT / POSITION # STATUS POLICE Assistant Evidence Technician* 1 Filled Patrol Officer 4 Vacant Corrections Officer 1 Vacant Deputy Chief 1 Vacant Building Maintenance 1 Retirement Crime Analyst/Intel Sup* Total Police 8 FIRE Firefighter 6 Filled Secretary 1 Filled Deputy Fire Marshall Total Fire 7 FINANCE/INFORMATION SYSTEMS Position Eliminations 5 4 Filled, 1 Vacant Position Additions (5) New positions IS Manager 1 Vacant (consolidation) Total Finance/Info Systems (Net) 1 LEGAL Legal Assistant PLANNING Assistant Planner 1 Retirement ENGINEERING Development Engineer Construction Inspector Total Engineering COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Code Compliance Officer Animal Control Total CED STREETS Street Maintenance Specialist Traffic Sign Specialist Total Streets 1 Filled 1 1 Filled 1 Filled 2 1 Filled 1 Total General Government 21 — SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS — # STATUS 2 Future vacancies 0 1 Filled 3 2 Filled 1 Retirement 3 0 1 Filled 1 Filled 1 0 1 Filled 1 9 TOTAL POG 1 PS 6 PS 1 PS 1 PS 1 PS 1 PS 11 8 PS 1 PS 1 PS 10 5 RM (5) RM 1 RM 1 1 RM 1 ED 1 RM 1 RM 2 1 PS 1 PS 2 1 ED 1 PS 2 30 GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUMMARY Eliminated 16 Filled 6 Filled 22 Eliminated 10 Vacant 3 Vacant 13 Added (5) New (5) *See Detail Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 21 2011 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PERSONNEL - NON GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND / DEPT DESCRIPTION 124 -Office of Reinstate 1 Home Neighborhood Dev. Remodeling Technician 151 -Public Safety Add 1911 Calltaker Communications Add 1 Public Safety Admin. Assistant 462 -Transit Add 2 Transit Operators Total Non -Gen Gov Funds 5 additional positions ANNUALIZED BASE SALARY & BENEFITS REMARKS $58,000 Budgeted Policy Issue -funded by reduction in outside professional services for contractors $54,600 Reorganization in of 911 and Dispatch operations, funded by $62,500 increase in Countywide 911 Excise tax -Budgeted Policy Issue $110,000 Agreement with Selah to add 1 route $285,100 Each of these proposals has an identified revenue source or other expenditure reduction to support the additional cost 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS BY TYPE (From 2010 Amended Budget) EXPENDITURE TYPE Salaries / Wages and Benefits Overtime Medical / Dental Supplies / Small Tools Other Supplies Fuel Professional Services Other Services Travel / Training Intergovernmental Services Capital Outlay Debt Service Interfund Payments TOTAL 22 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights As INCORPORATED IN 201 I AMOUNT % OF TOTAL ($1,701,327) 54.7% (114,021) 3.7% (56,432) 1.8% (178,623) 5.7% (3,000) 0.1% 119,177 (3.8%) (325,128) 10.5% 111,622 (3.6%) (43,350) 1.4% (786,206) 25.3% (164,610) 5.3% (6,045) 0.2% 36,882 (1.2%) ($3,111,061) 100.0% 2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS BY DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE TYPE City Administration Finance Municipal Court Police Fire CED Street & Traffic Parks Other Departments TOTAL (I) As INCORPORATED IN 2011 AMOUNT % OF TOTAL ($46,034) (515,918) (28,577) (1,024,380) (518,737) (580,705) (383,655) (211,792) 198,737 1.5% 16.6% 0.9% 32.9% 16.7% 18.7% 12.3% 6.8% (6.4%) ($3,111,061) 100.0% Even though the Policy Issue for budget reductions totals $2.3 million, the 2010 budget was reduced by a net of about S800,000 in the budget development process prior to the posting of the policy issue. As discussed in the Changes in Personnel section above, 6 positions for a total of just over S400,000 were extended from the mid -2010 reductions. The measures taken to reduce jail costs have also been successful, so that jail costs are also being reduced by about $750,000. These reductions were offset by increases in medical rates and fuel and other operating supplies/contracts, so the savings were reduced. (Note: even though the chart above shows Medical/Dental insurance going down from the prior year, the full family rates were actually increased by almost 10%. The net reduction arises from the position eliminations.) The total reduction needed to totally balance the 2010 budget was $3.1 million or 5.2% of the 2010 budget. TAX PROPOSAL — 6% INCREASE IN LIEU TAX ON UTILITIES Because the General Government budgets have been severely reduced by almost 10% over the past 2 years, a tax proposal is being offered that can be used by Council to reduce the budget cuts. The current tax on city -owned utilities is 14% on Water and Wastewater; 9% on City Refuse; and 10% on Yakima Waste. Of these taxes, 3.5% is dedicated for Parks operations, and 0.5% for Police capital. The remainder supports General Fund operations. A 1% increase on these utilities would generate about $336,000 annually. Part of the proposal is to start imposing the tax on the new Stormwater utility, which is expected to generate another $19,000 annually, so that the total tax proposal would generate about $355,000 per each 1%, or a total of $2,130,000 for a 6% increase. For city utilities, the in lieu tax is included in the rates charged for service. Any increase would need to be evaluated for a potential rate adjustment for each of the utility. Nob Hill Water and Yakima Waste Systems would also be impacted by a tax increase. However, taxes on these outside utilities are added on to the rates charged for service. The increase to a typical household for the full 6% would be about $58 per year, or just slightly less than $5 per month. This calculation is made assuming a 96 -gallon can for Refuse; yard waste for 9 months out of the year; and 1,600 cubic foot monthly consumption for Water/Wastewater. Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 23 City Council has the authority to increase this tax without sending it to a public vote. Under the Charter, the Council could also refer it for voter consideration in a special election. The following charts summarize the tax increase at various percentages for both an average household and in total for the applicable utilities. The additional revenue this tax could raise is also then spread ratably among the POG categories and compared to the proposed budget reductions to assist Council in their deliberations. A significant provision of the tax proposal is to sunset it in three years to enable the economy to hopefully recover. A summary of these utility taxes imposed by other cities is included as the last chart. Statewide, the trend is that cities without a Business and Occupation tax have higher utility taxes. Regionally, many cities have significant taxes on these utilities, with the exception of Union Gap, which has a larger than average sales tax per capita because of its retail base. IMPACT ON AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD AND BENEFIT TO 2011 BUDGET PER HOUSEHOLD Wastewater Water Refuse Stormwater ANNUALIZED Wastewater Water Refuse Stormwater Nob Hill Water Yakima Waste AVERAGE MONTHLY COST 2% 4% 6% $0.71 $1.42 $2.13 0.34 0.68 1.02 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.07 0.14 0.22 $1.62 $3.24 $4.87 ANNUAL REVENUE GENERATION 2% 4% 6% $145,000 $290,000 $435,000 314,786 629,571 944,357 96,667 193,333 290,000 37,880 75,760 113,640 51,429 102,857 154,286 66,000 132,000 198,000 $711,761 $1,423,522 $2,135,283 POTENTIAL REVENUE DISTRIBUTED BY PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT IMPACT ON REDUCTION LEVELS POG BUDGET REDUCTIONS Public Health & Safety Resource Management Economic Development Quality of Life Customer Service/Communications Strategic Partnerships 2011 REDUCTIONS* $2,563,583 608,498 239,664 162,820 22,000 6,487 6% TAX REVENUE DISTRIBUTION BASED ON POG $1,519,261 360,615 142,032 96,492 13,038 3,844 NET REDUCTIONS $1,044,322 247,883 97,632 66,328 8,962 2,643 $3,603,052 $2,135,283 $1,467,769 * Includes Budgeted and Supplemental Reductions if needed. 24 - Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights WASTEWATER, WATER, REFUSE, STORMWATER IN LIEU UTILITY TAX ANALYSIS CURRENT 2010 2011 VALUE OF TOTAL TAX REVENUE BY UTILITY RATES ESTIMATE BUDGETED I% TAX Internal: Water 14% $980,000 $1,015,000 $72,500 Wastewater 14% 2,129,000 2,203,500 157,393 Refuse 9% 435,000 435,000 48,333 Stormwater (new tax) 18,940 Subtotal City Utilities 3,544,000 3,653,500 297,166 Outside: Nob Hill Water 14% 360,000 360,000 25,714 Yakima Waste 10% 330,000 330,000 33,000 TOTALS $4,234,000 $4,343,500 $355,880 REVENUE GENERATED BY 6% INCREASE $2,135,283 RATE CHANGE IN THE BI -MONTHLY BILL "TYPICAL" RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT Wastewater 16 UOC (1) Water 16 UOC Refuse 96 Gallon Cart Yard Waste Billed by City Utilities Stormwater (Annual) Billed on Property Tax Statement CURRENT INCREASE 6% RATES I% 6% ANNUAL $71.02 $0.71 $4.26 $25.56 34.08 0.34 2.04 12.24 32.15 0.32 1.92 11.52 24.16 0.24 1.44 6.48 $161.41 $1.61 $9.66 $55.80 $43.00 $0.43 $2.58 $2.58 Total Annual Increase -"Typical" Household $58.38 Average per Month $4.87 Per Bi -Monthly Bill $9.73 (1) 16 Units of Consumption (UOC) is the assumption used to set an irrigation base and to make other adjustments for residential accounts if historical use is not available. Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 25 COMPARATIVE IN -LIEU UTILITY TAX RATES - 2010 TOP 23 CITIES -WASHINGTON STATE WATER SEWER GARBAGE STORMWATER Granger 36% 36% 36% Wapato 33% 33% 33% Almira 25% 25% 25% Grandview 24% 6% 40% Toppenish 23% 23% 23% Sprague 20% 4% 4% Ephrata 20% 20% 8% Port Townsend 20% 20% 20% 20% Vancouver 20% 20% 20% 20% Davenport 18% 18% 18% Medical Lake 17% 17% 17% Battle Ground 16% 16% 10% 16% Seattle 16% 12% 12% 12% Winthrop 15% 15% 6% Creston 14% 14% 14% Yakima 14% 14% 9% Kennewick 14% 7% 7% 1% Brewster 12% 12% 12% Kittitas 12% 12% 6% Deer Park 12% 12% 12% Olympia 12% 7% 10% 10% Harrah 12% 12% Prosser 12% 14% YAKIMA VALLEY CITIES WATER SEWER GARBAGE Granger 36% 36% 36% Wapato 33% 33% 33% Grandview 24% 6% 40% Toppenish 23% 23% 23% Yakima 14% 14% 9% Moxee 6% 6% 6% Naches 6% 6% Tieton 6% 6% 5% Selah 6% 6% 6% Union Gap Not levied Source: 2010 AWC Tax and User Fee Survey 26 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights GENERAL SUMMARY In the 2011 budget, Management continues to accommodate Federal and State unfunded mandates and provides critical public safety and other essential services. In an effort to minimize costs and increase efficiencies, management has decreased and shifted personnel resources in the 2011 budget. > General Government: Net reduction of 27 FTE's and $2.3 million dollars between the 2010 adopted and the 2011 proposed budgets. When added to the reductions in 2009, General Government is operating with 48.3 fewer FTE's -- more than 10% of the 2009 level of 475.6 FTE's. > Total City -Wide: Other operations added a total of 5 FTE's, supported by new revenue or reductions in professional services. Additionally, cost containment / reduction has been a high priority for the City of Yakima for years; and has resulted in the favorable cost comparisons reflected below: > Staff Reductions: The per capita number of General Government employees has decreased over the past decade, from 7.0 FTE's in 1999 down to 5.9 FTE's in 2009 — per every 1,000 population. Note: this comparison is prior to the 10% reductions identified in the 2010 and 2011 budgets. > Payroll Costs: The City of Yakima had the fourth (4th) lowest average per capita payroll costs out of the twelve comparison cities.* > Total Expenditures — The City of Yakima had the third (3rd) lowest average per capita total expenditures out of the twelve comparison cities.* * The data utilized in the above comparisons was compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics for 2009 — the most recent data available, and includes comparisons of all Washington State cities with populations between 45,000 and 120,000. (Refer to Section II for more information on the above comparisons) As reflected on the previous pages of this section, management has closely monitored and maintained a strong fiscal discipline over spending throughout all City departments for years. This has preserved the City's reserve position — and a positive and stable credit rating — during some very difficult times. However, the current national recession combined with the potential impacts of I-1100 and 1105 — should it be approved by voters in November — would reduce City resources past the point of its ability to provide existing services to our citizens. The current service levels are simply not sustainable in the future should revenues continue to fall. Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 27 SECTION II GENERAL GOVERNMENT Charts Enclosed: 1. General Government Resources; 3 Year Comparison 2. General Government Resources; 2010 Year-end Estimate and 2011 Budget Forecast 3. Criminal Justice Cost Increase 2000 to 2011 All other information and charts will be submitted to Council at a later date General Government: Year in Review • Section 11-1 SOURCE General Sales Tax Criminal Justice Sales Tax (1) Property Tax Franchise & Utility Taxes Charges for Services State Shared Revenue Fines and Forfeitures Other Taxes Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Other Intergovernmental Licenses and Permits TOTAL REVENUE Beginning Fund Balance TOTAL RESOURCES GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES THREE YEAR COMPARISON 2009 ACTUAL 2010 PERCENT ESTIMATE CHANGE 2011 BUDGET FORECAST $12,623,990 $12,504,000 (1.0%) $12,258,000 2,521,881 2,526,000 0.2% 2,507,000 13,889,500 14,019,500 0.9% 14,282,000 12,093,883 11,822,000 (2.2%) 12,041,500 5,648,396 6,117,541 8.3% 6,248,110 3,084,952 2,939,100 (4.7%) 2,730,300 1,631,592 1,734,266 6.3% 1,736,400 1,492,626 1,402,747 (6.0%) 1,395,000 942,937 701,754 (25.6%) 601,920 1,198,701 1,230,546 2.7% 1,259,000 1,450,423 1,303,790 (10.1%) 1,068,930 711,835 776,600 9.1% 735,800 $57,290,716 $57,077,844 (0.4%) $56,863,960 8,622,738 6,413,707 (25.6%) 4,750,845 $65,913,454 $63,491,551 (3.7%) $61,614,805 % OF - 2011 vs. 2010 - 20 I 0 INCREASE TOTAL (DECREASE) 21.6% ($246,000) 4.4% ($19,000) 25.1% 262,500 21.2% 219,500 11.0% 130,569 4.8% (208,800) 3.1% 2,134 2.5% (7,747) 1.1% (99,834) 2.2% 28,454 1.9% (234,860) 1.3% (40,800) 100.0% ($213,884) ($1,662,862) ($1,876,746) (1) Some Criminal Justice sales tax is allocated to the Law and Justice capital fund (a non -general Governmental fund) for capital needs. Sales Tax/Crim. Justice Sales Tax Property Tax Franchise & Util. Taxes Charges for Services State Shared Revenue Fines and Forfeitures Other Taxes Other Revenue Transfers from other Funds Other Intergovernmental Licenses and Permits Beginning Fund Balance (1) GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES 2010 YEAR-END ESTIMATE AND 2011 BUDGET FORECAST $2,730,300 - $1,736,400 - $1,395,000 $601,920 11 $1,259,000 $1,068,930 $735,800 $6,248,110 $12,041,500 PERCENT CHANGE (2.0%) (0.8%) 1.9% 1.9% 2.1% (7.1%) 0.1% (0.6%) (14.2%) 2.3% (18.0%) (5.3%) (0.4%) (25.9%) (3.0%) $14,765,000 $14,282,000 2011 vs. 2010 Estimate Decrease Total Resources Amount $1,876,746 Percent 3.0% $4,750,845 ■2011 Budget 02010 Y/E Estimate $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 2 - Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends 3,767,62M The following charts depict the major effect on the General Fund of the increase in criminal justice costs compared to all other cost increases from 2000 to 2011. Criminal justice costs continue to consume an ever increasing share of total General Fund resources. In order to pay these costs other General Fund programs are necessarily limited to remain within available resources. See Exhibit III for more information. Criminal Justice Other Consumer Price Index PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE COSTS VS. OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AND CPI 2000 BUDGET TO 2011 BUDGET 9,711,1 13 25.3% 27.1% 55.6% Cumulatively, over the past ten years Criminal Justice budgets have increased 55.6%. By comparison, all other General Government expenses have increased by only 25.3%. During this same ten-year period the Seattle -Tacoma Consumer Price Index increased by 27.1%. Criminal justice cost increases are more than double what increases are for other cost categories. When the increase in population and boundaries are considered over this same time frame, the fact that other services approximate the rate of inflation demonstrates a real reduction in service costs per capita. General Government: Expenditure Trends • Section 11— 3 DEPARTMENT INFORMATION The following summary chart and departmental listings offer a more detailed look at the budget reduction options that were developed by Department Directors working with City Management, Finance and Budget staff to achieve budget savings within the Priorities of Government model established by the City Council last year. The underlying objectives in meeting the model included the preservation of public health and safety, continued ability to meet federal and state mandates, and continued delivery of essential services. Unfortunately, in this current economic climate those options for budget reductions having minimal impact to public service were already used in prior years. However, all efforts were made to find savings that would allow the City to meet its fundamental legal obligations, to maintain sufficient levels of public safety and keep the impact to citizens at the lowest level possible while balancing the budget within current revenue expectations. Reductions categorized as "Priorities of Government (POG)" Reductions are reflected in this proposed balanced budget forecast. This budget contains the vital assumption that no major interruption of established revenue streams occurs and that: a. The liquor tax and other tax reduction initiatives discussed earlier in this forecast are not passed by the citizens, b. Current and future agreements with organized labor unions result in zero impact to expenditures, c. The State of Washington does not increase the City's pension contribution rate (as is currently under discussion in Olympia), and that d. No other new programs or initiatives are undertaken that would adversely impact the City. These POG reductions total $2.3 million and are found in the left columns of the first chart. The "Supplementary" Reductions are not reflected in the balanced budget presented in this Forecast but are available as options should any of the conditions mentioned above occur. Estimated revenue loss that would result from passage of the liquor tax initiatives is approximately $1.1 million. Other impacts as listed above are unknown. Supplementary reductions, which include 5 furlough days for staff comprise another $1.3 million in potential budget savings. Brief details of each category of proposed and supplementary reductions by department follow the summary chart. Narrative descriptions of the consequences of these budget reductions are being drafted, and will be distributed with the balance of this forecast document. The POG reductions that have already been integrated into the budget are listed first, followed by the Supplementary reductions excluding furloughs. Furlough amounts are listed only on the first summary chart. Subtotals by amount and category are listed for each department. Department Information • Section III —1 2 — Section III • Department Information PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTION OPTIONS SUMMARY POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety Police $690,138 $127470 Fire 643,000 - Municipal Court - - Finance 30,000 - City Manager / Legal - - Community & Economic Development 134,417 - Street & Traffic Operations 124,500 Furloughs - 1,497,555 251,970 Resource Management Finance City Manager / Legal Human Resources Community & Economic Development Resource Management Furloughs Economic Development Community & Economic Development Street & Traffic Operations Economic Development Furloughs Quality of Life Street & Traffic Operations Parks Quality of Life Furloughs Customer Service/Communications Strategic Partnerships Grand Total 110,741 45,000 20,585 - 18,000 - 165,500 10,000 314,826 55,000 44,986 35,000 62,274 10,500 107,260 45,500 4,000 30,000 15,000 30,000 19,000 $1,949,641 $371,470 TOTAL $817,608 643,000 30,000 134,417 124,500 1,749,525 155,741 20,585 18,000 175,500 369,826 79,986 72,774 152,760 4,000 45,000 49,000 $2,321,111 - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS - PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL $280,341 $23,000 377000 57662 20,000 715,003 43,000 31,000 74,333 52,647 126,980 31,000 - 58,000 - 58,000 60,000 29,500 60,000 29,500 $901,983 $161,500 TOTAL $303,341 377000 77662 758,003 31,000 74,333 52,647 157980 58,000 58,000 89,500 89,500 $1,063,483 FURLOUGHS (5 DAYS) $56,055 56,055 80,692 80,692 28,904 28,904 24,320 24,320 22,000 6,487 $218,458 TOTALS $1,120,949 1,020,000 30,000 134,417 202,162 56,055 2,563,583 186,741 94,918 18,000 228,147 80,692 608,498 79,986 130,774 28,904 239,664 4,000 134,500 24,320 162,820 22,000 6,487 $3,603,052 CITY OF Ytt tit 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS POLICE PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION — 1 12 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS - ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 PS Downgrade Forensic Supervisor to Evidence Technician. Eliminate Assistant Evidence Technician. $84,000 3 PS 1 position total (filled) PREVENTATIVE PATROL DIVISION — 113 2 PS 4 Positions $323,369 4 positions total (vacant) 8 PS Patrol Officers" $36,815 Downgrade position (filled). Position eliminated in next tier. 3 PS Downgrade 1 Captain $20,673 Jail cost reductions $100,000 Vacancy due to retirement. Calculated 6 months 10 PS Position to Sergeant ($20,585) 4 PS Eliminate 29 vehicles taken home $11,470 Includes Vehicles from Service Units 104 and 112. Needs to be negotiated (on hold) DETENTION DIVISION — 115 5 PS 1 Position $69,231 1 position total (vacant). 8 PS Corrections Officer" $36,815 Downgrade position (filled). Position eliminated in next tier. 6 PS 1 Position Building Maintenance $42,093 Jail cost reductions $100,000 Vacancy due to retirement. Calculated 6 months ADMINISTRATION — 119 7 PS 1 Position Deputy Chief $134,542 1 position total (vacant) 8 PS Downgrade Crime Analyst/Intel Sup to Crime/Intel Analyst $36,815 Downgrade position (filled). Position eliminated in next tier. 9 PS 1 Position Building Maintenance $42,093 Vacancy due to retirement. Calculated 6 months 10 PS Reallocate City Hall Building Maintenance Supervisor ($20,585) 11 PS Eliminate out of state travel $16,000 Not to include extradition Department Information • Section III — 3 SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS PREVENTATIVE PATROL DIVISION — 113 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS - ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 12 PS 2 Expected vacancies due to retirement / resignation $80,000 13 PS Deactivate SWAT Team $120,000 Eliminate overtime for training, call -outs, backfill of shifts, & shift differential pay $23,000 Small tools, equipment, uniforms for SWAT ADMINISTRATION — 119 14 PS 1 Position Crime Analyst / Intel $80,341 Eliminates position (filled). Position was downgraded in first tier. Supervisor PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POLICE TOTALS POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS $690,138 $127,470 Resource Management RM -0- -0- Economic Development ED -0- -0- Quality of Life QL -0- -0- Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $690,138 $127,470 POG TOTAL 4 — Section III • Department Information — SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS — PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL $280,341 $23,000 - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $280,341 $23,000 $817,608 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $303,341 GRAND TOTAL $1,120,949 CITY OF �GTe�C tit 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS FIRE PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS SUPPRESSION — 122 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS — ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 PS 6 Positions Firefighter $525,000 Place Ladder Truck on standby / reserve status. 5 Firefighters retained for overtime savings 2 PS Overtime Savings $50,000 5 Firefighter overtime savings ADMINISTRATION — 129 3 PS 1 Position secretary II $68,000 1 position total (filled) SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS SUPPRESSION — 122 4 PS 2 Positions (filled) Firefighter $180,000 2 of 5 retained positions in first tier are eliminated. 5 PS Brownout - Overtime $150,000 Partial temporary closure of station if understaffed ADMINISTRATION — 129 5 PS 1 Position $47,000 1 position total (filled) - to retire midway Deputy Fire Marshall 2011 PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT FIRE TOTALS POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS $643,000 $-0- Resource Management RM -0- -0- Economic Development ED -0- -0- Quality of Life QL -0- -0- Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $643,000 $-0- POG TOTAL — SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS — PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL $377,000 $-0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $377,000 S-0- $643,000 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $377,000 GRAND TOTAL $1,020,000 Department Information • Section III — 5 CITY OF Yt;t GGti 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS MUNICIPAL COURT PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS The Municipal Court is not proposing any Priority of Government reductions SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS The Municipal Court is not proposing any Supplementary reductions MUNICIPAL COURT TOTALS PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL CAPITAL OUTLAY Public Health & Safety PS 5-0- $-0- Resource Management RM -0- -0- Economic Development ED -0- -0- Quality of Life QL -0- -0- Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $-0- $-0- POG TOTAL 6 — Section III • Department Information - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS - PERSONNEL CAPITAL OUTLAY $-0- s-0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $-0- ?-0- $-0- SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $-0- $-0- CITY OF �GTe�C tit 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS FINANCE PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS TRANSFER PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH — 645 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS — ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 PS Reduce Transfer to Public Safety Communications $30,000 5 RM Net result of IS reorganization FINANCE — 624 2 RM Reallocate Director $31,233 20% to Public Safety from Finance DATA PROCESSING — 631 3 RM Delete IS Manager position $109,565 Vacant position 4 RM Reallocate Position PS Comm Manager ($39,840) "30% of salary to IS Note: Not shown in Public Safety" 5 RM Delete 1 Position Computer Op Tech $45,484 Computer Op Tech position (filled) 4/1 6 RM Delete 1 Position Senior Analyst $79,673 Senior Analyst (filled) 4/1 7 RM Delete 1 Position Senior Appl Developer $75,076 Senior Applications Developer (vacant) full year 8 RM Delete 1 Position Application Developer $61,146 Applications Developer (filled) 4/1 9 RM Delete 1 Position Application Developer $59,355 Applications Developer (filled) 4/1 10 RM Add 1 Position Project Manager ($74,710) New position 4/1 11 RM Add 1 Position Sr Appl Syst Designer ($70,658) New position 4/1 12 RM Add 1 Position Web Master ($58,470) New position 4/1 13 RM Add 1 Position Client Svcs Tech ($52,102) New position 4/1 14 RM Add 1 Position Client Svcs Tech ($55,011) New position 4/1 15 RM Discontinue maintenance contracts $29,000 Maintenance and support to existing computer software systems 16 RM PC replacements and misc 40k to 32k $8,000 17 RM Orthophotography $8,000 Department Information • Section III — 7 SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS DATA PROCESSING — 631 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS - ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 18 RM Discontinue maintenance contracts $31,000 Maintenance and support to existing computer software systems FINANCE TOTALS PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS $30,000 5 -0 - Resource Management RM 110,741 45,000 Economic Development ED -0- -0- Quality of Life QL -0- -0- Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $140,741 $45,000 POG TOTAL $185,741 8 — Section III • Department Information - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS - PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL $-0- $-0- - 0- 31,000 - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $-0- $21,000 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $31,000 GRAND TOTAL $216,741 CITY OF �GTe�C tit 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS CITY MANAGEMENT / LEGAL PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL — 623 ITEM # p 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS — ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 RM Voluntary Furlough $18,000 2 RM Human Resources CITY HALL MANAGEMENT — 633 2 RM Transfer 50% Building Maint Supervisor to $20,585 Full year.. Retirement date unknown 1 position total (filled) Police Building (Hayter) SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS LEGAL COUNSEL — 622 1 RM 1 Position $61,333 1 position total (filled) Legal Assistant 2 RM .3 Position $13,000 Temporary CITY MANAGEMENT / LEGAL TOTALS PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS 5-0- $-0- Resource Management RM 38,585 -0- Economic Development ED -0- -0- Quality of Life QL -0- -0- Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $38,585 -0- POG TOTAL — SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS — PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL $-0- $-0- 74,333 -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $74,333 -0- $38,585 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $74,333 GRAND TOTAL $112,918 Department Information • Section III — 9 CITY OF Til C tit 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS CODE ADMINISTRATION — 149 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS - ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 PS 1 Position Code Compliance Officer $66,673 5 ED 1 position total (filled) ANIMAL CONTROL — 223 2 PS 1 Position $67744 1 position total (filled) 4 ED Animal Control Officer $21,385 Move to Parks COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING — 310 3 ED 1 Position Assistant Planner $23,601 Retirement 7/31 4 ED .33 Position Planner $21,385 Move to Parks 5 ED Reduce printing and postage costs $15,000 Switch to postcard notification 6 ED Fee Increase Unbudgeted policy issue $8,000 HEARINGS EXAMINER — 313 7 ED $20,000 Savings by using Planning Commission. ENGINEERING — 528 8 RM 1 Position Development Engineer $87281 1 position total (filled). Consolidate function to Design/Dev position 9 RM Transfer .9 FTE to Wastewater $78,219 1 position total (filled) Service Units 000 (.10), 441 Stormwater (.40) & 473 Wastewater (.50) 10 RM Miscellaneous line items $10,000 Decrease various line item expenses 11 RM Fee Increase Unbudgeted policy issue $10,000 10 — Section III • Department Information SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS ENGINEERING — 528 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS - ITEM DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 14 RM 1 Position Construction Inspector 65,446 1 position total (filled) Service Units 000 (.78), 473 & 474 Wastewater (.11 respectively) COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTALS PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS $134,417 5 -0 - Resource Management RM 165,500 10,000 Economic Development ED 44,986 35,000 Quality of Life QL -0- -0- Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $344,903 $45,000 POG TOTAL - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS - PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL 5-0- $-0- 52,647 -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $52,647 $-0- $389,903 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $52,647 GRAND TOTAL $442,550 Department Information • Section III —11 CITY OF �GtLfut, 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS STREETS & TRAFFIC PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS PUBLIC AREA LIGHTING — 1 16 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS — ITEM DESCRIPTION $4,000 DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 PS $22,000 (.8) & 524 (.2) Operating Supplies - General $10,500 Reduce purchase of street lighting materials. Eliminates annual relamp program. Replace bulbs as they burn out. 2 PS Pacific Power & Light $28,000 Reduced utility costs through LED replacements program, reduced hours for downtown pedestrian lighting, removal of some arterial lighting. 3 PS $3,500 Eliminates work category "Work for R & M Contractors $5,000 Reduce use of contract labor for repair of street lighting. STREET MAINTENANCE — 52 1 4 ED 1 Position $62,274 Operating Supplies - General $4,000 1 position total (filled) Service Units 521 9 PS Street Maintenance Operating Supplies - $22,000 (.8) & 524 (.2) Specialist Signs 5 ED Operating Supplies - $3,500 Eliminates work category "Work for General Others" 6 ED Operating Supplies - General $7,000 Weed spraying chemicals. Only one application per year instead of 2 or 3. PEDESTRIAN / BIKEWAY / MAINTENANCE — 522 7 QL Operating Supplies - General $4,000 Supplies for sidewalk and bikeway repairs. Eliminates work category 9 PS Operating Supplies - $22,000 "Pedestrians & Bikeways" TRAFFIC CONTROL — 525 8 PS Operating Supplies - Signals $25,000 Reduce purchases for replacement controllers, detectors and signal heads. 9 PS Operating Supplies - $22,000 Reduce purchases of signs and sign posts. Signs 10 PS Operating Supplies - Lines $34,000 Reduce purchases of traffic paint and thermoplastic markings. 12 — Section III • Department Information SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS STREET MAINTENANCE — 521 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS - ITEM DESCRIPTION $15,000 DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 11 ED Operating Supplies - General $58,000 Street repairs materials & supplies. Eliminates chip seal program. SNOW & ICE CONTROL — 524 12 PS 1 Position $57,662 Operating Supplies - $15,000 De -Icing and traction materials Traffic Sign Specialist General TRAFFIC CONTROL — 525 13 PS 1 Position $57,662 Operating Supplies & Small Tools/ $5,000 Materials for building/maintaining traffic barricades & Traffic counter supplies Traffic Sign Specialist Equipment TRAFFIC ENGINEERING — 526 14 PS 1 Position $57,662 Traffic Sign Specialist STREETS & TRAFFIC TOTALS PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS S -O- $124,500 Resource Management RM -0- -0- Economic Development ED 62,274 10,500 Quality of Life QL -0- 4,000 Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $62,274 $139,000 POG TOTAL $201,274 - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS - PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL $57,662 $20,000 - 0- -0- - 0- 58,000 - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $57,662 $78,000 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $1 35,662 GRAND TOTAL $336,936 Department Information • Section III —13 CITY OF �GTe�C tit 2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS PARKS AND RECREATION PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS PARK MAINTENANCE — 42 1 ITEM # P 0 G PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS — ITEM DESCRIPTION $17,000 DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION DESCRIPTION $ COST REDUCTION 1 QL Temporary Positions $10,000 10 QL Reduce Park Maintenance positions. COMMUNITY RECREATION — 422 2 QL Summer Movies $5,000 Eliminate. Includes some temporary time SENIOR CENTER — 425 3 QL Temporary Positions $15,000 Reduce advertising by 50% $17,000 Close Harman Center Tuesday and 8 QL Adm. Associate Miller Park Spray Park $7,500 Thursday nights, as well as Saturday SPORTS — 426 4 QL Temporary Positions $2,500 $2,500 Eliminate Youth Baseball program. . 5 QL Temporary Positions $2,500 $2,500 Reduce Adult sports programs. ADMINISTRATION — 429 6 QL Advertising Expense $5,000 Reduce advertising by 50% SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS PARK MAINTENANCE — 42 1 7 QL Temporary Positions $10,000 MLK Spray Park $17,000 Do not operate - Water & WW savings 8 QL Adm. Associate Miller Park Spray Park $7,500 Do not operate - Water & WW savings COMMUNITY RECREATION — 422 9 QL Temporary Positions $10,000 Eliminate Free Summer Playground Adm. Associate Program. Includes some supplies 10 QL Summer Concerts $5,000 Eliminate. Includes some temporary time ADMINISTRATION — 429 11 QL 1 Position - on hold $50,000 Delay Hiring - 8 months Adm. Associate 14 — Section III • Department Information PARKS AND RECREATION TOTALS PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT POG REDUCTIONS PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL Public Health & Safety PS -0- -0- Resource Management RM -0- -0- Economic Development ED -0- -0- Quality of Life QL $30,000 $15,000 Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- TOTAL $30,000 $15,000 POG TOTAL - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS - PERSONNEL NON -PERSONNEL - 0- -0- - 0- -0- - 0- -0- 60,000 $29,500 - 0- -0- - 0- -0- $60,000 $29,500 $45,000 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL $89,500 GRAND TOTAL $ 134,500 Department Information • Section III —15 SECTION IV WHAT YOU PAY AND WHAT YOU GET All information and charts will be submitted to Council at a later date What You Pay and What You Get • Section IV— 1 SECTION V OTHER OPERATING AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS All information and charts will be submitted to Council at a later date Other Funds • Section V —1 SECTION VI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS All information and charts will be submitted to Council at a later date Capital Improvement Funds • Section VI —1 Three -Year Budget Comparison • Exhibit I —1 THREE YEAR BUDGET COMPARISON - 2011 BUDGET BY CITY FUNCTIONAL GROUPING GENERAL GOVERNMENT City Council City Manager State Examiner Records Financial Services Human Resources Legal Municipal Court Purchasing Hearing Examiner Environmental Planning Code Administration Indigent Defense Police Fire Police Pension Probation Center Engineering City Hall Maintenance Information Systems Utility Services Intergovernmental Nonrecurring Expenses Sun Dome District Court Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND Parks & Recreation Street & Traffic Operations TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 ACTUAL AMENDED YEAR-END PRELIMINARY VS 2010 BEGINNING PROJECTED EST. ENDING EXPENDITURES BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET AMENDED FUND BALANCE REVENUE FUND BALANCE $197,458 $207,265 $203,065 $203,061 (2.0%) 503,378 518,563 508,443 514,336 (0.8%) 102,601 103,000 103,000 103,000 0.0% 380,613 445,728 433,448 411,555 (7.7%) 1,471,508 1,460,278 1,366,044 1,381,498 (5.4%) 454,937 467,478 447,897 447,436 (4.3%) 1,160,611 1,142,950 1,105,994 1,139,157 (0.3%) 1,278,903 1,262,770 1,235,668 1,234,194 (2.3%) 331,879 432,432 420,163 452,835 4.7% 51,396 45,605 51,000 31,000 (32.0%) 799,520 768,484 713,459 678,679 (11.7%) 1,559,823 1,504,058 1,471,526 1,330,361 (11.5%) 429,570 480,000 480,000 480,000 0.0% 22,829,884 22,859,639 22,113,475 21,835,261 (4.5%) 9,063,500 9,148,439 9,173,749 8,629,702 (5.7%) 1,316,580 1,373,040 1,365,994 1,404,590 2.3% 25,000 0 0 0 n/a 1,026,172 1,002,489 957,711 752,250 (25.0%) 410,184 404,486 404,288 352,127 (12.9%) 2,450,120 2,589,406 2,551,811 2,228,738 (13.9%) 1,130,716 1,256,127 1,246,931 1,305,084 3.9% 395,086 382,865 372,865 257,439 (32.8%) 150,000 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 155,000 127,187 n/a 2,277 0 0 0 n/a 2,272,933 2,402,275 2,417,275 2,442,275 1.7% $49,794,649 $50,257,377 $49,298,806 $47,741,765 (5.0%) $3,012,846 $47,787,665 $3,058,746 4,208,433 4,218,655 4,133,782 4,006,862 (5.0%) 369,088 4,034,485 396,711 5,490,023 5,424,662 5,308,117 5,041,006 (7.1%) 1,368,912 5,041,810 1,369,716 $59,493,105 $59,900,694 $58,740,705 $56,789,633 (5.2%) $4,750,846 $56,863,960 $4,825,173 2 — Exhibit I • Three-Year Budget Comparison 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 ACTUAL AMENDED YEAR-END PRELIMINARY VS 2010 BEGINNING PROJECTED EST. ENDING EXPENDITURES BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET AMENDED FUND BALANCE REVENUE FUND BALANCE OTHER OPERATING/ ENTERPRISE Economic Development $109,806 $211,304 $236,317 $169,372 (19.8%) $183,754 $75,000 $89,382 Community Development 2,541,863 5,705,566 5,024,318 2,223,457 (61.0%) 762,349 2,233,678 772,570 Community Relations 478,730 561,448 550,448 561,954 0.1% 818,106 474,950 731,102 Community Services 342,254 206,834 142,334 8,250 (96.0%) 8,265 5,000 5,015 Growth Management / Commute Trip Red Fund 0 49,745 29,440 20,305 (59.2%) 20,305 0 0 Cemetery 247,877 256,155 251,586 262,463 2.5% 71,331 237,550 46,418 Emergency Services 1,166,738 1,110,329 1,107,579 1,091,586 (1.7%) 43,736 1,120,476 72,626 Public Safety Communications 2,900,801 3,095,475 3,078,809 3,286,113 6.2% 226,393 3,275,860 216,140 Police Grants 99,575 1,279,668 1,041,004 1,083,129 (15.4%) 193,240 1,101,083 211,194 Downtown Yakima Improvement District 201,849 239,989 224,989 236,451 (1.5%) 2,821 237,170 3,540 Trolley (Yakima Interurban Lines) 6,209 247,218 284,934 1,165 (99.5%) 5,303 1,486 5,624 Front Street Business Improvement Area 3,024 5,000 5,000 5,000 0.0% 6,948 3,535 5,483 Tourist Promotion 1,313,109 1,469,180 1,455,955 1,400,148 (4.7%) 178,688 1,374,500 153,040 Capitol Theatre 318,647 319,749 284,749 285,527 (10.7%) 118,232 280,177 112,882 PFD Revenue - Convention Center 657,871 689,000 653,000 594,000 (13.8%) 137,638 621,750 165,388 Tourist Promotion Area 368,978 378,205 378,205 378,205 0.0% 414 378,205 414 PFD Revenue - Capitol Theatre 479,252 502,000 501,000 468,000 (6.8%) 331 467,960 291 Recovery Program Grants 7,563 814,000 614,000 200,000 (75.4%) 0 200,000 0 Stormwater Operating 1,637,880 2,191,887 2,067,576 2,225,207 1.5% 440,802 2,101,200 316,795 Transit 6,829,986 7,471,870 7,353,711 7,259,274 (2.8%) 676,360 7,268,815 685,901 Refuse 4,617,358 4,814,792 4,777,563 4,861,374 1.0% 264,324 4,824,500 227,450 Wastewater Operating 16,867,157 17,583,255 17,345,542 18,776,805 6.8% 2,559,331 17,622,972 1,405,498 Water Operating 7,297,455 7,774,807 7,709,553 7,901,474 1.6% 1,766,903 7,644,337 1,509,766 Irrigation Operating 2,643,303 2,758,394 1,877,634 1,541,669 (44.1%) 215,208 1,556,600 230,139 Equipment Rental 5,094,648 5,201,037 5,176,621 4,870,443 (6.4%) 4,048,265 5,042,631 4,220,453 Environmental Fund 459,121 1,172,873 681,005 142,950 (87.8%) 261,314 135,000 253,364 Public Works Administration 1,145,662 1,175,373 1,110,415 1,169,153 (0.5%) 285,164 1,185,331 301,342 TOTAL OTHER OPERATING / ENTERPRISE $57,836,716 $67,285,153 $63,963,287 $61,023,474 (9.3%) $13,295,525 $59,469,766 $11,741,817 Three -Year Budget Comparison • Exhibit I — 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT Arterial Street $3,811,939 $6,154,428 $4,581,182 $2,416,447 (60.7%) $255,797 $2,358,273 $197,623 CBD Capital Improvement 286,908 1,165,185 1,120,351 132,264 (88.6%) 336,603 37,000 241,339 Capitol Theatre Construction 3,255,726 4,520,000 4,570,000 0 (100.0%) 25,420 0 25,420 Parks & Recreation Capital 254,130 788,142 720,514 1,330,000 68.8% 156,304 1,400,000 226,304 Fire Capital 428,181 1,476,079 1,444,821 841,500 (43.0%) 155,747 791,588 105,835 Law & Justice Capital 1,256,831 1,159,603 1,141,230 947,099 (18.3%) 270,095 845,422 168,418 Public Works Trust Construction 922,109 1,191,851 935,279 744,411 (37.5%) 874,773 628,000 758,362 REET 2 Capital Construction 714,318 1,536,822 1,231,822 761,822 (50.4%) 392,604 552,000 182,782 LID Construction Control 821,673 16,200 16,200 0 (100.0%) 5,043 0 5,043 Storm Water Capital 47,369 368,040 315,000 644,794 75.2% 639,655 654,794 649,655 Transit Capital Reserve 969,899 2,732,039 2,425,599 431,750 (84.2%) 911,282 50,000 529,532 Convention Center Capital Improvement 65,820 990,134 893,434 220,000 (77.8%) 330,695 125,500 236,195 Cum. Reserve for Capital Improvement 1,694,952 18,946,251 12,905,266 10,872,978 (42.6%) 2,344,304 9,635,658 1,106,984 Wastewater Facilities Capital Reserve 333,953 50,000 50,800 50,000 0.0% 577,375 150,500 677,875 Sewer Construction 55,057 3,685,000 1,385,400 4,280,000 16.1% 4,039,449 1,386,000 1,145,449 Domestic Water Improvement 1,909,301 2,997,200 1,015,000 3,010,000 0.4% 3,464,285 800,000 1,254,285 Wastewater Facilities 3,512,377 3,951,867 3,483,096 13,260,000 235.5% 1,839,749 14,000,000 2,579,749 Irrigation System Improvement 1,834,540 2,600,000 2,275,013 1,594,234 (38.7%) 1,007,599 3,208,500 2,621,865 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $22,175,083 $54,328,841 $40,510,007 $41,537,299 (23.5%) $17,626,779 $36,623,235 $12,712,715 CONTINGENCY/ OPERATING RESERVES Contingency Fund $120,199 $225,000 $125,000 $200,000 (11.1%) $156,720 $50,000 $6,720 FRS / Capitol Theatre Reserve 371,927 71,927 71,927 71,927 0.0% 381,715 500 310,288 Risk Management 2,845,143 2,759,338 2,806,624 9,630,681 249.0% 895,976 9,540,000 805,295 TOTAL CONTINGENCY/OPERATING RESERVES $3,337,269 $3,056,265 $3,003,551 $9,902,608 224.0% $1,434,411 $9,590,500 $1,122,303 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVES Unemployment Compensation $120,005 $236,861 $166,395 $312,477 31.9% $376,490 $173,000 $237,013 Employees Health Benefit 9,922,099 10,553,586 10,161,204 10,686,761 1.3% 2,753,492 10,489,085 2,555,816 Workers' Compensation 1,317,593 1,469,617 1,293,866 1,352,030 (8.0%) 1,184,405 1,109,008 941,383 Wellness / EAP Fund 110,034 89,849 80,093 79,885 (11.1%) 122,869 60,000 102,984 Firemen's Relief & Pension 1,567,783 1,624,792 1,551,403 1,609,960 (0.9%) 770,455 1,572,265 732,760 TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVES $13,037,514 $13,974,705 $13,252,961 $14,041,113 0.5% $5,207,711 $13,403,358 $4,569,956 4 — Exhibit I • Three-Year Budget Comparison TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Cemetery Trust 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 ACTUAL AMENDED YEAR-END PRELIMINARY VS 2010 BEGINNING PROJECTED EST. ENDING EXPENDITURES BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET AMENDED FUND BALANCE REVENUE FUND BALANCE $12,061 $15,000 $10,000 $5,500 (63.3%) $586,512 $13,500 $594,512 DEBT SERVICE LID Guaranty $0 $0 $0 $0 n/a $79,930 $100 $80,030 PFD Debt Service 734,349 1,014,286 1,014,286 1,014,136 (0.0%) 165,805 1,024,896 176,565 General Obligation Bonds 2,207,366 2,275,916 2,225,916 2,335,941 2.6% 372,748 2,334,739 371,546 LID Debt Service 121,881 407,000 406,000 285,000 (30.0%) 14,030 274,000 3,030 Water — Irrigation / Sewer Bonds 2,860,415 2,863,042 2,863,042 2,862,054 (0.0%) 2,369,727 2,864,580 2,372,253 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $5,924,011 $6,560,244 $6,509,244 $6,497,131 (1.0%) $3,002,240 $6,498,315 $3,003,424 TOTAL CITY BUDGET $161,815,759 $205,120,902 $185,989,755 $189,796,758 (7.5%) $45,904,024 $182,462,634 $38,569,900 POLICY ISSUE SUMMARY Cl'1 Y ON / (CLitit 2011 MAJOR POLICY ISSUE SUMMARY OTHER THAN PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE AGENCIES — As RECOMMENDED BY CITY ColnvciL DEPARTMENT / DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Yakima County Development Association (YCDA) Economic Development Fund 2010 Budget $30,000 2011 Budget $30,000 Budgeted Committee for Downtown Yakima (CDY) CBD Capital Improvement Fund (321) 2010 Budget $50,000 2011 Budget $50,000 Budgeted Seasons Music Festival Parks & Recreation Fund 2010 Budget $4,000 Deleted 4,000 Unbudgeted $0 Yakima -Morelia Sister City Association 2010 Economic Development Fund (123) 2011 General Fund 2010 Budget $1,333 Deleted 1,333 Unbudgeted $0 Yakima Fourth of July Committee General Fund / Fire 2010 Budget $2,750 Deleted 2,750 Unbudgeted $0 Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce General Fund 2010 Budget $2,950 Deleted 2,950 Unbudgeted $0 Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (HCC) General Fund 2010 Budget $2,950 Deleted 2,950 Unbudgeted $0 Yakima Sunfair Festival Association General Fund 2010 Budget $500 Deleted 500 Unbudgeted $0 Allied Arts of Yakima Valley — ArtsVan General Fund 2010 Budget $2,667 Deleted 2,667 Unbudgeted $0 Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) General Fund 2010 Budget $2,000 Deleted 2,000 Unbudgeted $0 Citizens for Safe Yakima Valley Communities (CSC) Community Programs General Fund 2010 Budget $10,000 Deleted 10,000 Unbudgeted $0 Yakima Symphony Orchestra General Fund 2010 Budget $5,000 Deleted 5,000 Unbudgeted $0 $80,000 Budgeted Total Policy Issue Summary • Exhibit 11-1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES DEPARTMENT / DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) — Assessment General Fund 2010 Assessment $33,720 Adjustment 220 Budgeted 2011 Total $33,940 Yakima Valley Office of Emergency Management (OEM) — Assessment General Fund 2010 Assessment $59,937 Adjustment (294) Budgeted 2011 Estimate $59,643 Yakima Valley Conference of Governments (YVCOG) — Assessment General Fund 2010 Assessment $38,623 Adjustment 1,736 Budgeted 2011 Total $40,359 CITY MANAGEMENT IRRIGATION DEPARTMENTI DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Irrigation Rate Increase Bi -monthly 2011 $200,000 Option "a" budgeted Irrigation rate Revenue a) 2011- 5.5% charges paid by a) 2011 $78,800 2012 - 5.5% customers of the 2012 83,134 2013 - 5.5% Irrigation Utility 2013 87,700 2014 - 5.5% Wastewater Facility 2014 92,530 Budgeted b) 2011- 7% Capital Fund. b) 2011 $105,800 2012 - 7% Future debt service 2012 112,350 2013 - 7% from existing rates 2013 120,214 c) 2011 - 10% with maturity of c) 2011 $149,000 2012 -10% current bond / other 2012 163,900 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Asset Management Software System Wastewater 2011 $200,000 Budgeted Operating Fund 2012 $100,000 Will likely be included with the city wide replacement of the current Automated Inventory and Maintenance Management System (AIMMS) Mandated Wastewater Treatment Wastewater Facility Expenditure Budgeted Facility Capital Improvements funded by a combination of: Capital Fund. $13,500,000 Future debt service Revenue a) Revenue bonds from existing rates a) $6,000,000 b) Public Works Trust Fund loan with maturity of b) 5,000,000 c) State Revolving Fund loan current bond / other c) 1,000,000 d) Capital transfers f/Operating funds capital allocations d) 1,500,000 2 — Exhibit II • Policy Issue Summary MUNICIPAL COURT DEPARTMENTI DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS No Policy Issues Submitted General Fund $58,000 Revenue $8,000 Unbudgeted FINANCE DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Information Systems Assessment Implementation Policy Issue included as a Priorities of Government reduction General Fund $58,000 Revenue $8,000 Unbudgeted COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Increase Land Use Application Fee to match Yakima County rate (approximately 15%) General Fund $58,000 Revenue $8,000 Unbudgeted ONDS DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Reinstatement of Home Remodeling Technician positions. Cost offset by reduction in contracted services Office of Neighborhood Development (ONDS) CDBG home repair programs $58,000 $58,000 Reduction in professional services Budgeted ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Establish/increase Engineering review and inspection fees General Fund Revenue $10,000 Unbudgeted CODE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Repeal local performance deadlines and money back guarantees for building and related permits General Fund Unknown Unbudgeted Policy Issue Summary • Exhibit II — 3 POLICE DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Continue Gang -free Initiative/ Coordinator contract General fund. Police Administration SU 119. $75,000 Budgeted FIRE FIRE SUPPRESSION DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Fire Engine / Pumper Fire Capital Fund Expenditure Budgeted Replacement Increase in County wide 911 excise tax $600,000 Purchase 2 pumpers for $300,000 each, funded by a state run lease program. $54,600 Debt Service $70,000 Per year/10 years Debt Service 62,500 Revenue $70,000 per year for 10 years $117,900 $30,000 From: $60,000 $40,000 Dedication of EMS replacement contribution $30,000 Revenue transfer from Public Safety Communications Revenue $4,000 Unbudgeted General fund PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Reorganization/reallocation of 911 and Dispatch operations Public Safety Communications. Budgeted Net Staffing changes: Increase in County wide 911 excise tax Add 1911 call taker position $54,600 Add 1 Public Safety Admin. 62,500 Assistant position $117,900 Equipment replacement $60,000 Total $237,900 Increase Fire Alarm monitoring fees by 20% Public Safety Communications Revenue $4,000 Unbudgeted 4 — Exhibit II • Policy Issue Summary PUBLIC WORKS REFUSE DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Purchase 1,000 64 Gallon Yard Waste carts in response to mandated yard debris disposal/ composting New Refuse yard waste customers (not a general rate increase) $45,000 Unbudgeted - pending County ban on yard waste in the general landfill (Implementation encouraged) CEMETERY DEPARTMENT/ DIVISION POLICY ISSUE REQUEST/ JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE PERSONNEL SALARY/BENEFITS NON -PERSONNEL COMMENTS Tahoma Cemetery Fee Increase Cemetery fees Revenue 2011- 5% 2011- $7,300 2012 - 5% 2012 - $7,665 2013 - 5% 2013 - $8,000 Policy Issue Summary • Exhibit II — 5 EXHIBIT III — SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE Criminal Justice Costs General Government Budgets Criminal Justice Sales Tax SALARY AND BENEFIT COSTS Costs to Total Budget Operating Funds RESOURCE AND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN Graphic Portrayal Total Resources — by Category Total Resources — by Category and Source Total Expenditures Supplemental Information • Exhibit III —1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COSTS VS. OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS 2011 BUDGET Parks & Recreation $4,377,598 7.4% Street/Traffic $6,045,680 10.2% Criminal Justice $28,228,420 47.6% Other $20,654,378 34.8% This analysis compares Criminal Justice expenditures to other General Government costs. Criminal Justice costs include: Police Department (including jail costs); Police Pension; Court and Probation costs; Prosecution and Indigent Defense (included in the Legal Department budget) and forty percent of Information Systems budget (the amount dedicated to Law and Justice support). This category also includes one-half of the transfer from the General Fund to the Public Safety Communications Fund for Dispatch and the transfer from the General Fund to Debt Service funds to repay debt borrowed for Criminal Justice purposes. This graph reflects the City's efforts to meet Council's Strategic Priorities. Public safety has been a high priority focus of City Council for the last two decades. 2 — Exhibit III • Supplemental Information Supplemental Information • Exhibit III — 3 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS (I) 2002 THROUGH 2011 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED PRELIMINARY VS 1 0 YEAR BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2010 INCREASE General Fund Criminal Justice $18,992,948 $19,702,698 $20,061,761 $20,794,116 $22,857,422 $25,014,331 $26,935,856 $28,471,541 $27,554,732 $27,188,822 (1.3%) 55.6% Other 15,571,751 16,913,032 17,476,192 17,862,426 19,557,208 18,856,452 19,782,839 20,240,301 19,912,799 18,681,668 (6.1%) 25.3% Parks & Recreation 3,504,423 3,620,410 3,832,816 3,905,396 4,074,592 4,199,143 4,420,906 4,249,796 4,133,782 4,006,862 (3.0%) 15.9% Street / Traffic 4,826,542 5,192,894 4,883,030 5,273,574 5,522,653 5,907,885 6,213,833 5,686,692 5,308,117 5,041,006 (4.7%) 19.5% Total $42,895,664 $45,429,034 $46,253,799 $47,835,512 $52,011,875 $53,977,807 $57,353,434 $58,648,330 $56,909,430 $54,918,358 (3.4%) 37.1% Consumer Price Index JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 181.3 184.1 185.7 190.4 194.8 203.8 210.6 223.6 219.9 221.7 27.1% (1) Excludes double budgeted transfers between general government funds. GENERAL FUND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SALES TAX - .3% EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES 20010 2011 2007 2008 2009 YEAR-END PROPOSED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET Police Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) $551,699 $601,047 $605,694 $678,993 $698,734 Miscellaneous (uniform / fuel / travel) 146,601 216,920 133,122 107,636 107,636 Liability Insurance 6,325 6,641 6,973 7,322 7,542 Professional Services / R & M Contractors 6,322 14,969 5,363 5,000 5,000 Yakima County Jail Cost 423,000 395,818 411,108 410,000 410,000 Total Police Department 1,133,947 1,235,395 1,162,260 1,208,951 1,228,912 The .3% Criminal Justice funds support six full time Patrol Officers including: all wages, overtime, uniforms, supplies, insurance and training expenses. Additionally, these funds are used for repairs, maintenance, communications and fuel used for additional patrols. A portion of the increased Jail costs are also paid out of this fund. Municipal Court Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 49,669 116,485 168,520 167,527 176,494 Professional Services 72,054 49,518 39,398 44,000 44,000 Miscellaneous (office supplies / travel / dues) 248 6,740 12,352 12,800 18,000 Other Expenses (Crime Victims Compensation) 0 0 0 0 0 Total Municipal Court 121,971 172,743 220,270 224,327 238,494 The Criminal Justice funds support two Municipal Court Clerk positions and a half-time Court Commissioner including all wages, overtime, supplies and training. Additionally, this fund supports building security, interpreter services and witness and juror fees associated with processing the court's case load. Legal - Prosecution Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 99,667 127,097 157,253 160,624 160,514 Professional Services 0 12,443 5,393 5,000 5,000 Miscellaneous (office supplies / travel / dues) 2,869 2,635 2,770 3,350 3,350 Total Legal Department 102,535 142,175 165,415 168,974 168,864 The .3% Criminal Justice Sales Tax is being used to supplement criminal justice functions throughout Yakima County. This money fully funds one Legal Assistant II position, one Assistant City Attorney II position including mandatory continuing legal education expenses and dues and subscriptions for required Associations. Information Systems Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 27,849 37,895 30,494 32,727 32,776 Small Tools & Equipment 40,100 56,182 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 10,493 6,705 22,000 10,000 Professional Services / R & M Contractors 0 903 0 0 0 Data Processing Equipment 25,471 15,704 0 0 0 Total Information System 93,420 121,177 37,199 54,727 42,776 The portion of the .3% Criminal Justice Sales Tax allocated to Information Systems is used to enhance the effectiveness of the law enforcement and other Criminal Justice personnel through the expanded use of technology. Currently, the emphasis is on mobile technology for the patrol officers. A portion of these funds are budgeted for temporary salaries used to support the mobile computing and technology infrastructure that has been expanded and enhanced through Criminal Justice Tax over the last two years. 4 - Exhibit III • Supplemental Information GENERAL FUND (CONT...) 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 YEAR-END PROPOSED ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET Animal Control / Codes Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 62,988 57,211 74,789 70,219 0 Misc. (uniforms / supplies / fuel / cellular phone) 3,965 3,671 3,793 3,013 8,057 Total Animal Control / Codes 66,953 60,882 78,582 73,232 8,057 The .3% Criminal Justice Funds support one full-time Animal Control Officer including all wages, overtime, supplies and communication necessary for this position. Human Resources Professional Services (employee recruitment) 11,340 7,100 6,750 7,500 7,500 .3% Criminal Justice funds are used to provide for contract services, testing and other necessary recruitment costs for positions funded by the criminal justice sales tax. GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,530,166 $1,739,472 $1,670,476 $1,737,711 $1,694,603 OTHER FUNDS Public Safety Communication Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) $56,869 $129,522 $132,450 $127,539 $126,911 General Operations Support 0 0 0 0 Misc. (uniforms / supplies/fuel / cellular phone) 0 0 0 0 Small Tools & Equipment 0 3,580 6,761 0 0 Total Public Safety Communication 56,869 133,102 139,211 127,539 126,911 Criminal Justice funds allocated to this department are used for additional positions necessary to accommodate the increased workload generated by law enforcement activities. These funds provide for two full-time Dispatchers and temporary support for Police electronic maintenance including all wages, overtime and supplies. Law & Justice Capital Small Tools & Equipment $5,459 $6,611 $12,870 $14,174 $0 Operating Equipment 0 7,931 7,853 11,000 12,000 Vehicles 81,316 0 0 Capital Outlay 168,369 0 0 Total Law & Justice 255,143 14,542 20,723 25,174 12,000 The .3% Criminal Justice funds support Capital expenses related to the new positions, technology and services created with this tax. TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenue REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES CUMULATIVE BALANCE $1,842,178 $1,887,116 $1,830,410 $1,890,424 $1,833,514 $1,797,194 $1,901,925 $1,795,873 $1,752,000 $1,717,000 ($44,985) $14,809 ($34,537) ($138,424) ($116,514) $340,602 $355,411 $320,874 $216,987 $100,474 Supplemental Information • Exhibit III - 5 SALARY AND BENEFIT COSTS COSTS TO TOTAL BUDGET The following chart represents the relationship of the City's salary and benefit costs to total budget for General Government and other funds of the City. The City's General Fund ranks the highest with salary and benefit costs, representing 75% of total fund expenditures. However, employee compensation and benefit costs for an individual department within the General Fund as a percentage of its total costs range from 45.7% to 93.5%. In several departments (including Police, Legal and Information Systems) if contracted services were excluded, the percentage of salary and compensation costs as a percentage of the division total costs would be considerably higher than what is depicted on the following chart. Parks, Streets and other operations for the most part are more capital intensive, and the ratio of salary and benefits to total costs are representative of that type of operation. Section II includes an analysis based on information gathered by the State Auditor's Office. The chart in this section identifies the per capita salary costs for Yakima and 11 other comparable cities, and indicates that: • The City of Yakima spends, on the average, $96 less per capita on salaries than other comparable cities. • Yakima employs fewer people per capita than other cities. To minimize the number of regular employees and to maintain service levels during periods of peak workload demands, the City uses contract and temporary labor when feasible. 6 — Exhibit III • Supplemental Information OPERATING FUNDS SALARIES AND BENEFITS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEPARTMENT/FUND BUDGET 2011 2011 SALARIES & LABOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET BENEFITS PERCENTAGE Police $21,835,261 $16,503,833 80.1% Fire 8,629,702 7,500,651 92.4% Information Systems 2,228,738 1,615,723 73.8% Code Administration 1,330,361 1,062,759 80.3% Financial Services 1,381,498 1,241,681 90.4% Legal 1,139,157 996,317 87.8% Engineering 752,250 698,442 93.0% Municipal Court 1,234,194 964,184 80.4% Utility Services 1,305,084 957,638 73.5% Environmental Planning 678,679 632,746 93.3% City Manager 514,336 482,195 93.9% Human Resources 447,436 405,411 91.1% Records 411,555 260,646 64.0% Purchasing 452,835 417,889 92.3% City Hall Maintenance 352,127 121,988 35.4% City Council 203,061 102,810 50.6% Other General Fund Expenditures 4,845,491 0 0.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND $47,741,765 $33,964,913 71.6% Parks & Recreation 4,006,862 1,906,684 48.0% Street & Traffic Operations 5,041,006 2,571,654 53.1% TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $56,789,633 $38,443,251 68.2% Economic Development 169,372 27,359 16.2% Community Development 2,223,457 740,887 33.4% Community Relations 561,954 390,056 69.6% Cemetery 262,463 161,082 62.7% Emergency Services 1,091,586 804,917 79.1% Public Safety Communications 3,286,113 2,631,322 82.8% Police Grants 1,083,129 685,590 80.2% Stormwater 2,225,207 713,505 32.2% Transit 7,259,274 3,427,068 49.0% Refuse 4,861,374 1,271,995 26.9% Sewer Operating 18,776,805 4,973,338 27.0% Water Operating 7,901,474 2,292,445 30.1% Irrigation Operating 1,541,669 648,885 43.8% Unemployment Compensation Reserve 312,477 28,286 9.1% Employment Health Benefit Reserve 10,686,761 123,706 1.2% Workers Compensation Reserve 1,352,030 104,911 7.8% Risk Management Reserve 9,630,681 615,961 6.4% Equipment Rental 4,870,443 855,008 17.7% Public Works Administration 1,169,153 588,531 51.5% Other Funds (Capital / Debt Service etc) 53,741,703 0 0.0% TOTAL CITY-WIDE BUDGET $189,796,758 $59,528,103 32.6% Supplemental Information • Exhibit III - 7 RESOURCE AND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN GRAPHIC PORTRAYAL OF CITY RESOURCE CONSUMPTION The purpose of this section is to graphically present total City resources by category, and distribute them by function and type of expenditure for the 2011 budget year. This "flow of resources" concept is designed to give the taxpayer a basic understanding of how tax dollars and other revenues are spent in the City. We have eliminated interfund transactions (i.e., those items that flow out of one fund and into another; we refer to these as double budgeted items) in order to portray only external revenue sources available to the City. The broad revenue categories are based upon the State of Washington's mandated accounting structure. A definition of the terms is included below: BORROWINGS - Proceeds from long-term debt issued by the City. In 2011 this includes primarily a revenue bond for Wastewater facility improvements and Public Works Trust Fund loans for utility capital needs. CAPITAL RESERVES - Accumulated fund balances set aside for specific capital projects. CHARGES FOR SERVICES - Fees charged to outside users to cover the cost of providing services (e.g. utility rates, golf course and swimming pool fees, transit fare box revenues). INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES - Revenues received from other governmental agencies (i.e. federal, state, and county). This category includes primarily grants and state -shared revenues (such as gas and liquor tax revenues). OPERATING RESERVES - Accumulated fund balances in operating funds. Prudent reserves generally are 8% of annual operating budgets. OTHER - All revenue sources which are not included in other categories. This includes primarily investment income, program income, fines and forfeitures, and licenses. TAXES - Tax assessments are levied for the support of the governmental entity. Sales tax is the largest item in this category. It is followed by property tax, utility and franchise taxes, and various other business taxes. The first graph identifies the total revenue picture by category. The second revenue graph depicts the relationship of the various revenue sources to each function. Lastly, included is a graphic by major object (or type) of expenditure, net of double budgeted expenditures. 8 — Exhibit III • Supplemental Information CITY OF Y TOTAL RESOURCES BY CATEGORY 2011 BUDGET TOTAL RESOURCES = $175,492,273 (Excludes Internal Service Funds and other double budgeted resources of $52,874,385) Capital Reserves $19,996,506 11% Operating Reserves $15,979,543 9°/0 Borrowings $16,904,500 10% Other $8,457,900 5°/0 Charges for Services $37,647,774 22% Taxes $52,910,130 ------ = 30% iilli Intergov't $23,595,920 13% Supplemental Information • Exhibit III — 9 Police & Fire Gen Government Parks & Recreation Street Operations Street Construction Gen Govt Const G.O. Debt Service Special Revenue Transit Utilities CITY OF/f TOTAL RESOURCES BY CATEGORY AND SOURCE 2011 BUDGET L 0111 ($10.00) $0.0 $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0 p Taxes p Intergovernmental ■ Charges for Services p Borrowings p Operating Reserves 0 Capital Reserves ■ Other 10 — Exhibit III • Supplemental Information Capital $38,164,920 25% Intergov't $3,125,401 2% CITY OF Y TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE 2011 BUDGET TOTAL EXPENDITURES = $149,771,225 (Excludes double budgeted expenditures of $40,024,533) Debt Service $8,241,088 6% Other Services $29,916,254 20% Salaries $48,790,332 33% Supplies $6,457,168 4% Benefits $15,076,062 10% Supplemental Information • Exhibit III —11 SafetyPublic Firs $38,990580 t68 8% 2011 294 04 $30,859,916 68 , 2010 309 77 $30,830,939 68 6% 2009 323 95 $38,199,085 67 0% 2008 326 11 $35,891,985 69.0% 2009 310.93 81928912 3 2% 2011 6 00 81967,850 3 I% 2010 6 00 81962260 2 2% 2002 6 00 81935295 3 2% 2008 6 00 81 133947 3 2% 2007 6 00 81 133 247 82,44,04 2010 n. 65n 2009 N. 8,500 840,500 832,8 822,442 855 132 81955,324 2 7% 2011 17 00 81,208,747 3 0% 2010 12 00 81,372274 3 4% 2002 24 00 81,577953 4 I% 2008 26 00 81221 463 4 2% 2007 25 00 80 0991561 82,742984 7 0% 2011 23 so 82286,420 6 6% 2010 24 00 82,862281 7 ox 2002 24 80 82247,557 6 I% 2008 24 05 82200 775 6 I% 2007 23 25 8272,072 853,2 811229 826251 0 I% 2011 ms 8107240 0 3% 2010 1 00 8131283 0 3% 2002 1 00 8223240 0 .6% 2007 1 75 621 $2,222202 22 2% 2010 $M597462 21. '7'29994 82 709 877 tf49,586 2M 2011 om 81,52,11 2M Hu Hm MAMA, 2M Ho Hm 81,404,245 2M Hm Hm 81.7092 2M Hu Hm 8122900 8180,000 8213,332 8222,201 8201 228 83,077,138 7 2% 2011 5 28 84,342,156 10 6% 2010 2 28 90,222857 2 8% 2002 6 28 90,426,688 9 0% 2008 6 28 83 080 305 8 6% 2007 5 28 820,000 820,000 9,955 842,0 810900 0. ma 1 00 810900 0. amo 00 811266 0. 2.8 00 V754 0 0% 2007 00 9002,377 0 8% 2011 2 00 9017,225 0 8% 2010 2 00 8225,480 0 7% 2002 2 00 8227,422 0 8% 2008 2 00 8266930 0 7% 2007 2 00 883 000 886 038 887907 8648,878 1 7% 2011 4 00 12 3% 2011 66 00 87,852,62 19 2% 2010 72 00 87,891,60 19 3% 2002 72 00 V281,867 12 I% 2008 72 00 86202,461 19 ox 2007 7,0 900,000 8221968 8110,874 8130,282 V200 0 0% 2011 00 V200 0 0% 2010 00 86750 0 0% 2002 00 811240 0 0% nu moo 8168,864 8171,327 8165,415 81,175 810,535 8480,000 I 2% 2011 0 00 8480,000 I 2% 2010 0 00 8429,570 1 1% 2002 0 00 9060,000 0 2% 2008 0 00 9060927 0.0% 2007 0 00 8150,000 8150,000 8150,000 8110,000 8603,418 I 5% 2011 6 45 8528,003 I 5% 2010 5 45 8635,604 1 6% 2002 6 45 8604,885 1 6% 2008 6 45 8578986 1 6% 2007 6 45 8238,424 8232,622 8220,270 81,743 8121,271 81,023,078 2010 2 00 81,058233 2 2% 2002 10 oo 792594: 227.6Z 80 80 825,000 0 1% 2002 0 00 824,177 0 1% 2008 0 00 848933 0 1% 2007 0 00 80 80 80 FwAxa nTwTTn. SAFETY • 842776 0 I% ma 1 00 844256 0 I% mu 00 20 903720 0 I% amo 00 822224 0 I% no 00 80 80 80 81,800 0 0% 2011 0 00 81,800 0 0% 2010 0 00 82,277 0 0% 2002 0 00 83,216 0 0% 2008 0 00 810,645 0 0% 2007 0 00 10 81,402520 3 6% 2011 0 00 81,373,040 3 4% 2010 0 00 81,316,580 3 2% 2002 0 00 81,272,173 3 4% 2008 0 00 81,382824 3 9% 2007 0 00 80 om om 80 80 80 VA57 0 0% 2011 00 $78282 0 2% nog Ho 860282 0 2% 2008 Ho 866953 0 2% nu 1 00 815,000 2011 om 815,000 0. nu om 9.2m mx no om 92,60 mx nm om 925,878 mu nu pm 850 8238,382 2 4% 2011 10 59 81933,205 2 5% 2010 11 54 81,0,002 2 5% 2002 13 62 81932728 2 7% 2008 12 87 81,028,218 2 9% 2007 11 89 820,330 81,1923 81203940 8208,673 0 5% 2011 08 8213,124 0 5% 2010 08 8231,450 0 6% 2002 08 8225,682 0 6% 2008 13 8212202 0 6% 2007 8355,4 0 2% 2011 0 20 8383263 0 2% 2010 0 20 8408242 1.0% 2002 1 00 8406201 I% 2008 1 00 8348,434 I 0% 2007 Ho 8238200 0 2% 2011 00 8278262 0 7% 2010 00 8265243 0 7% 2002 00 8348,2 0 2% 2008 4 00 8333781 0 2% 2007 4 00 82 82 8127,546 0 5% 2011 0 00 8127,335 0 5% 2010 0 00 8201,227 0 5% 2002 0 00 8202922 0 5% 2008 0 00 8127,551 02% 2007 0 00 80 80 80 80 80 9093,323 I 0% 2011 3 46 9065,851 0 2% 2010 3 24 8438936 I IX 2002 3 44 8468967 I 2% 2008 3 37 8402,588 I IX 2007 3 22 81,052936 2 7% 2011 8 85 81,118,245 2 7% 2010 8 80 81,050239 2 6% 2002 10 20 81931,165 2 9% 2007 9 11 814 326 AsAA (EEO 8200,000 8200,000 ry lrmi.a-m00 a�aae General Government Budget - Priorities Model (as of 1015/101 General Government Expenditures s $56,662438 Preliminary 2011 429 28 $59,519,430 Adopted 2010 $59,493,104 Actual 2009 475 58 $59,012,002 Actual 2008 477 13 $53,596,360 Actual 2009 361.52 Resource Management $8,256,349 14 6% 2011 63 98 $8,948,245 14 , 2010 70 29 $8,983,05,8 15 1% 2009 73 71 $9,226,096 16 2% 2008 $8,962,866 16.3% 2009 9441 Economic elopm n $2,959,020 5 2% 2011 26 41 $3,194,055 5 3% 2010 28 11 $3,194,049 5 4% 2009 30 06 $3,098,419 5 4% 2008 28 41 $2,843,991 5.3% 2009 26.96 EnY mwxwaEn ♦ u amAxwaEmExF a HST.. I Fmwxa • EE oxn[v a PAPP PPS ray rAssol1611) 8203,061 2011 7 00 8207265 2 4% 2010 7 00 8127,458 2 2% 2002 7 00 8204286 2 2% 2008 7 00 8182958 2 IX 2007 7 00 80 80 80 8142938 1 7% 2011 1 73 8148924 1 7% 2010 1 73 8142100 I 6% 2002 1 73 8136,681 I 5% 2008 1 73 8127,712 I 5% 2007 1 73 85142M 62% nn 2N 8518262 59% 2010 2m 850278 5. no 2N 8483,12 s2x nm 2m 8450,429 MIX nu 2m 8143258 1 7% 2011 1 57 8142730 1 7% 2010 1 57 8141226 2% 2002 1 57 8121,2 1 4% 2007 1 57 80 80 80 1.8% 2002 IM 81,25 2% 2008 1 65 $149,91 2007 8366275 4 4% 2011 8373,612 4 2% 2010 8352222 4.0% 2.2 80 80 80 8103,000 1 2% 2011 0 00 8103,000 1 2% 2010 0 00 8102201 1 1% 2002 0 00 826227 ox 2008 00 825,467 I IX 2007 0 00 8150,000 1 7% 2010 0 00 8150,000 1 7% 2002 0 00 8150,000 2% 2008 0 00 8150,000 1 7% 2007 0 00 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 8.000 81,381,8 16 7% 2011 14 20 81,440234 Is 2% 2008 17 40 81,212256 13 2% 2007 17 20 18 81,622,5 12 2% 2011 0 00 81 2,33 Is no 0 00 80 80 80 80 80 82,013255 24 4% 2011 Ino 82,088935 23 2% 2010 Ino 82950202 25 1% 2002 18 20 82,218264 24 ox 2008 18 20 82960770 24 7% 2007 18 20 50 22722. 8172,450 82,726 8,172 8352227 4 .3% 2011 24 840406 4 2% 2010 2 24 8410,184 4 2% 2002 2 24 8403270 4 4% 2008 2 44 80 80 80 EssEsAssAA ASA 8752250 2 1% 2011 8227,482 II 4% 2010 81,026,2 II 4% 2002 81,034701 11 2% 2008 81,022928 11 8% 2007 85,700 8602900 8659,317 8607,891 222 80 860255 0 7% 2011 75 862,637 0 7% mu 80 852200 0 7% no 20 86,83 0 7% 2008 24 852244 0 7% nu 82 02 VEDA 1322) 80 0 OX 2011 0. 835,602 I n 2011 0. 835,602 I IX 2010 0 00 835,601 I IX 2002 0. 835,601 I IX 2008 0. 82218957 71 6% 2011 17 Is 82220,875 70 ox 2010 18 47 82,3,451 68 0% 2002 12 27 82,167,831 70 0% 2008 18 42 81,263,672 69 I% 2007 18 12 81,258760 81908760 81,381901 824,282 3 2% 2011 1 18 8102,123 3 2% 2010 23 822982 2 9% 2002 23 822,656 3 0% 2008 23 861,125 2 IX 2007 1.08 8100,150 8100,150 868232 CsossAsA CMS 831,000 I 0% 2011 moo 865,193 2 IX 2008 0. 860,155 2 IX 2007 0. Assysy MAY., OHS 8480965 16 2% 2011 6 8558,642 17 6% 2010 6 5 8641,601 20 I% 2002 7 5 8622,164 20 3% 2008 8 10 8623,670 21 2% 2007 7 10 Quality of Life $3,009,864 7 1% 2011 21 30 ,290,254 $4,339,916 7 3% 2009 26 40 $4490596 7 9% 2008 27 08 $4,245,998 9.9% 2009 28.02 • QUALITY OF LAE 0 Gust 1, $ 889z. m3 3% 2011 18 55 $1,864,820 3 1% 2010 18 55 $1,693549 2 $1,645,941 2 9% 2008 18 05 $1,493,930 2.8% 2009 18.20 Strategic Pa tnersNps $559,289 10% 2011 5 00 $580,150 10% 2010 5 00 $461,683 0 8% 2009 3 00 $391,965 0 $358,130 0., 2009 3.00 I FINANCE • ETAT SVEiEommTO SETS,. CITY man 0 SnwrzCIE ram. SETA. 8,00 0. 2002 00 81,000 0 0% 2007 0 00 80 80 80 80 80 82,000 0 0% 2010 0 00 83,000 0 IX 2002 0 00 83,000 0 IX 2008 0 00 83,000 0 IX 2007 moo 222. PEAT Yes1611) 82,667 0 I% 2010 00 85233 0 I% 2002 00 85233 0 I% 2008 00 85233 0 I% 2007 00 80 80 80 85,000 0 IX 2010 0 00 810,000 0 2% 2002 0 00 80 80 80 8155,000 8155,000 8122968 8180,234 8147 332 81205,085 62 I% 2011 8,56927 67 4% 2010 14 15 81,130,716 67 6% 2002 14 06 81,032016 62 8% 2008 13 65 8258 522 64 2% 2007 13 80 Smospoo UM 2011 0 m 80 80 80 MAN WORKS • QUAL TY OF ESTE • 81952221 31 2% 2011 2 67 81,431264 33 4% 2010 10 .67 81,400290 32 3% 2002 11 25 81,434229 31 2% 2008 11 25 81,320212 32 7% 2007 12 75 t:772:1 7912 8263,850 8263,850 8261957 8246933 8243,527 812,30 3 2% 2011 0 20 $76260 amo 65 866,636 sx no 65 864,0 4 x 75 85 83 V5,222 2 IX 2011 1 00 8158982 3 7% 2010 1 so 8152,228 3 7% 2002 1 so 8150,626 3 4% 2008 1 so 8133,448 3 IX 2007 1 so 821900 861900 820923 t6676'2,8: 42'2 :01110 8124,000 4, 2002 8114950 8114950 8121,628 8112966 8113,643 8521,222 14 .8% 2011 2 00 8577,086 13 s 2010 2 00 8522,345 13. 2002 80 8661,332 14 7% 2008 2 00 8567,568 13 4% 2007 2 00 82,015 8223,015 8238,830 8212982 8180,068 46,500 3 7% 2011 0 00 46,500 3 4% 2010 0 00 8143,700 3 3% 2002 0 00 8210,865 4 7% 2008 0 00 8242,381 5 7% 2007 0 00 80 80 80 80 80 $877M721449 11762 : 865,5 19. 2008 so 8635220 Is ox 2007 00 8583,300 8582900 8541978 8534923 8505,611 82,502 0 I% 2011 860,931 1 4% 2010 8111,540 2 .6% 2002 8210,103 4 7% 2008 8176,386 4 2% 2007 810,060 811,676 8301,575 8232,088 8283,858 8241,441 8432,432 4 2% 2010 5 00 8258982 2 8% 2008 3 00 8234,303 2 7% 2007 3 00 8225,000 8205,000 878902 FINATICE 0 STRATEGIC PETIT. EST, 840252 7. nu 00 908,623 10 2% amo 00 841225 II IX 2002 0 00 842281 2 2% 2.8 00 80 80 80 902,025 7. nu 00 902,025 6 7% amo 00 902,025 es x no 00 80 80 80 Ely. PEA 1611) 84284 0 I% 2002 00 810,000 0. nu om 920,0m 0. no om 920,0m mx nm om 80 80 80 860,0m mx nu om 825,0m mx no om 80 Police CIN m.�g:nmt CEO MAE Wm. Description City of Yakima Utility Tax Comparison Actual YE -Estimate Tax Rate 2000 2010 Nob Hill Water (outside water) 14.00% $97,670 $360,000 Yakima Waste Systems (outside refuse) 10.00% $253,876 $330,000 City Water 14.00% $639,500 $980,000 City Wastewater 14.00% $1,053,164 $2,129,000 City Refuse Utility 9.00% $266,124 $435,000 Total Population erp 10/5/2010 3:54 PM Utility-Tax-COMPARISONxIs.xls utt20 (3) $2,310,334 $4,234,000 71,845 85,040 Proposed is-fr,bvl-ed io/s/iv its Y, 2011 Council Budget Review / Adoption Schedule A. Information Submitted to Council: Tues. 10-05-10 Gen.Gov. Forecast to Council Tues. 10-19-10 Balance of Forecast to Council Friday 10-22-10 (1) Policy Issues Document to Council (includes detailed information regarding proposed budget reductions) (2) Preliminary Budget to Council - for Dept. to be reviewed on 10-26-10 Friday 10-29-10 Balance of Preliminary Budget to Council B. Council Budget Review Meetings: Tues. 10-26-10 9:00 am - Noon Council / Department Review Tues. 11-02-10 9:00 am - Noon Council / Department Review Tues. 11-09-10 9:00 am - Noon Council / Department Review Tues. 11-16-10 9:00 am - Noon Council / Department Review Tues. 11-16-10 7:00 PM Public Hearing - Property Tax Public Hearing - 2011 Budget . Tues. 11-23-10 Extra Time for Council Review and/or Meetings as needed Tues. 11-30-10 Extra Time for Council Review and/or Meetings as needed C. Budget Adoption: 12-07-10 9:00 am - noon Budget Wrap -Up (vote on Policy Issues) 12-14-10 Reg. Business Meeting Budget Adoption (Council Agenda Item) C:\Documents and Settings\rdebord\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA8\10-01-10 Council Review Sched (2).xls 10/5/20104:53 PM