HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-059 Budget Forecast - City of
,1.1 f,,,,
2010 Washington
,,,,e Bixciod-eX Far' AO
O 4
`,... .• IT.T.,:',.- „ .." ....' - '40. 7 ' :',./". :L. '' 4, ,....7
i lk/ 1 ro 1 4 t
, _ 3 ; . L' ry .' ,1
.f H_ ti .- mo ` .
. s s -" i
i t --' . y am_ • ' 9
r - , 4,,,,,,,..
b ' ` },
it
•
Ph Da Hughes -
cio:
..- :kater.cmrt -
Skate/ Pawl(' - IVove n'i 3 2008
,,,':`,:,-!.t.',- ,` 1� 1
.„,. ...,....4..\
.1,4„. ...,, ,4
-..'"/ '' - . . ' - - L.7". TN.,? . .....1...,' "'. Vt. 1. ''' , ' Ll .
_____,
..,.... ... .
. _ .....
, ....._
........------ - ,
___
,yam^ �.. .� i �' "�° '� f v �y l ..:,. ,, _.... ,,, +y�
. ,,, . , i - .,..-.,,,,,, $. ''' ' 4 .L ''..'
■
•
. R \tr... ..• 4.., , +,- I - , .
1 , .__ ' -
1
` \ ho .vmrsunc.�t r `�' -,A
'ice_
Yffbitil/
CITY OF
Washington
2010 BUDGET FORECAST
Insurance & Risk
Management
Equipment $12.4 Million
Rental
$6.0 Million Police, Courts, Fire
(Public Safety)
$41.1 Million
Water & Irrigation
$16.1 Million
City
Administration
$6.6 Million
Wastewater
$23.4 Million Information Systems \pi & Other Services
$7.7 Million
Refuse Other 0 • eratin • Funds
$4.7 Million $9.5 Million
Transit Streets, Engineering,
$9.9 Million Planning & Codes
Stormwater I $6.4 Million
$2.5 Million
Parks and Recreation
Non - Utility $4.2 Million
Capital Improvement
$31.0 Million Community & Economic
Development
Debt Service $2.9 Million
$6.4 Million
$190.8 MILLION
Preface —1
2 — Preface
CITY OF Y1
Washington
VISION STATEMENT
To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant,
safe, and strong Yakima community
SSION 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
ST TEGIC 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
4 — Preface
C I FY Y 01 Vat/
2010 BUDGET FO CAST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
Transmittal Memo
Executive Summary
Budget Highlights
Priorities of Government Model (Map)
IL GENE L GOVERNMENT
Year in Review
Revenue Trends
Expenditure Trends
IH. GE I GOVE ENT - DEP T NTAL INFO TION
IV. T YOU PAY AND , T YOU GET
V. OTHER FUNDS
VI, ITAL PROVEMENT FUND
E IBITS
I. THREE-YE BUDGET COMP SON
IL POLICY ISSUE SU Y
III, SUPPLEMENTAL INFO TION
Cover photographs courtesy of; an Hughes
Preface — 5
6 — Preface
INTRODUCTION: TRANSMITTAL MEMO
o f Y�
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
(,._,,,i ;� 129 North Second Street
I City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901
e" Phone (509) 575 -6040
' a ge
� ORATE�
MEMORANDUM
October 6, 2009
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FROM: Dick Zais, City Manager
Rita M. DeBord, Finance Director
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director of Accounting and Budget
SUBJECT: 2010 BUDGET FORECAST
In accordance with the provisions of the City Charter, we are presenting the 2010 Budget
Forecast for the City of Yakima.
The City's 2010 Budget is balanced within existing resources, but is severely stressed
economically. The City experienced significantly fewer General Government revenues in
2009 as compared to the prior year and only a small increase is projected for 2010 above the
2008 / 2009 levels; this has required reductions in spending in both 2009 and 2010 budgets,
resulting in municipal services provided at minimum levels, or in some cases, below. The
2010 Budget Forecast is based on City Council's new Priorities of Government budget
model and continues to reflect strong fiscal discipline and reduced spending throughout
all City departments, as necessitated by the distressed economy and our local conservative
tax climate. Yakima has been managing through tough economic times for many years,
and will continue to do so responsibly and proactively to meet our community's highest
priority municipal service needs, while living within our means.
Due to the magnitude of the budget reductions proposed for the 2010 budget — and the
related impact on services provided to our citizens - staff is submitting the annual Budget
Forecast earlier than in prior years in order to allow Council and the public more time for
review and deliberation prior to Council's final budget approval in December. However,
Introduction: Transmittal Memo • Section I —
because of the earlier distribution, staff has not had sufficient time to prepare all of the
materials normally included in the Budget Forecast. The primary focus of the materials
included in the 2010 Budget Forecast at this time relate to General Government (tax
supported) activities, only. (The General Government Budget consists of the General
Fund, the Streets and Traffic Operating Fund and the Parks/Recreation Fund; and is the
focus of the materials included in the initial distribution of the 2010 Budget Forecast.) The
balance of the Budget Forecast will include 2010 budget information pertinent to all other
operating and capital funds of the City. This information will be submitted at a later date;
distribution is targeted for late October 2009.
(Note: the annual Budget Forecast document provides a forecast of the current year's
anticipated budget to actual results, and an overview of the proposed budget for the
subsequent year. A more detailed look at the subsequent year's proposed budget is
provided in the Preliminary Budget document, which is scheduled for distribution in early
November 2009.)
2 — Section 1 • Introduction: Transmittal Memo
INTRODUCTION: E Y
The Executive Summary provides a high-level overview of the 2009 year-end forecast and
the proposed 2010 budget, along with significant issues that have effected the City's fiscal
position in the past year and/or anticipated to have a material impact in 2010. 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
2009 YEAR FORECAST
Current revenue projections indicate that 2009 year-end General Government revenues will
be approximately equivalent to the level of 2008 Actual revenues (or $57.4 million); with only
a modest increase of 1.3% projected in 2010 (to $58.1 million). Essentially there has been no
increase in 2009 General Government revenues over the prior year; this necessitated City
management to devote significant time and effort during the year focused on reducing 2009
expenditures well below the City Council's original authorized budget levels.
Current expenditure projections indicate that 2009 year-end General Government expenditures
will be ($1.9) million less than budgeted (refer to Section II for more information on the budget
reductions). Management's unwavering focus on reducing the City's 2009 expenditures
resulted in projections that 2009 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 coining year,
which is not expected to offer much economic relief — as is reflected in the following chart.
2009 VS. 2010
EXPENDITURE BUDGET COMPARISON (I)
(TRADITIONAL BUDGET MODEL)
'09 vs. '10
2009 2009 AMENDED
YEAR-END AMENDED 2010 BUDGET
FUND ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET % CHANGE
General 850,348,617 551,744,327 850,007,298 (3.4%)
Parks 4,249,796 4,377,543 4,232,014 (3.3%)
Street & Traffic 5,686,692 6,074,833 5,379,043 (11.5%)
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT ( 560,285,105 56 559,618,355 (4.1%)
Community Development ° 4,261,559 4,525,424 2,529,187 (44.1%)
Utilities / Other Operating 56,153,966 59,021,753 59,678,386 1.1%
Capital Improvement 30,820,21)6 62
45,527472 (26.9%)
Conting,ency/Operating, Reserves 3,358,284 3,811,525 3,056,264 (19.8%)
Employee Benefit Reserves 13,300,838 13,596,013 13,971,783 2 .8%
General Obligation Bonds 2,991,919 2,991,919 3, 10.0%
LID Debt Service 207000 207,000 207,000 0.0%
Water / Sewer Revenue Bonds 2,860,417 2,860,417 2,863,042 0.1%
Trust and Agency Funds 12,000 25,000 15,000 (4(1.(1%)
TOTAL CITYWIDE BUDGET (3) 5174,251,294 8211,490,103 $190,756,691 (9.8%)
(1) General Government - The 2010 General Government expenditure budget is approximately (82.6 million) or (4.1%)
below the 2009 amended budget; and $670 thousand or (1.1%) below the 2009 year-end forecast.
(2) The 2010 Community Development budget includes an estimate only of the 2010 grant awards. The 2009 amended
budget includes the 2009 grant awards and awards carried forward from previous years.
(3) Citywide Expenditures - The Citywide Expenditure budget is approximately (520.7 million) or (9.8%) below
the 2009 amended budget
Introduction: Executive Summary • Section 1 — 3
2010 PROPOSED BUDGET AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
CITY-WIDE BUDGET
2009 Year-end Expenditure estimate of $174.3 million is approximately (21.3%)
less than the amended budget of $211.5 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.
2010 Proposed Expenditure budget is approximately $190.8 million; (9.8%) less than
the 2009 amended budget of $211.5 million.
2010 Projected Revenue is approximately $178.0 million or 6.7% greater than the
2009 year-end estimate of $166.8 million. The primary revenue increase is from
Federal and State grants, thus is restricted in its use.
The proposed 2010 total City-wide expenditure budget of $190.8 million is balanced within
existing resources and reflects a decrease of (9.8%) from 2009, 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 2009 expenditures and additional
significant budget and service reductions are included in the proposed 2010 budget.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
2009 Year-end Expenditure estimate is approximately $60.3 million, or ($1.9 million),
below the amended budget of $62.2 million.
2010 Proposed Expenditure budget is approximately $59.6 million; (4.1%) less than
the 2009 amended budget of S62.2 million.
2010 Projected Revenue budget is approximately $58.1 million or 1.3% more than the
2009 year-end revenue estimate of $57.4 million.
The proposed 2010 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 2010
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 2010 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, re-allocated 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 2010 General Government
expenditure budget reflects a decrease of approximately (4.1%) from the prior year, (refer
4 — Section 1 • Introduction: Executive Summary
to Section 11 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, even at this reduced expenditure level, it is questionable as to whether the City
can continue to sustain the 2010 proposed service levels in the future without significant
growth in revenues.
NEW 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 new budget model /
methodology for the development of the 2010 budget, referred to as the Priorities of
Government Model. Following this model prompted Council to formally establish Budget
Priorities and provide staff direction for allocating available resources to each Priority;
Council adopted six Budget Priorities for the City's General Government expenditures, as
listed below 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 Council's newly adopted Budget Priorities are in addition to the Strategic Priorities
which they adopted in 2008. The Strategic Priorities (listed at the front of this Budget
Forecast) and Council's newly adopted Budget Priorities, together, form the foundation for
the development of the City's 2010 Budget as proposed and submitted herein by Staff.
At a budget review session in July 2009, Council provided direction to staff regarding
how to allocate the projected 2010 revenues (as estimated by staff at that time) among the
six new Budget Priorities. Consistent with the Priorities of Government Model, Council
directed staff to allocate the projected revenues to each Budget Priority 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 2010 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 prevented
the need for crippling budget reductions in public safety that would otherwise have been
required in order to balance this budget at the greatly reduced funding level.
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
Introduction: Executive Summary • Section 1 — 5
to the Council's ultimate vision for the City: to create a culturally diverse, economically
vibrant, safe and strong Yakima community.
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 20 I0 BUDGET
Throughout this document, the 2010 budget is presented in the new, Budget Priorities
format and the traditional Fund and Department formats. There are several reasons for
displaying the budget in these various formats, including: the new Budget Priorities format
helps the reader identify what services the City is providing and at what total costs; the
traditional formats are helpful for purposes of budget comparisons with prior years; ease of
use for many readers who are familiar with the traditional formats; Department Directors
and Managers need budget information in the traditional format for their individual
areas of responsibility; and the budget by Fund format meets the City's legal budget
requirements. Additionally, staff has not had sufficient time to update all data into the new
Budget Priorities format, and some information may not be easily transferable.
The pie chart below depicts the proposed 2010 budget and related budget allocations to
Council's six Budget Priorities.
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSED BUDGET
(BY BUDGET PRIORITY)
TOTAL - $59,618,358
Resource Management
$8,805,907
14.8%
Public Health
& Safety
$40,867,178
68.5% Quality of Life
$4,304,112
7.2%
Economic
Development
$3,194,800
5.4%
Customer Service
& Communications
Strategic $1,866,211
Partnerships 3.1%
$580,150
6 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary
2009 VS. 2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE COMPARISON
BY BUDGET PRIORITY
(Numbers in Thousands)
1 1 1 I
$40,857
Public Health & Safety
$41,884
I $5,805
Resource Management $9,927
$3 95
Economic Development $1 40
i
4,304 0 2010 Proposed Budget - $59,618
Quality of Life CI 4589 2009 Amended Budget - $62,197
5
—
Customer Service & $1 866
Communications 33517 $1,
j $580
Strategic Partnerships $500
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000
The above bar chart graphically reflects the 2010 proposed budget compared to the 2009
amended budget (the current authorized expenditure level), for each of the Budget Priority
categories. Due to the projected reduction in General Fund revenues in 2010 from that of
the prior year, four out of the six budget priorities were allocated fewer (absolute) dollars
in the proposed 2010 budget than they received in their 2009 budgets. The two Budget
Priority categories that received a minimal increase in their 2010 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 (2009) service levels. That is, the cost in 2010 of providing
existing services is greater in many areas than their 2009 budget amount - thus, reductions
had to be made to get down to the 2009 budget level in addition to the reductions required
to go further to meet the lower 2010 budget level.
20 I 0 BUDGET ALLOCATION
The chart on the following page provides a comparison of the 2009 Adopted Budget (in
both dollars and relative percentage each Budget Priority received of the total budget) to
the 2010 Budget based on two different allocation methods:
1. Allocation of available revenues based on a "pure" Priorities of Government
Model" (Refer to columns 3 & 4.), which utilizes the prior year's relative percentage
Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I — 7
of the total budget for each Budget Priority and applies that same percentage to
the projected revenues in the upcoming year to determine the budget level for each
Budget Priority. Council's previously authorized use of reserves for Public Safety's
2010 budget is also reflected in this chart.
2. An updated recommendation from management for the allocation of 2010 available
revenues among the six Budget Priorities (Refer to columns 5 & 6). Management's
10 -06 -09 recommendation is updated from that adopted by Council at their July
2009 meeting due to changes in 2010 revenue and expenditure projections since that
time. Management's updated recommendation allocates an additional $300,000 to
the Public Safety budget priority; and Customer Service & Communications and
the Strategic Partnership budget priorities received additional allocations to cover
cost increases resulting from previously authorized operational changes (electronic
payment options and City /County Purchasing consolidation. Consequently, the
Resource Management and Economic Development Budget priorities received a
bigger reduction.
The following chart identifies how the 2010 General Government funds are allocated within
the budget priorities model.
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT
BUDGET ALLOCATION COMPARISONS
PRIORITIES MODEL & UPDATED MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
PRIORITY MODEL ALLOCATION UPDATED MANAGEMENT
(UTILIZING RESERVES) RECOMMENDATIONS 10/6/09
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
2009 2010 2010 , VARIANCE
ADOPTED % OF RESOURCES & % OF RESOURCES & % OF FROM MODEL
BUDGET TOTAL EXPENDITURES TOTAL EXPENDITURES TOTAL (5 -3)
RESOURCES
Projected Revenues $58,657,610 $58,138,533 $58,138,533
Plus Reserve Allocation 2,121,348 1,479,825 1,479,825
Net Resources to be Allocated $60,778,958 $59,618,358 $59,618,358
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Public Health & Safety $40,862,436 $39,087,246 $39,387353
Reserve Allocation 0 1,479,825 1,479,825
Total Public Health & Safety 40,862,436 67.2% 40,567,071 68.0% 40,867,178 .5% 300,107 0.5%
Resource Management 9,573,124 15.8% 9,157,238 15.4% 8,805,907 14.8% (351,331) (0.6 %)
Economic Development 3,432,141 5.6% 3,283,038 5.5% 3,194,800 5.4% (88,238) (0.1 %)
Quality of Life 4,562,973 7.5% 4,364,743 7.3% 4,304,112 7.2% (60,631) (0.1 %)
Customer Svc & Comm 1,848,183 3.0% 1,767,892 3.0% 1,866,211 3.1% 98,319 0.2%
Strategic Partnerships 500,101 0.8% 478,375 0.8% 580,150 1.0% 101,775 0.2%
Total $60,778,958 100.0% $59,618,358 100.0% $59,618,358 100.0%
The chart above reflects many key elements of the proposed 2010 budget, as noted below:
8 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary
2009 ADOPTED BUDGET (COLUMNS I & 2)
Under the Priorities of Government model, the expenditure budget allocated to each of the
Budget Priorities is established in two basic steps; first, determine the percentage of the
previous year's revenues that were allocated to each budget Priority in the previous year;
and then apply that same percentage to the projected revenues of the upcoming year.
In 2009, the Public Health and Safety Priority area received S40.9M or 67.2% of the
total General Government budget, as depicted in the chart above. Applying this same
percentage to the 2010 projected revenues would provide a budget of approximately $39.1
million ($58.1 million x 67.2%) or a reduction of $1.8M from 2009 levels. A reduction of this
magnitude would require service reductions that would be so severe as to jeopardize the
safety or our citizens and make vulnerable the required "due process" of our legal/court
systems. Therefore, adjustments to this allocation method were authorized by Council. See
below for further details.
2010 PRIORITY MODEL ALLOCATION (COLUMNS 3 AND 4)
Council authorized staff to utilize a portion of the projected 2010 year-end cash reserves
(an amount equivalent to the amount that exceeds 7% of the 2010 General government
Budget; which was approximately S1.5 million at that time) for Public Health and Safety's
2010 budget. This effectively changed the relative percentage (and, therefore, also the total
absolute dollars) that each of the six Budget Priorities hold in relation to the total General
Government budget. This is reflected in the comparison of the percentages shown for each
Budget Priority in Column (2) vs. Column (4) in the above chart; (i.e.: Public Health and
Safety held 67.2% of the 2009 General Government budget, vs. the 68.0% in 2010 that the
priorities model would suggest. Even with Council's authorized use of cash reserves for
the Public Health and Safety Budget Priority, this area would still receive ($295,365) fewer
actual dollars (columns 1 - column 3) in 2010 than it received in 2009 under the Budget
Priority Model, due to the projected reduction in revenues between these two years;
thus, management proposed, and Council authorized, further adjustments to the revenue
allocations (see below).
2010 UPDATED MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION (COLUMNS 5 AND 6 IN PREVIOUS CHART)
In addition to the use of cash reserves, management recommended, and Council authorized
at their July 2009 meeting, that a larger percentage of the total General Government
budget be allocated to Public Safety in 2010 in an effort to further minimize the severity of
necessary budget reductions within this Budget Priority area.
As a result of this change in the budget allocation, and due to updated revenue and
expenditure projections, the amount of the budget reduction required in the Public Safety
area was reduced by ($300,107) or (0.5%) from what would otherwise have been necessary
(refer to Col. 7 and 8 of Chart). Thus the Public Safety budget priority 2010 budget will
be approximately the same as the 2009 Budget. This caused a change in all other Budget
Priority areas as well; the Resource Management Priority was hardest hit by this change, as
the budget allocation for this Priority was reduced an additional (S351,331) or (0.6%) over
what it would have been allocated under the "pure" Priorities Model.
Introduction: Executive Summary • Section I — 9
Note: Management's updated recommended budget allocation and related percentages
(Col 5 and 6), are slightly different than that presented to Council at their July 2009 meeting
due to updates in the related 2010 revenue and expenditure projections since that time.
(Refer to the end of this section for a comparison of these mid -year projections.)
However, as severe as some of the proposed budget / service reductions may appear,
they are very necessary in order for the City to operate within its available resources and
maintain minimum reserve balances. (Refer to "Budget Highlights" later in this section for
more information regarding proposed 2010 budget reductions.)
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
BY DEPARTMENT
2010 % of
Forecast Dollars in Millions Total
Organizational Unit Budget 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Budget
Police $23,108,949 1 38.8%
Fire 8,979,699 I I I 15.1%
Streets & Traffic Op. 5,379,043 I I I 9.0%
Parks 4,232,013 I I I 7.1%
Information Systems 2,306,255 =1 3.9%
Transfers 2,252,275 M 3.8%
Financial Services 1,502,860 J 2.5%
Code Administration 1,462,372 U • Personnel 2.5%
Police Pension 1,373,040 E 0 Non-Personnel 2.3%
Municipal Court 1,262,770 ED 2.1%
Utility Services 1,253,118 a 2.1%
Legal 1,142,950 0 1.9%
Engineering 1,003,528 ❑ 1.7%
Planning 774,229 ❑ 1.3%
City Manager 518,563 0 0.9%
Indigent Defense 480,000 0 0.8%
All Other Streets
Human Resources 467,978 0 24% 9 0.8%
Parks 7%
Records 440,128 III 0.7%
Purchasing 432,432 0 0.7%
City Hall Maintenance 406,690 0.7%
Intergovernmental 331,397 0 0.6%
Police, Fire
City Council 212,265 I & Courts 0.4%
Sundome 150,000 0 60% 0.3%
State Examiner 103,000 I 0.2%
Hearings Examiner 41,000 I 0.1%
District Court 1,800 I 0.0%
Total $59,618,354 100.0%
Fire Pen & Benefits $1,624,792 Q 2.7%
10 — Section I • Introduction: Executive Summary
The 2010 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 $59.6 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 (9.0%) 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 2010 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.
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT
PROJECTED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CASH BALANCES
2010 2010 2010 2010
2010 2010 EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ENDING BAL
PROJECTED PROPOSED AS % OF BEGINNING ENDING AS A % OF
REVENUE EXPENDITURES DIFFERENCE REVENUE BALANCE BALANCE EXP.
General $48,655,738 $50,007,298 ($1,351,560) 2.8% $4,207,894 $2,856,334 5.7%
Parks & Recreation 4,248,985 4,232,014 16,971 (0.4%) 279,477 296,448 7.0%
Street/Traffic Operations 5,233,810 5,379,043 (145,233) 2.8% 1,260,353 1,115,120 20.7%
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $58,138,533 $59,618,355 ($1,479,822) 2.5% $5,747,724 $4,267,902 7.2%
In the past, the City endeavored 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 5% contingency reliance on reserves to balance the budget.
During 2009, City Council directed staff to review various fiscal policies and guidelines
including the use of general government reserves and minimum reserve balances. Staff
Introduction.: Executive Summary • Section I — 11
has not yet completed and forwarded their final recommendations to Council; however,
a proposal to utilize no more than 3% "reliance" on reserves to effectively balance as it's
being developed, and to move the general government reserve balance guideline to a range
of approximately 7% - 12% of general government annual expenditures has been discussed
and incorporated into the development of the 2010 budget.
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 recent (August 2009) re- confirmation 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 ".
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESERVES - USAGE AND BALANCE COMPARISONS
(I) (2) (3) (4) (5)
2009 2010
2009 CURRENT UPDATED
2008 AMENDED YEAR -END MGMT VARIANCE
ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE (I) PROPOSAL (4 -2)
Beg. Reserve Balance $8,186,216 $8,622,738 $8,622,738 $5,747,724
Revenue 57,435,372 58,714,088 57,410,091 58,138,533
Total Resou 65,621,588 67,336,826 66,032,829 63,886,257 (3,450,569)
56,998,850 1 62,196,703 60,285,105 59,618,358 (2,578,345)
End. Reserve Balance 8,622,738 5,140,123 1 5,747,724 4,267,899
of Annual Expenditures n/a 8.3% 9.5% 7.2%
Inc / (Dec) in Reserves f/ Prior Year (1) $436,522 ($3,482,615) ($2,875,014) ($1,479,825)
of Expenditure Budget n/a (5.6 %) (4.8 %) (2.5 %)
The chart above reflects several key aspects of the City's fiscal condition:
> Revenues: The 2009 year -end revenue estimate is less than 2008 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 2010 budget.
2010 projected revenues reflect a growth rate above the 2009 year -end estimate of
only 1.3 %; and this estimate is less than the 2009 amended budget.
> Expenditures: The 2009 year -end expenditures are projected to be $1.9 million less
than the amended budget.
12 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
The 2010 proposed expenditure budget is nearly $700,000 less than the 2009 year-end
forecast and approximately $2.6 million less than the 2009 authorized expenditure
level; and these reductions include the utilization of approximately $1.48 million in
reserves.
Reserves: A comparison of the 200S beginning and ending reserve balances reflects a
slight growth in reserves during that year, (approximately $8.2M to $8.6M); however,
2009 year-end projections indicate a utilization of reserves of approximately S2.9M
during this year and a utilization of approximately S1.48M is budgeted for 2010;
resulting in a 50% reduction in the City's General Government reserves over a 3 year
period. While a major purpose for holding reserve 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 2010 is
projected to be at the recommended minimum balance and should not be depleted
further.
The 2010 budgeted year-end reserve level is just over 7% of the total 2010
general government budget, and the $1.48M budgeted use of reserves in 2010
is approximately 2.5% of the total general government budget. Both of these
percentages are 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 2009 General Government revenues, the City utilized
reserves and instituted significant budget reductions during 2009 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: Budget Highlights • Section 1 —13
The following chart is presented for informational purposes only — to compare and explain
the differences between management's original budget allocation recommendation
(7/17/09) vs. the current (10/06/09) recommendation.
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
PRIORITIES MODEL
MID -YEAR PROJECTIONS AND UPDATES
2010 PROJECTIONS AS OF 7/17/09 -- 2010 PROJECTIONS AS OF 10/6/09 --
(I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL TARGETED UPDATED REVISED
2010 EXP MGMT % OF ADJUSTMENT MGMT % OF TARGETED ADJ
PROJECTIONS PROPOSAL TOTAL (2 -1) PROPOSAL TOTAL (5 -1)
RESOURCES
Projected Revenues 0- > $57,437,069 $57,437,069 $58,138,533 $701,464
Plus Reserve Allocation 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,479,825 ($20,175)
Net Resources to be Allocated $58,937,069 $58,937,069 $59,618,358 $681,289
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Public Health & Safety $38,615,643 $39,387,353
Reserve Allocation 1,500,000 1,479,825
Total Public Health & Safety 42,226,257 40,115,643 68.1% (2,110,614) 40,867,178 68.5% ($1,359,079)
Resource Management 9,211,621 1 9,046,753, 15.3% (164,869) 8,805,901 14.8% ($405,714)
Economic Development 3,375,331 3,243,427 5.5% (131,904) 3,194,800 5.4% ($180,531)
Quality of Life 4,184,821 • 4,312,081 7.3% 1. 127,260 4,304,112. 7.2% $119,291
Customer Svc & Comm 1,846,507 1,746,562 3.0% (99,945) 1,866,211 3.1% $19,704
Strategic Partnerships 494,871 472,603 0.8% (22,268) 580,150 1.0% $85,279
Total $61,339,408 $58,937,069 100.0% ($2,402,339) $59,618,358 100.0% ($1,721,050)
(1) Revenue projections increased $701,464 from July projections due to an increase in sales tax, move of BYRNE Police grants from
2009 into 2010, contributions from Yakima County for the Purchasing consolidation, growth in electric utility taxes, increased liquor
profits, and a domestic violence /public safety grant.
Explanation of above chart:
ORIGINAL 20 I 0 EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS (COLUMN I)
Resources: This column reflects the resources ($58,937,069 - revenues and reserves)
projected to be available, and authorized by Council, for utilization in the 2010 budget as of
July 17, 2009.
Expenditures: the expenditures noted in this column are a reflection of management's best
estimate of how much it would cost in 2010 ($61,339,408) to provide the same services to
our citizens as were provided in 2009. You'll note that these costs are approximately $2.4
million more than the available resources — thus, requiring 2010 budget reductions of this
magnitude. (see below)
14 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
ORIGINAL (7/17/09) 2010 MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION (COLUMN 2 & 4):
In July, $2.4 million was the projected reduction necessary to balance the 2010 budget.
At that time, management recommended, and Council approved, shifting a greater
percentage of the total available resources to the Public Safety Budget priority in 2010 than
this area received in 2009.
Column 2 reflects management's 7/17/09 proposed allocation to each of the six
Budget Priorities; and
Column 4 reflects the dollar impact — reduction — that each area would experience
under the management's recommended allocation.
UPDATED ( 10/06-09) 2010 MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION (COLUMN 5 & 7):
Updated revenue projections indicate a slight increase in 2010 revenues over that
anticipated in July 2009, of approximately $680,000. The updated management
recommendation allocates these additional revenues to the Public Safety Budget Priority in
an effort to further minimize the severity of necessary budget reductions within this Budget
Priority area.
Other re-allocations that have been recommended include:
Elimination of the budget reductions for the Customer Service & Communication
and the Strategic Partnerships Budget Priorities. This was necessary as the costs
of the Customer Service area are fully covered by the utility enterprise funds (not
the general fund) and the Strategic Partnership Budget Priority is comprised only
of the purchasing division (City & County consolidated costs); this area could not
absorb the cost reductions previously proposed. Additionally, the cost increase
recommended in this area is due to - and should be primarily covered by - the
County contribution to the consolidation endeavor.
Note: these adjustments caused the Resource Management and the Economic
Development Budget Priorities to receive a bigger reduction than previously
recommended.
Column 5 reflects management's current recommendation for the allocation of
available resources among the six Budget Priority areas;
Column 7 reflects the current proposed budget reduction target for each Budget
Priority; for a total reduction of $1.7 million, (as compared to the S2.4 million
reduction projected in July).
The following pages provide more information regarding the 2010 budget and significant
challenges the City will face in our struggle to maintain a strong and stable fiscal condition
and provide critical and essential services to our citizens.
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section 1 —15
INTRODUCTION: BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
For more than a year now, staff has been closely monitoring the financial crisis and
economic recession that has gripped our entire nation, our State and our local economy;
over the past year, staff has prepared, and continually updated, 2009 and 2010 revenue
projections for the City based on the ever worsening 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.
The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) recently released the results of their "State
of the Cities" survey regarding fiscal conditions of Washington State cities. This survey
gathers information regarding the actions taken by cities across our State in regard
to reductions in budgets, services and staffing in an effort to offset the impacts of the
economic recession. The survey results indicate that cities are cutting essential general
government services and capital investments in infrastructure; many are reducing spending
on public safety. Although employees provide the services provided by local government,
more than half of the cities stated they have, or plan to, implement a hiring freeze in 2009;
and 25% of the cities laid-off employees in the first half of 2009. Good fiscal management
means putting money in reserves during good times and using it in hard times — according
to the AWC survey, 55% of the cities are using reserve to weather this recession.
The City of Yakima is experiencing the same serious downward pressures on our revenues —
and increases in costs of providing existing services — as is most, if not every, city in the state.
And we have already implemented many of the same cost reductions measures as other cities
in our efforts to balance the 2009 and the proposed 2010 General Government budgets.
In addition to both a local economy that has been very susceptible to the ups and downs
of one industry, and the severe impacts experienced as a result of the national economic
recession, the City has experienced another severe blow to the stability of its critical
revenues. Over the past ten years, the voters of this state have approved several initiatives
that, together, have had a significant negative impact on critical City revenues. There is
another initiative on the ballot this November (I-1033), which, if it receives voter approval,
threatens the City's ability to maintain the existing, and now reduced, level of services
currently provided to our citizens.
16 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
City Management respectfully believes that the current level of services extended to
our citizens and provided for in the budget is not sustainable in the foreseeable future
should either the depth of the local recession continue and/or the voters pass 1-1033 this
November. (See more information regarding 1-1033 and potential impacts, below.)
INITIATIVE 1033 SUMMARY
If approved by Washington voters, 1-1033 would limit the growth of state, county and
city "general fund" revenues received from taxes, fees, and other charges not expressly
approved by the voters.
General Fund revenue for any given year would be limited to the amount of total General
Fund revenues received by the City in the previous year, plus a percentage increase
reflecting inflation and population growth. The rate of inflation (as measured by the
Implicit Price Deflator or IPD, not the Consumer Price Index) and population growth
would be distributed by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Any
revenues received above the inflation and population growth allowances would have to be
deposited into a "lower property taxes account" and used to reduce property taxes in the
subsequent year.
The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OEM) impact statement regarding
1-1033 estimated the fiscal impact for cities for the six year period of 2010 through 2015 as a
reduction in general fund revenues of an aggregate $2.1 billion, state-wide. AWC recently
distributed their assessment that under 1-1033 cities can expect to receive 13.5% less
revenues than what would otherwise be collected.
This Initiative would present many significant burdens to the City and our citizens should
it become effective, including the following — which represent only a preliminary look at
the effects of the proposed Initiative:
Calculation of the Allowable Revenue Level: The inflation rate and the growth
rate will not be known until the end of March and the end of June, respectively,
of the year following the year to which the rate applies, as specifically prescribed
in 1-1033. Thus, the timing of the availability of the inflation and growth rates for
purposes of calculating the allowable General Fund revenues for a given year is very
problematic. It will be at least six months after the end of a given year before the
City will know how much of that year's General Fund revenues its allowed to keep
and how much, if any, may need to be used to reduce the next property tax levy.
This delay will place many impediments to management's ability to operate the City
in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Additionally, if the City was required to reduce its property tax levy — it would
be the levy two years after the year in which the related revenue was collected
that would receive the reduction (ex.: too much revenue received in 2010 would
not be known until mid-year 2011, thus, the property tax levy for 2012 would be
reduced.) This would be an on-going cycle and a major record keeping effort — ever
complicated by the restrictions / calculations that would still be in place from 1-795.
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section 1 —17
Voter-approved Taxes: I -1033 would exclude voter-approved revenue from the
Initiative's reach, but is drafted only to exclude revenue approved by voters after the
date of the initiative. It does not exclude revenues previously approved by the voters, or
revenues scheduled to be considered by the voters in 2009. In other words, an increase
in a previously voter-approved sales tax (such as the 0.3% criminal justice sales tax
previously approved by voters within Yakima County — resulting in additional sales
tax revenues from this voter-approved tax being utilized to reduce future property tax
levies rather than its intended purpose of adding additional police officers or providing
other criminal justice services) or other tax revenues deposited to the general fund could
trigger a decrease in property taxes, as could an increase in general fund revenue from
regulatory fees, even if such fees are legally restricted for limited purposes only.
Business Cycles: As business cycles "ebb-n-flow", the City's General Fund revenues
will "ebb" with the down-turn in the business cycle; however, it will not be allowed
to "flow" in the up-turn of the economy. That is, the effect of the revenue limitation
is exacerbated during a recession as the initiative does not provide for recovery after
an economic downturn. This will place extreme pressure on emergency reserves
which are accumulated during the good times specifically for the purpose of
utilizing these resources to help get through the bad times, however, under 1-1033, it
would be nearly impossible to rebuild the reserves after an economic recession.
Technology and Other Efficiency / Modernization Tools: the passage of 1-1033
would dramatically reduce the City's ability to modernize our operations or increase
efficiencies through technology or other "capital intensive" solutions due to the fact
that these investments generally require a major up front cost. Since the only growth
in general fund revenues is limited to inflation and population growth — which
rarely even cover the increased costs of providing existing services — there will be
minimal or no revenues available for major investments of any kind. Borrowing
money would be the most likely method of funding these types of projects in the
future; however this increases the cost of the project. Additionally, the benefits of
such investments are generally twofold; a benefit of reduced costs in the future and
improved customer service — neither of these will help fund the project up front.
Additionally, restricting the City's ability to receive any level of revenues above
an arbitrary calculated amount that is based on the current "status quo" could
virtually eliminate the City's ability to respond to changing business needs or to take
advantage of one-time business opportunities that may present themselves from
time to time, as the City will have no capability of ever receiving additional funds
that could be set aside for future use / opportunities of any kind.
Economic Development: under the conditions proposed within 1-1033, there could
be little to no incentive for cities to promote or encourage most type of business
development within a city, or to annex business into a city in the future. In fact,
many cities may need to discourage businesses from coming and investing in their
city because the additional revenue needed to provide services to them may not be
available or on-going.
18 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
Under the restrictions within 1-1033, unless a new or expanding business brings a
significant number of new residents to a city, it will only place additional burdens on the
services of the city (police, fire, streets, snow removal, code enforcement, etc.) and offer
no additional revenues to help fund the costs of these services. Additionally, significant
economic development that does not bring significant population growth with it could
degrade the current level of services provided to existing citizens; thus, economic
development could reduce the quality of life a city can offer to its citizens rather than
improving it. This, of course, is a result of the city being put into the position of needing to
meet the service demands of the incoming / expanding business, but receiving no increase
in revenues to pay for them.
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET - OVERVIEW
The current year-end revenue projections for the City are significantly below the budgeted
and authorized expenditure levels for 2009; therefore, management throughout the year has
taken aggressive steps to reduce 2009 expenditures well below the previously authorized
levels in an effort to minimize our reliance on reserves.
Budget Priorities: During 2009, the City Council reviewed and re-affirmed 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 establishment of six Budget Priorities, as noted below — in priority order:
• 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 2009 and 2010 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 2010 budget.
Sales Tax: The General Government budget includes revenue projections that reflect
an estimated increase of approximately 1.5% growth in sales tax revenues in 2010
over 2009; however this is 8% below 2008 actual revenues.
Property Tax: The 2010 budget is based on maintaining the property tax base at the
2009 level, plus a 1% increase for new construction. It is significant to note that in
order to carry the 2009 property tax base forward into 2010 requires an expression
of "substantial need" and requires approval by a super-majority of the City Council.
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section 1 —19
That is, a super-majority vote of Council is required in order to maintain the same
property tax levy in 2010 as Council authorized for the 2009 budget. Under the
restrictions of Initiative 747, the City would need to reduce its base property tax levy
for 2010 to a level below that of 2009. This is due to the effect of a negative implicit
Price Deflator (IPD), a measure of inflation included in 1-747. (Refer to Section II for
more information on property tax as proposed in the enclosed 2010 budget and on
Initiative 795- the governing law.)
BUDGET REDUCTIONS I PERSONNEL CHANGES
Due to the serious drop in revenues received in 2009 and projected for 2010, significant
reductions and/or elimination in both budget and services were necessary in order to
balance the 2009 and 2010 budgets within available resources and maintain a minimum
reserve level.
The 2010 General Government budget is $59.6 Million or ($2.6 million) less than the
2009 amended budget. These reductions included more than $1.5 million in salary
and benefit reductions; and more than 23 fewer net FTE positions.
The City is proposing to the labor unions, and has budgeted a freeze on salary and
wages (0% increase), for 2010; for all employees except those represented by the
Yakima Police Patrolman's Association (YPPA); their contract had been negotiated
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 third salary and wage freeze over the past ten years (2001,
2007 and 2010).
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 2010 budget as there
simply is no funding available to support additional programs, services or the related
budget expenditures.
2010 Policy Issues include 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 has
been reduced 50% in the proposed 2010 budget — as recommended by the Council Budget
Committee at their September 2009 meeting.
20 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
CHANGES IN FUNDING AUTHORIZATION
2010 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PERSONNEL
FUND TYPE OF TYPE OF No OF BASE SALARY
DEPT SVC PRIORITY DESCRIPTION CHANGE POSITION POSITIONS & BENEFITS REMARKS
015- FINANCE
624 RM Accountant Del V Perm (1.001 ($76,400)
624 RM Financial Services Tech Add Perm 0.50 38,400
017 -LEGAL
622 RM Senior Asst City Atty Del V Perm (1.00) (111,100) 2009 mid -year reduction
622 RM Assistant City Atty II Trsfr Perm (0.60) (63,700) Transfer to 515
2009 mid -year reduction
131 PHS Assistant City Atty I Del V Perm (1.00) (91,600)
018-MUNICIPAL CRT
129 PHS Muni Court Cashier Del F Perm (1.00) (48,300)
01 9- PURCHASING
632 SP Buyer Add Perm 1.411 57,300 Cons. w /County
632 SP Purchasing Assistant Add Perm 11. 51,300 Cons. w /County
021- PLANNING
310 ED Assistant Planner Trsfr Perm (1.05 (64,100) Transfer to 124
528 ED CED Deputy Director Del V Perm (1.00) (53,100) Ret 3/31 Ann. - $128,700
022 -CODES ADMINISTRATION
149 PHS Fire Code Inspector Del V Perm (1.00) (79,000) 2009 mid -year reduction
149 PHS Permit Technician Del V Perm (1.00) (51,400)
149 PHS Code Compliance Officer Trsfr V Perm (1.00) (66,600) Transfer to 124
223 PHS Animal Control Del F •Perm (1.00) (67,100)
03 1- POLICE
114 PHS Police Services Specialist I Del V Perm (1.00 (45,000) 2009 mid -year reduction
114 PHS Police Services Supervisor Del F Perm (1.00) (76,700)
114 PHS Police Services Supervisor Del V Perm (1.00) (68,500) Ret 2/28 Ann. - $82,200
114 PHS Police Services Specialist I Del F Perm (1.00) (49,300)
114 PHS Police Services Specialist I Del V Perm (1.00) (46,400)
113 PHS Police Officer Trsfr V Perm (1.00l (78,000) Transfer to 152
032 -FIRE
129 PHS Secretary II Del F Perm (1.00) (67,200)
04I-ENGINEERING
528 RM Eng Office Assistant Del V Perm (1.00) (46,100) 2009 mid -year reduction
528 RM Project Engineer Del V Perm (1.00) (58,700) Ret 4/30 Ann. - $87,600
052 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS
631 RM Supervising Senior Analyst Perm 0.30 29,100 Position upgrade
TOTAL GENERAL FUND (16.80) (1,132,200)
13 -PARKS & REC
426 QOL Parks Maint Worker Del V Perm (0.75) (40,500)
421 QOL Parks Maint Tech Del V Perm (1.00) (64,600) 2009 mid -year reduction
423 QOL Golf Course Attendant Del V Perm (0.75) (41,700)
TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION (2.50) (146,800)
141-STREET & TRAFFIC
526 PS Supervising Traffic Engineer Del V Perm (1.00) (114,400) 2009 mid -year reduction
525 PS Traffic Sign Supervisor Del V Perm (1.00) (90,400) 2009 mid -year reduction
526 PS Traffic Aide Del V Perm (1.00) (51,000)
521 ED Street Maint Specialist Del V Perm (1.00) (57,800)
TOTAL STREET & TRAFFIC (4.00) (313,600)
0 ,
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 21
2010 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PERSONNEL (Continued)
FUND TYPE OF TYPE OF No OF BASE SALARY
DEPT SVC PRIORITY DESCRIPTION CHANGE POSITION POSITIONS & BENEFITS REMARKS
123- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CED Deputy Director Del Perm (20,600)
I24- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CED Deputy Director Del Perm 11 (25,800)
Neighborhood Dev Asst Del V Perm (1.00) (50,700)
Code Compliance Officer Perm 1.00 58,500 Funded by 124
Assistant Planner Perm 1.00 64,400 Funded by 124
152 - POLICE GRANTS
113 PS Police Officer Perm 7.00 558,000 Funded by grant
1 transfer, 6 new positions
560- PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
Dept Asst II Del V Perm (1.00) (47500) 2009 mid -year reduction
TOTAL OTHER FUNDS 7.00 $536,300
CITY -WIDE (EXCLUDING TEMPORARIES) (16.30) ($1,056,300)
SUMMARY REDUCTIONS
Management /Supervisory (4.70! ($374,000)
Management Support - exempt employees (3.00) (279,100)
Professional Technical Staff 3.00 268,900
Other - temps /clerical support /laborer (11.60) (672,100)
(16.30) ($1,056,300)
TEMPORARY POSITIONS
012 -City Mgr Temporary Help Del Temp (3,200)
014 -City Clerk Temporary Help Del Temp (3,800)
016 -Hum. Res. Temporary Help Del Temp (2,700)
019 - Purchasing Temporary Help Temp (19,300) net change
031 - Police Temporary Help Del Temp (81,300)
041 -Eng Temporary Help Temp (27900)
051 -CH Maint Temporary Help Del Temp (18,500) net change
052 -Info. Sys. Temporary Help Del Temp (31,500)
124 - Housing Temporary Help Add Temp 5,200
131 -Pks & Rec Temporary Help Temp 24,000
141 -St & Traffic Temporary Help Del Temp (16,600) net change
462 Transit Temporary Help Add Temp 13,000
475 - Irrigation Temporary Help Del Temp I (3,800)
(1
(1,222,700)
DELETED POSITIONS - 26.1
V = Total vacancies: Vacant General Government positions deleted - 17.5: Transferred positions - 3.6
F = Filled: General Government layoffs - 5
PRIORITY
RM - Resource Management PHS - Public Health & Safety SP - Strategic Partnerships
ED - Economic Development QOL - Quality of Life
22 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS - BY TYPE
(from 2009 Amended Budget)
As INCORPORATED IN 2010
EXPENDITURE TYPE AMOUNT % OF TOTAL
Salaries/Wages and Benefits (1,151,438) 44.7%
Overtime (323,300) 12.5%
Medical / Dental 184,392 (7.2%)
Supplies / Small Tools (65,231) 2.5%
Other Supplies 13,500 (0.5%)
Fuel (208,706) 8.1%
Professional Services (686,187) 26.6%
Other Services (48,015) 1.9%
Travel/Training (23,231) 0.9%
Intergovernmental Services 27,895 (1.1%)
Capital Outlay (246,509) 9.6%
Debt Service (53,417) 2.1%
Interfund Payments 1,901 (0.1%)
TOTAL (2,578,346) 100.0%
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS - BY DEPARTMENT
As INCORPORATED IN 2010
EXPENDITURE TYPE AMOUNT % OF TOTAL
City Administration (218,062) 8.5%
Finance (564,519) 21.9%
Municipal Court (83,533) 3.2%
Police (304,617) 11.8%
Fire 70,385 (2.7%)
CED (679,487) 26.4%
Street & Traffic (695,791) 27.0%
Parks (145,529) 5.6%
Other Departments 42,807 (1.7%)
TOTAL t (2,578,346) 100.0%
(1) The total itemized net budget reduction of $2,578,346 is
approximately 4.1% of the amended 2009 General Government
Budget of $62.2 million
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section 1 — 23
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES - AS BUDGETED
(in thousands)
$60,000 —
$50,000 — — —
$40,000 = -- —
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 I I I I ` I I I I I
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
0 Budgeted Revenues 0 Budgeted Expenditures –A– Beginning Fund Balance
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES - ACTUAL RESULTS
(in thousands)
$60,000
$50,000 _—
$40,000 — -- --
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 I I I I I I I I I I
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
M Actual Revenue CI Actual Expenditures –A– Beginning Fund Balance
City Management's close supervision, discipline and control over spending do not
end when the annual budgets are prepared. As is evident from the two charts above,
management's tight spending controls and conservative approach to fiscal expenditures
during the year has provided our citizens with maximum service levels over the years -
while maintaining, and even increasing, General Government reserves from year to year.
(i.e.: the above charts depict a general pattern of strong budget management during the
year as actual results show that total spending is less than total revenues - 7 out of the past
10 years; even though the balanced budget at the beginning of the year reflects "deficit"
spending.)
24 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
GENERAL SUMMARY
In the 2010 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 2010 budget.
General Government: Net reduction of 23.3 FTE's and $1.6 million dollars
Total City-Wide: Net reduction of over $1.2 million permanent and temporary
salaries combined.
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 7.2 FTE's in 1998 down to 5.9 FTE's in 2008 -
per every 1,000 population.
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 2008 — the most recent data available,
and includes comparisons of all Washington State cities with populations between
45,000 and 120,000. (Refer to Section 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 strong fiscal position - and a positive and stable
credit rating - during some very difficult times. However, the current national recession
combined with the potential impacts of 1-1033 - should it be approved by voters in
November - could 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 1 — 25
— 4 8aa4g — ABR... 4 tttttttttt 4 tttttttttt 4 tttttttttt 488 tt
of » » »» 588 o 0 0 A
H Ea o
WAMA Ea Ea EE E.E. E.E. >a
foo ° °o _ u t ,Fa ummm H
. Ea ger d wee e22pce 2ce0 igg4gg 0 oogog os °a
wP" a aa4 m ���� o s
r"" o fgagam. ari M ilk Etta . tt far E
y I77770 f l »____ i � _ 1 »EE 1_
- 71s
- — 4444 4 48 a 8ka — 4 tttttttttt 4 tttttttttt
a_ ;777 oa a� o 0 0
A.
Ea ge Ea 9„
i oPPoa
M Us° 8 8888 5 588888 5 88888
e
�. 5 q 9aW.� �ePP87 I2 88
re �PP�aa c a Pr � �::
5 tttttttttt Ila7 a
7777 82tEtt8
4 22222 422222 t..mEt A..... E888°s E» » » »» 4 22tt »2
ET ET ET Ea 92 ET E2
67ENt ,6pa�m PAMPA PAMPA H 44 WPM ash
an 6 °666 ` 666 m6 8g E RR R8R l eee eeee
�,UMMA g1,5" att tt $e8tttttt 450 j 8R8 8 4 g88l 7....».. 45 18 ggga
rgg aPP
4tttttttttt 4tttttttttt 4tttttttttt 4tttttttttt ' 488882 4888ag 8®®888 840040 888EgP
o
E "A" 0 0 o z ccc » »» ;»»» ;
»7 » » o 64444
P- 9 8 Ea Ea o Ea 1 EE EE
r
a te :, ,: 2RNMA 2RNMA
, +,+ � g 4 fi ,+ + 8 Agee 4 , 4 ,
g ®
2 aaaaa gr1 i gge14 , gAgeg 96
222 4.222 q 12222. i s 1 g m �� inn
— / P ERE EERRER i8882s — I8488s _ fi 18 as 44 8 5 4E fi gEgg
I i 1 7 4 »7 E». __ paa7a aaa88 lama
— 4 tttttttttt 4 tttttttttt 4 tttttttttt — 1 k°
E.E. Eel 8®®P, oamNE — 4tttttttttt Aggwa 4tttttttttt
o 0 0 a
o 2aa a ;aaa__ o o _ . __ o
O °0000 kEE pe. » EE E.E. q p7
E TmT.T , ° °e �a�� ittttM _ RMNO, 1 WPM ;PUNA z 77Nt °e7aa 55454
: W a 7777 1 PEER n.Pe @^° a4P 3 G$2 s IE88a B 65115
4 Po a 200 8,a° ° "' 8 °i 1-- s 1
HPRae
P-i "dan 888 J8855 2' P✓6 °'8aq 88 8 ag.
P, NA ,aaa77 147777 20000 _ Itttttt!! n °g�a,i 0,121 tttt a
e 71 E° A ggggg 4 2»»»» 4 222»» 400000 4 22222 4 »2222 4 aa222
Egg, 8 tt „YYYYY
o
U E Po a a a a 8 I:44 ® °e54N4 „5498 !REM O, saaaa PAMPA 3 °e74P,4
-
o e s E W g eee“ eee ce : Iaaaaa leeeee sa. !. € '5n U.!
c'' a„ g � '� FBP a� '4 ' aaaa M , .1. 1 n G
.2 1 1 R F !
0 °�::: 4 88888 488888 488888 4 88888 4448 8 ®® �® ® ®� � 4aaaa 8 4 22222 444 48
a g o a 0 4 o o_____ 2 4.$2 2 p v.... o g o o = =ttatt
g o n e q 3
pe k® k2 p8 kN k B En k En ET.
0777 V 12RNMA 2RNMA 2RNMA 890000
TTETTZLETE . S 4
D
�8 ® ��74a 1 8�e212 Ba& 1 84224 Ja2244 8 88 40 8 60 1.a 8q
tt n s nail Inn - » 477 777 jinn Ivan i 7777 xitt u 1
88568 488°88 4 88888 4 88888 4 88888 4 888 4 88488 4 58888
10202 588 o 0 5 _ 0 » » »6 1 ;2
Ea 88 88 EE E.E. 88 88 E<
F.775
E. 077Nt PAMPA PAMPA PAMPA WPM PAMPA
X44 144 4 455565 55 55 aaa neaaaa 184 9SS SSS
6
fi 7 1 .. .. �.. .... o
tEEErg 0 ®aa 8 8 4 48444 I s ��
IMP Milt 4 47171 g liggi i57�77 I 8tttttttt ;mitt 1aaatt2
4888 I84Pa8 88® 488888 488888 484An0 488888 888®80 428888
38. At m ! oaa.tt == 7 o 077»gg o o „ at o
EP ET E8 E.E. E.E. E.E. 48 EE EE
48
H , 444 4 pan 888 4 944844 8888 a , §�. a 60.6e 64 88 5
a t0000 o 877777 �r z gagan
EH" �. ,, ,.e S a0 4P .4g an 8 1 a44Pa aaaa s 8 4 M5 H 1 a F 4444448
E H" 1
I» 54cl F�4' 5 660a inn. & 0 a i 7"a4 j0000W 1 8a.a®a 1 8800 gggggg '7 8 8 8 8 8 g 5
emme7 9 8448 8 a, 1 1 8®®��A. ! 4 88888 4 88888 1 844aaa F 8 8 44
022___ os. ® l 4°° 077 .48881 I 8�W�.� ;aagaa z 5 8888 1 o o 0 288 »8» 8 e.... =gym ' ke Em »»»» Ea o 4a„ 8 1a E.E. E.E. P. 9 4a
2 969401 g °eUNO aPaNO, Q9aaaa Passe p`aaaaa gg 2aaaa 180 nsaaaa
i.. 4a F 9 . 155 $ 21 555 B 2000 .' �" ..
4 t
r B 1 8g®� 74 8aa Egg e 1
0 aa<a® ia8a18. Han
IA... Anna A '''. 1cc 7 1 »77 tt 1 IEEE.. 17404E I.$aaa
44584 4 226 ®8 422222 488�as8 88888 PER? »2 8880.5 422222 4�aa &8 4 22222 4 222 0 2
�cnae 4 00 : :0 c 77 aaaaa ca04
�7 �a 777 d 60 d d dtt d tttt77a d d dp d • d 7
ET. 98 E.E. 98 E.E. p8 E.E. E.E. 98 8 p8
� H olm :7 go7Im7 94 4444
����� Paaaa ����� ����� Paaaa �Paaaa ������ ������ Paaaa itARNA tRANA
' acececea 1 66!54 544444 4648, 1 4444 ..66E 104 Innnn n 144440. 02525 844
8 48
gg 8
4 0 4
e o g oo s o o o - o........ 9
- 8®a 1 48 — I8 8a. E c E g e ° e =8 2n ®0 S88 44 as n8 5 ®4020 e8 8 an Fa
na a 1 " 0a a ana tt 77 aaa77 8 1 » »11$ 888 88184 �4ia
26 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
GENE' L GOVE ' MENT: YE EV REVIEW
General Government is the term used to describe basic tax-supported activities, which are
included in three funds:
GENERAL FUND
Services provided include; police, fire, code enforcement, planning, legal, municipal and
district courts, financial services, purchasing, information systems, etc.
2009 Year-end revenue estimate is S47,757,780 — S307,095 or 0.6% over actual levels
for 2008.
2009 year-end expenditure estimate is $50,348,617 — $1,395,710 or 2.7% under the
authorized, amended budget of $51,744,327, due to cost containment measures
instituted in April. Most related to salary savings from position vacancies, the
reduction in fuel prices, and the cancellation of outside contracts.
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
Services provided include Parks programs and maintenance.
2009 year-end revenue estimate is S4,077,917 — ($98,492) or (2.4%) below the actual
levels for 2008. There were several fluctuations in revenue sources including
the reduction of $176,500 in property tax, and an increase in program and
inter-governmental revenues of $83,859. Note: In order to balance revenues to
expenditures in each of the General Government funds, property tax was reallocated
as appropriate.
2009 year-end expenditure estimate is $4,249,796 — ($127,747) or (3.0%) under the
2009 amended budget. The cost containment areas were mainly in salaries and
contracted services.
STREET FUND
Street and Traffic operations and maintenance.
2009 year-end revenue estimate is $5,574,394 — ($233,884) or (4.0%) less than actual
levels for 2008. This decrease is primarily due to gas tax and a one time Federal
grant for snow removal.
2009 year-end expenditure estimate is $5,686,692 — ($388,141) or (6.4%) under the
2009 amended budget. The cost containment savings result primarily from salary
and benefit savings due to unfilled positions.
General Government: Year in Review • Section II —1
2009 GENERAL GOVERNMENT
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
PARKS AND STREET
GENERAL FUND RECREATION FUND FUND TOTAL
ACTUAL BEGINNING BALANCE $6,798,731 $451,356 $1,372,651 $8,622,738
Estimated Actual Revenue 47,757,780 4,077,917 5,574,394 57,410,091
TOTAL ESTIMATED RESOURCES $54,556,511 $4,529,273 $6,947,045 $66,032,829
Less: Estimated Expenditures 50,348,617 4,249,796 5,686,692 60,285,105
ESTIMATED ACTUAL ENDING BALANCE 2009 $4,207,894 $279,477 $1,260,353 $5,747,724
As described in the mid-year budget reduction transmittal, Yakima started seeing the
effects of the national economic recession in the last quarter of 2008. The 2009 General
Government revenue budget was $58,714,088, so the year-end estimate of $57,410,591 is
about $1.3 million or 2.2% less than budgeted. The 2008 actual revenue for these 3 funds
was $57,435,372, so the 2009 estimate is virtually flat from the prior year actual. The annual
rate of inflation as measured by the CPI-U (All Urban Consumers) is -1.7% in August for all
cities, and the Seattle index is -1.2%. So the fact that the City is anticipating less than (0.5%)
reduction in revenue from 2008 indicates that the recession has not hit our area as deeply as
in other areas of the nation or state.
It should be noted that typically the year-end revenue estimates made at the time of the
preliminary budget are greater than the current year budget, which is a component in
ending the year with a balanced budget. The revenue decrease in 2009 is the trigger that
led to the development of the budget cuts proposed for 2010.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMPARISON
2009 BUDGET VS. YEAR-END ESTIMATE
2009 2009 YEAR-END EST.
AMENDED YEAR-END AS PERCENT OF
FUND/DEPARTMENT BUDGET ESTIMATE VARIANCE BUDGET
Police $23,378,366 $22,866,079 $512,287 97.8%
Fire 8,909,315 8,892,905 16,410 99.8%
Information Systems 2,823,003 2,743,951 79,052 97.2%
Transfers 2,232,275 2,230,275 2,000 99.9%
Code Administration 1,783,856 1,607,492 176,364 90.1%
Police Pension 1,403,957 1,352,146 51,811 96.3%
Legal 1,459,796 1,208,525 251,271 82.8%
Financial Services 1,540,878 1,521,295 19,583 98.7%
Municipal Court 1,321,304 1,314,396 6,908 99.5%
Engineering 1,199,716 1,050,385 149,331 87.6%
Utility Services 1,225,469 1,182,138 43,331 96.5%
Environmental Planning 901,557 823,598 77,959 91.4%
Records 449,013 386,917 62,096 86.2%
City Manager 521,307 511,296 10,011 98.1%
Human Resources 494,040 471,345 22,695 95.4%
City Hall Maintenance 426,178 404,368 21,810 94.9%
2 — Section II • General Government: Year in Review
2009 2009 YEAR -END EST.
AMENDED YEAR -END AS PERCENT OF
FUND /DEPARTMENT BUDGET ESTIMATE VARIANCE BUDGET
Indigent Defense 425,000 425,000 0 100.0%
Purchasing 329,881 340,899 (11,018) 103.3%
Intergovernmental 370,076 472,076 (102,000) 127.6%
City Council 213,540 212,731 809 99.6%
Sun Dome 150,000 150,000 0 100.0%
State Examiner 103,000 98,000 5,000 95.1%
Hearing Examiner 56,000 56,000 0 100.0%
Probation Center 25,000 25,000 0 100.0%
District Court 1,800 1,800 0 100.0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $51,744,327 $50,348,617 $1,395,710 97.3%
Parks & Recreation 4,377,543 4,249,796 127,747 97.1%
Street & Traffic Operations 6,074,833 5,686,692 388,141 93.6%
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $62,196,703 $60,285,105 $1,911,598 96.9%
The preceding table provides a breakdown of the year -end estimate of General Government
budgets for 2009. The largest positive variance (expenditure savings) is in the Police
Department and relates to salary savings from vacancies and the reduction in fuel costs in that
budget. In Code Administration, Legal, and Engineering, the large variances are the result of
holding / eliminating vacant positions.
Currently, Purchasing and Intergovernmental budgets show being overspent for 2009.
However, both areas have appropriations coming forward to Council soon, along with the
applicable contracts. Purchasing will be to add the effects of consolidating their functions with
Yakima County as of November 1, 2009, and will be funded by the County. Intergovernmental
includes the pilot program proposed by Comprehensive Mental Health to divert mentally ill
misdemeanants from jail to their facility, subsequently reducing jail expenses.
GENERAL FUND THREE YEAR COMPARISON
2007 2008 2009 YEAR -END
ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE
BEGINNING BALANCE $5,439,858 $6,250,708 $6,798,731
Revenues 45,054,646 47,450,685 47,757,780
TOTAL RESOURCES $50,494,504 $53,701,393 $54,556,511
Expenditures 44,243,796 46,902,662 50,348,617
ENDING BALANCE $6,250,708 $6,798,731 $4,207,894
General Government: Revenue Treads • Section II — 3
GENE L GOVE • MENT: REVENUE TRENDS
The City receives revenue from many different sources; some revenue is available for any
government purpose and some revenue is restricted in use to a specific fund(s) and/or
a specific purpose. The sources of revenue that are available for use within the General
Government Funds (for general purposes or for a restricted purpose within General Fund,
Parks or Street Funds) are listed in the following charts, along with a three-year comparison
of the amount of revenue received from each source.
For 2010, total General Government revenues are budgeted to be $58,138,533, $727,942 or
1.3% more than the 2009 year-end estimate of S57,410,591. Total beginning cash reserves
are estimated to be $5,747,724, 52,875,014 or 33.3% less than the 2009 estimate of $8,622,738.
The decline in cash reserves is occurring in the General Fund and Street Fund. The General
Fund is impacted by substantial increases in public safety costs and increases in mandated
and operating costs. The effects of recent annexations and expected decreases in gas
tax revenues are stretching the Streets Fund resources to deliver services. Even though
projected sales tax for 2010 is 1.5% more than the 2009 estimate, it is still 8.0% below the
2008 levels.
Charges for services are up by $337,035 or 5.9% primarily because the new
Stormwater utility is proposing to begin support of street sweeping, adding $200,000
to this category in 2010.
The increase in Franchise and Utility taxes (2010 over 2009) of $308,100 or 2.6% is
largely due to rate adjustments in most of the major utilities.
Fines and forfeitures showed an increase in 2009 over 2008 as an increase in the
number of Police Officers on the street produces more infractions and misdemeanor
penalties being assessed. These higher levels are anticipated to continue into 2010.
Other revenues are 2.9% below 2009. This is mainly due to the current low rate of
return on investment interest, coupled with a lower available balance to invest.
Other Intergovernmental Revenue spiked in 2009 because of the award of several
operating grants for Police. The City continues to actively pursue grants as they
become available. The City was successful in obtaining a federal grant to hire seven
additional police officers. Because this new grant is tied to the Federal Stimulus
package, a new fund was started to account for Police grants.
4 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
THREE YEAR COMPARISON
2010 % OF - -- 2010 vs. 2009 - --
2008 2009 PERCENT BUDGET 2010 INCREASE PERCENT
SOURCE ACTUAL ESTIMATE CHANGE FORECAST TOTAL (DECREASE) CHANGE
General Sales Tax $13,719,058 $12,425,000 (9.4 %) $12,610,000 21.7% $185,000 1.5%
Criminal Justice Sales Tax (1) 2,605,242 2,601,000 (0.2 %) 2,642,000 4.5% $41,000 1.6%
Property Tax 13,457,989 13,840,000 2.8% 14,019,500 24.1% 179,500 1.3%
Franchise & Utility Taxes 11,099,995 12,008,000 8.2% 12,316,100 21.2% 308,100 2.6%
Charges for Services 5,729,397 5,731,770 0.1% 6,068,805 10.4% 337,035 5.9%
State Shared Revenue 3,021,705 2,979,956 (1.4 %) 3,003,100 5.2% 23,144 0.8%
Fines and Forfeitures 1,582,815 1,751,700 10.7% 1,776,900 3.1% 25,200 1.4%
Other Taxes 1,499,292 1,530,950 2.1% 1,518,200 2.6% (12,750) (0.8 %)
Other Revenue 1,446,639 1,210,399 (16.3 %) 1,174,920 2.0% (35,479) (2.9 %)
Transfers from other Funds 1,086,359 1,139,000 4.8% 1,197,000 2.1% 58,000 5.1%
Other Intergovernmental 1,193,758 1,572,416 31.7% 1,177,008 2.0% (395,408) (25.2 %)
Licenses and Permits 993,122 620,400 (37.5 %) 635,000 1.1% 14,600 2.4%
TOTAL REVENUE $57,435,371 $57,410,591 (0.1 %) $58,138,533 100.0% $727,942 1.3%
Beginning Fund Balance 8,186,216 8,622,738 5.3% 5,747,724 (2,875,014) (33.3 %)
TOTAL RESOURCES $65,621,587 $66,033,329 0.6% $63,886,257 ($2,147,072) (3.3 %)
(1) Some Criminal Justice sales tax is allocated to the Law and Justice capital fund and Public Safety
Communications fund (non - general Governmental funds). The allocation to both of these funds were
reduced in 2009 to help support General Government operations.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
2009 YEAR -END ESTIMATE AND 2010 BUDGET FORECAST
El Sales Tax /Crim. Justice Sales Tax $15,252,000
Property Tax I _ $14,019,500
Franchise & Util. Taxes $12,316,100
Charges for Services $6,068,805
State Shared Revenue $3,003,100
Fines and Forfeitures $1,776,900 2010 vs. 2009 Estimate Decrease Total Resources
Amount $2,147,072
Other Taxes 1 $1,518,200 Percent 21%
Other Revenue $1,174,920
I I
Transfers from other Funds $1,197,000
D 2010 Budget
Other Intergovernmental I $ , 177,008 D 2009 Y/E Estimate
Licenses and Permits 8 $635,000
Beginning Fund Balance (1) $5,747,724
$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 $18,000,000
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section II - 5
In some instances, certain revenues are dedicated for specific purposes (i.e. grant proceeds).
Additionally, certain revenues are generated by operations, so that if the operations are
reduced or eliminated, the revenue would also be reduced or eliminated (i.e. Parks recreation
program). In the new Priorities of Government model, these "dedicated" revenues were
identified with appropriate service units to assist in determining any net effect of budget
reductions. The following chart summarized dedicated revenue by priority.
DEDICATED REVENUES
2010
Public Health & Safety $6,419,086
Resource Management 744,000
Economic Development 1,380,110
Quality of Life 1,270,715
Customer Service & Communications 1,421,000
Strategic Partnerships 325,000
DEDICATED REVENUE $11,559,911
Revenue Projection 58,138,533
UNDEDICATED REVENUE $46,578,622
This demonstrates that about 20% of General Government revenue is either dedicated to or
generated by certain operations.
GENERAL SALES TAX (SINGLE LARGEST REVENUE SOURCE FOR GENERAL FUND)
2010 revenue projection is $12,610,000 — $185,000 or approximately 1.5% more than
the 2009 year-end estimate of $12,425,000.
Up until 2009, the City was experiencing modest growth over the rate of inflation in this
revenue source. The adopted budget for sales tax was $13,927,830 for 2009, which was a
modest 1.5% growth rate over 2008. (Through September, 2008, sales tax was still up year-
over-year by over 4%). The economic downturn hit this major revenue source in October
of 200S, and as of September 2009, it was down about (9%) from 2008 year-to-date actuals.
The 2009 year-end estimate of $12,425,000 is about $1.3 million (9.4%) less than 2008 actual,
and is slightly less than actual collections for 2006.
The country is now entering its 22nd month of a recession that began in December, 2007.
Although there are no predictions of a quick recovery, many economists agree that there
are some leading signs that indicate the downward trends in the economy are slowing,
so there is a chance of stabilization in the near future. The City is cautiously predicting a
slight increase in sales tax of $185,000 or 1.5% in 2010, which will bring this critical revenue
source to $12,610,000, virtually matching the 2006 actual level.
6 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
Streamlined Sales Tax legislation which changed the taxable sales event from origin to
destination took effect in July, 2008. Although this drastically affected sales tax receipts in
many cities across the state, Yakima experienced just a slight increase in net sales from this
legislative change.
Of the 8.2% sales and use tax collected within the City, the City of Yakima receives only
0.85% (or about 10.4% of the total) in general Sales Tax revenue. The General Government
Funds receive the full amount of the City's share of general sales tax revenues. (Note: the
City also receives 0.3% sales tax revenues which are restricted for transit purposes and a
portion of the 0.4% sales tax revenues which are restricted for criminal justice purposes.
The State receives 6.5% and Yakima County receives .15% of the remainder — refer to
Section IV for more information.)
The following chart identifies Yakima's sales tax revenues as they relate to the total General
Fund operating revenues (excluding inter-fund transfer revenues). This revenue source is
very sensitive to economic conditions. As the graph below shows, sales tax receipts have
trended downward over the past 10 years as a percentage of total revenue in the General
Fund, as other revenue sources such as utility tax have generally kept up with inflation, and
the City has been successful in obtaining grants. The decrease in the 2009 estimate reflects an
expected deceleration in the sales tax growth rate, due to economic conditions.
PERCENT OF SALES TAX
COMPARED TO OPERATING REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
36%
34%
3 7 % -
30% -
28% -
26%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA SALES TAX WITH OTHER WASHINGTON STATE CITIES
The City's sales tax per capita is compared with 11 other similar sized cities throughout
the State (see the following chart). The data shown was compiled from the State Auditor's
Office statistics, and is the most recent data available. Although sales tax revenue is the
City's largest single source of General Government revenue, the City's collections are the
fourth lowest out of the 12 comparable cities. The City of Yakima's per capita sales tax is
$255, lower than 8 of the cities compared.
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section II — 7
2008 PER CAPITA SALES & USE TAXES 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$600 -
Yakima's per capita sales tax is $255, which is $41 less than
$500 - the average city per capita of $296
$441 $446
$397 I I 1
$400- $334
$263 $279 $285 $293
$300- $255 �t /
$212 dia 1
$169 $182 I `
$200- IF
$100-
Pasco Richland Kennewick Yakima Auburn Bellingham Renton Kent Kirkland Redmond Everett Bellevue
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SALES TAX
0.1% Sales Tax — A special 0.1% Criminal Justice Sales Tax was approved by the voters of
Yakima County in the November, 1992, General Election and became effective January 1, 1993.
The State allocates this 0.1% criminal justice sales tax revenue between the City and the County,
based on a predefined formula. For 2010 the General Fund is proposed to receive the full
amount of the City's share of these sales tax revenues; these revenues are restricted to providing
criminal justice related services and are allocated based on operating vs. capital needs.
This tax is expected to generate $960,000 for the City in 2010 and is allocated in the City's
budget forecast as noted in the following chart.
0.1% CRIMINAL JUSTICE SALES TAX
2009 2010
YEAR -END BUDGET
FUND 2008 ACTUAL ESTIMATE FORECAST
General Fund $929,067 $927,000 $960,000
Law and Justice Capital 73,500 33,000 0
TOTAL $1,002,567 $960,000 $960,000
Since population is a component of the tax distribution, annexations have a positive
influence on this revenue. This tax revenue is affected by the same regional economic
factors that affect the General Sales Tax revenue, as outlined above.
0.3% Sales Tax — Another special sales tax of 0.3% dedicated to Criminal Justice
expenditures was approved by the Yakima County voters in November, 2004, and took
effect on April 1st of 2005. The tax is on sales inside the County only and the proceeds
are divided between the County and Cities on a predefined formula under which the
County receives 60% and all cities within the County share the remaining 40 %. Anticipated
8 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
revenue is depicted in the table below. (Note: Public Safety Communications and Law and
Justice Capital Finds are not part of General Government.) This tax is expected to generate
S1,850,300 in 2010, and is allocated in accordance with the following chart.
0.3% CRIMINAL JUSTICE SALES TAX
2009 2010
YEAR-END BUDGET
FUND 2008 ACTUAL ESTIMATE FORECAST
General Fund (for Criminal Justice Expenditures) $1,676,175 $1,674,000 $1,682,000
Public Safety Communications 152,250 143,300 143,300
Law and Justice Capital 73,500 33,000 25,000
TOTAL $1,901,925 $1,850,300 $1,850,300
Exhibit III contains a summary of how these funds have been spent since inception of the tax
revenue in lune, 2005.
PROPERTY TAX
Property tax provides approximately 24.1% of all General Government revenue in the
2010 budget. The 2010 projection includes no increase in the base property tax levy, plus a
conservative 1% growth factor for new construction. There were no major annexations that
occurred in 2009.
The 2010 request complies with the levy limit restrictions contained in Initiative 747 and
reaffirmed by the state legislators in 2007; limiting property tax levy increases to the
maximum of 1% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. (Note: the initiative defines the
rate of inflation as measured by the Implicit Price Deflator for consumer goods). Under the
initiative, the City could increase the levy by more than 1% if approved by the majority of
voters.
Even though the 2010 budget as currently proposed is built assuming no increase in the
base property tax levy, the current rate of inflation used to calculate the "limit" is a negative
(0.848%). In past years, the effective limit has been the 1% maximum, as the inflation rate
has been substantially more than 1%. A provision in the law is that Council can approve
a levy limit greater than inflation, up to the 1% maximum, if they declare a "substantial
need" with a super-majority vote. In this peculiar case, with the inflation rate being
negative, the Council will need to declare "substantial need" just to maintain last year's
levy with no change. If a super-majority for "no change" is not achieved, the levy would
be reduced.
Although property tax growth has been effectively curtailed by 1-747, there is a new initiative
on the November ballot (I-1033) that would extend the limit to offset any gains in most other
general government revenues to the rate of inflation and population growth. This could
severely restrict general government resources and related services into the future.
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section H — 9
As a point of clarification, the property tax levy restriction limits the change in the dollars
levied (1% would generate about $155,000 for 2010) - it does not limit growth in assessed
value. The 1% limit affects the total dollars levied, while assessed valuation is the
mechanism used to allocate the levy ratably among the property owners.
Since most consumer activity (i.e., wages, equipment, etc.) is more closely tied to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), and CPI is greater than 1% in almost all years, the future effect
of 1% or less growth in Property Tax is restrictive to the City since Property Tax is one of
General Government's primary revenue sources.
The following graph depicts the 2010 budgeted allocation of the City's property tax revenues.
PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION BY FUNCTION
2010 GENERAL LEVY
PROPERTY TAX TOTAL — $15,522,265
Fire & Police Pension
•
• :::::::::::
•
................................. . ......_
• •
. . ......_
General Fund
$7,14q,q60 Parks
46.1% $1,788,;00
- • :::::::::::-
_ ........_
E.
.ffozzozzozzoom se,
z.
==
=ff
==
Street
$3,708,000
23. q%
2010 PROPOSED
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
2009 2010 2009 EST.
2008 AMENDED 2009 BUDGET VS.
ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED FORECAST 2010 BUDGET
General $7,437,787 $7,726,000 $8,007,000 $8,523,000 6.4%
Parks & Recreation 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,623,500 1,788,500 10.
Street & Traffic 4,220,202 4,314,000 4,209,000 3,708,000 (11.9%)
SUB-TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 13,457,989 13,840,000 13,839,500 14,019,500 1.3%
Fire Pension 1,551,730 1,532,765 1,532,765 1,502,765 (2.0%)
TOTAL $15,009,719 $15,372,765 $15,372,265 $15,522,265 1.0%
10 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
Note: Property tax is allocated among the General Government funds based on each funds
need to balance to available resources.
The City has compiled data from the State Auditor's Office that identifies per capita
property tax for comparable cities throughout the State. The following chart compares the
City's per capita property tax income for 2008. It shows the City of Yakima's property tax
per capita is $163, which is $89 less than the average of all the comparable cities. Yakima
ranks third lowest in tax per capita of the 12 comparable cities.
2008 PER CAPITA PROPERTY TAXES 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$450
Yakima's per capita property tax is $163, which is $89 less $362 $371
$400
than the average city per capita of $252 $344
$350- $298 $309
$300- $272
$242
$250- $215
$180
$200- $147 $163
$
$50
Pasco Kennewick Yakima Auburn Bellingham Bellevue Richland Kirkland Kent Everett Redmond Renton
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
FRANCHISE AND UTILITY TAXES
Franchise and utility taxes are collectively the third largest category of General Government
revenues. They comprise 21.2% of 2010 projected General Government revenues and 25.3%
of projected 2010 General Fund Revenues.
➢ 2010 projection is $12,316,100 — $308,100 or 2.6% above the 2009 year -end estimate of
$12,008,000.
These revenues are largely a function of weather conditions and utility rates in the Valley.
In 2009, gas utility taxes grew at 28.0% and electric utility taxes grew 8.0% over 2008
actual due to rate increases, full year results of prior year annexation and greater weather
extremes. Increases in both of these sources have been conservatively budgeted in 2010.
Franchise and utility taxes combined are the only major revenue source keeping pace with
the rate of inflation, primarily because of the growth in customers resulting from recent
annexations and rate increases implemented by utility providers. (See constant dollar chart
later in this section)
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section II —11
BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX AND BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
The following chart represents Business License Fees, Business and Occupation (B & 0) tax,
and Utility taxes on private and public utilities. (Note: Yakima does not impose a general -
purpose business and occupation tax, which is generally charged on the gross volume of
sales.) Yakima's $147 per capita B & 0/Utility Tax ranks the lowest of the twelve cities in
this comparison. This is $32 below the $179 average per capita revenue.
2008 PER CAPITA B & 0 / UTILITY TAXES 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$300 -
Yakima's per capita B &O / utility tax is $147, which is $32
$250- less than the average city per capita of $179
$222
$186 $191 $193
$201 $210
$200- $177
$166
$147 $151 $151 $152 /
$150- / / / / /
$100-
$50- ot III III
Yakima Everett Kennewick Auburn Pasco Renton Bellingham Kent Richland Bellevue Kirkland Redmond
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
This revenue category consists of revenues from various parks and senior citizen programs,
plan checking fees and street and traffic engineering fees, etc. However, the largest
component (about half), are fees paid by other City funds for General Fund services (legal,
administration, purchasing, etc.); more than half of the 2010 increase is due to the start up of
the new stormwater utility funded street sweeping program, proposed to be $200,000 in 2010.
> 2010 projection is $6,068,805. This is a 5.9% or $337,035 increase from the 2009
estimate.
STATE - SHARED REVENUE
State - shared revenues are the fifth largest category of revenues received for General
Government Operations.
> 2010 projection for all revenues within this category is $3,003,100; an increase of
$23,144 from the 2009 year -end estimate of $2,979,956. This revenue has been flat
from 2008 through 2010. Although the State has had its own revenue shortfalls, the
legislature recognized the importance of services provided by local government and
did not cut these distributions. The year -end estimate reflects a full year receipt for
Criminal Justice High Crime. The pool of high crime cities is reset in July, and even
12 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
though the City cannot guarantee it will be in that pool of cities, the 2010 budget
assumes the continuation of this revenue at 2009 levels.
• Liquor excise and liquor profits taxes are budgeted at $1,100,000 for 2010 —
$120,000 above the 2009 year-end estimate of $980,000.
• Gas Tax in the Street Fund is budgeted at $1,200,000, the same as the 2009
year-end estimate (but still less than 2008 actual levels.) This tax is calculated
by the State using population figures as published by the Office of Financial
Management (OFM). Since its base is a per gallon tax, the super-inflation in gas
prices coupled with the economic downturn reduced this tax that is dedicated to
street maintenance.
FINES AND FORFEITURES
These revenues come primarily from criminal fines and non-criminal penalties assessed in
the City of Yakima's Municipal Court, and parking violations. This revenue category is
conservatively budgeted at $1,776,900 for 2010.
OTHER TAXES
This category includes Business Licenses, Gambling Taxes and County Road Tax from
annexation. The 2010 projection is $1,518,200, down 0.8% or $12,750 virtually the same as
the 2009 year-end estimate.
OTHER REVENUES
The balance of revenues supporting the general government funds consists of transfers
from other funds (other financing sources) and miscellaneous revenues. For 2010,
$2,371,920 is expected to be generated in this category, a slight increase from the 2009 year
end estimate of $2,349,399.
The largest revenue sources in this category include:
Interest income — 2010 projection is $810,000.
Operating transfer from other funds — 2010 projection is $1,197,000 and consists
primarily of the transfer of 3.5% of City owned utility taxes to the Parks and
Recreation fund.
OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL
This category includes revenue received from other Government units other than the per capita
distributions from the State of Washington. The 2010 budget of $1,177,008 is down $395,408
or 25.2% from the 2009 estimate (but back to 2008 levels) because of a spike in Federal grant
programs completed in 2009. The new Federal stimulus grant for additional Police officers will
be accounted for in a new fund because of the stringent reporting requirements.
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section II —13
LICENSES AND PERMITS
The 2010 budget is $635,000, 2.4% or $14,600 more than the 2009 year -end estimate of
$620,400. The increase is minimal due to challenges currently being faced in the building
industry in general as a result of contraction in the new home market and turmoil in the
credit markets.
REVENUE TRENDS — OVERVIEW
➢ Based on 2010 budgeted revenues and expenditures, the General Government funds
will again be relying on reserves to maintain a balanced budget.
The minimal increase in General Government revenues is reflective of an economy
confronted with high unemployment and low median income, with limited growth in
elastic revenues and existing tax limitations.
The following chart depicts trends over the past nine years (in 2000 Constant Dollars)
in sales, property and utility tax revenues; the City's three largest General Government
revenue sources. Sales tax exhibited consistent losses from 1999 through 2002. The City
boundaries were expanded by a major annexation in 2002, which resulted in some rebound
of this revenue source. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 Sales tax performed better due to the
transitory effects of new construction spurred by low interest rates, however, sales tax fell
in 2008 and 2009 as a result of the recession. With the passage of Initiative 747, property tax
levy growth has been constrained to 1 %, which is generally below inflation, although the
chart does show an increase in 2003 as a result of the annexation, which brings its constant
dollar value back to 2000 levels. The constant dollar trend for utility taxes is the only
General Government revenue source keeping pace with inflation. This means two of the
three major General Government resources are not keeping pace with inflation, even after
realizing the growth in tax base from major annexation areas.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SALES, PROPERTY AND UTILITY TAX REVENUE TRENDS
(CONSTANT DOLLAR)
$12,000 -
• $11,000 X9000„ ■
ooAe °°°eves # °o
C) $10,000 a000ee .
■ .o °P.
.00P.
c $9,000 -
,o °P 0�90000ne_ oa.
$8 000 #t0000ee.nr ee. ®evAeoee. °r0000ee.n
va®
A o�9evoo °° Vi a°
0°
0 0 1 °°
N $7,000
$6,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Est.
. " ". °•°° " "" Sales Tax • Property Tax Levy """A""". " ". Utility Taxes
14 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCE COMPARISON
GENERAL FUND
2010 projected beginning balance is $4,207,894 - down $2,590,837 from the 2009
beginning balance of $6,798,731.
2010 projected revenue is $48,655,738 - $897,958 or 1.9% over the 2009 year-end
estimate. This increase is due mostly to sales and utility tax growth. Other smaller
revenue sources showed modest growth as well.
PARKS AND RECREATION FUND
2010 projected beginning balance is $279,477 - $171,879 or 38.1% under the 2009
beginning balance of $451,356. For 2010, Parks did not rely on reserves to balance its
budget, to comply with the new "Priorities of Government" model that allocates use
of reserves to Public Safety.
2010 projected revenue is $4,248,985 - $171,068 or 4.2% over the 2009 year-end
estimate. This is mainly due to the change in property tax allocation and an increase
in the city utility tax because of scheduled rate adjustments in City utilities.
STREET FUND
2010 projected beginning balance is $1,260,353 - $112,298 or 8.2% under the 2009
year-end estimate, due mostly to reductions in gas tax revenue below budgeted
amounts.
2010 projected revenue is $5,233,810 - $340,584 or 6.1% under the 2009 year-end
estimate. The property tax revenue allocation is reduced 11.9% to meet the resource
allocation targets of the "Priorities of Government" model.
Total General Government Revenues for 2009 are estimated to be about .04% less than 2008
actual revenues.
Total General Government Revenues for 2010 are projected to increase by only 1.3% over
2009 estimates.
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section II - 15
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
THREE YEAR RESOURCE COMPARISON
2009 2010
2008 YEAR -END 2009 BUDGET 2010
ACTUAL ESTIMATED VS. 2008 FORECAST VS. 2009
RESOURCES RESOURCES % CHANGE RESOURCES % CHANGE
General Fund Revenue $47,450,685 $47,757,780 0.6% $48,655,738 1.9%
General Fund Beg Balance 6,250,708 6,798,731 8.8% 4,207,894 (38.1 %)
Total General Fund Revenue 53,701,393 54,556,511 1.6% 52,863,632 (3.1 %)
Parks & Recreation 4,176,409 4,077,917 (2.4 %) 4,248,985 4.2%
Parks Beg Balance 549,439 451,356 (17.9 %) 279,477 (38.1 %)
Total Parks 4,725,848 4,529,273 (4.2 %) 4,528,462 0.0%
Street & Traffic Fund Revenue 5,808,278 5,574,394 (4.0 %) 5,233,810 (6.1 %)
Street & Traffic Beg Balance 1,386,068 1,372,651 (1.0 %) 1,260,353 (8.2 %)
Total Street & Traffic 7,194,346 6,947,045 (3.4 %) 6,494,163 (6.5 %)
Total Revenue 57,435,372 57,410,091 0.0% 58,138,533 1.3%
Total Beginning Balance 8,186,215 8,622,738 5.3% 5,747,724 (33.3 %)
Total General Government $65,621,587 $66,032,829 0.6% $63,886,257 (3.3 %)
The largest revenue source for the General Government Funds is sales tax. Yakima is in the
lower half of per capita sales tax compared with similar cities in the State. However, Yakima
is also in the lower 1/3 of rankings in all other revenue comparisons per capita and is the
third lowest out of the twelve cities compared in combined per capita revenue. Yakima's
$1,239 per capita taxes is $698 below the average of $1,937 based on 2008 actual data, as
demonstrated in the chart below. The most important conclusion from this analysis is that
the City of Yakima has a very limited revenue /tax base compared with most cities of its size
in the state, and yet provides similar or enhanced services and programs to its citizens.
2008 PER CAPITA TOTAL REVENUES 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$3,500 -
Yakima's per capita total revenue is $1,239, which is $698 $2,997
$2,835
$3,000- less than the average city per capita of $1,937
$2,477
$2,500- $2,266 ral
$1,739 $1,868
$1,955 $1,969 $2 '
$2,000-
::::' 1, $1,239
$1,072
$769
$50
$o y -
Kennewick Pasco Yakima Auburn Bellingham Renton Kirkland Kent Everett Bellevue Richland Redmond
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics. Includes state and
federal grants, taxes and charges for services, and excludes debt proceeds.
16 — Section II • General Government: Revenue Trends
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES BY MAJOR CATEGORY
2009 2009 2010 2010 %
2007 2008 AMENDED YEAR -END FORECAST CHANGE Fl
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET 2009 EST.
I 2 3 4 5 4 -5
GENERAL FUND
Property Tax $6,820,513 $7,437,787 $7,726,000 $8,007,000 $8,523,000 6.4%
Sales Tax 13,423,269 13,719,058 13,927,830 12,425,000 12,610,000 1.5%
Criminal Justice Sales Tax 2,378,160 2,605,242 2,703,600 2,601,000 2,642,000 1.6%
Franchise Tax 42,079 40,245 47,586 42,000 42,000 0.0%
Utility Tax 10,492,461 11,059,750 11,615,130 11,966,0(X) 12,274,100 2.6%
Other Taxes 1,505,176 1,490,032 1,482,200 1,518,200 1,518,200 0.0%
Licenses and Permits 982,084 993,122 814,000 620,400 635,000 2.4%
Intergovernmental Revenue 2,500,346 2,664,042 2,908,767 3,149,672 2,832,408 (10.1 %)
Charges for Services 4,422,803 4,808,037 4,880,680 4,754,303 4906,680 3.2%
Fines and Forfeitures 1,420,275 1,582,815 1,632,900 1,751,700 1,776,900 1.4%
Miscellaneous Revenue 974,240 1,010,088 925,200 881,505 854,450 (3.1 %)
Other Financing Sources 14,947 467 1,000 1,000 1,000 0.0%
Transfers From Other Funds 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0.0%
TOTAL REVENUE $45,016,353 $47,450,685 $48,704,893 $47,757,780 $48,655,738 1.9%
Beginning Fund Balance 5, 439 ,857 6,250,708 6,798,731 6,798,731 4,207,894 (38.1 %)
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $50,456,210 $53,701,393 $55,503,624 $54,556,511 $52,863,632 (3.1 %)
PARKS & RECREATION FUND
Property Tax $1,938,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,623,500 $1,788,500 10.2%
Intergovernmental Revenue 167,291 153,252 180,200 172,700 147,700 (14.5 %)
Charges for Services 860,125 886,086 934,265 950,497 946,365 (0.4 %)
Miscellaneous Revenues 185, 775 251,578 200,920 202,220 194,420 (3.9 %)
Other Financing Sources 62 ,248 39,134 55,000 55,000 55,000 0.0%
Transfers From Other Funds 1,015,626 1,046,359 1,074,000 1,074,000 1,117,000 4.0%
TOTAL REVENUE $4,229,065 $4,176,409 $4,244,385 $4,077,917 $4,248,985 4.2%
Beginning Fund Balance 431,031 549,439 451,356 451,356 $279,477 (38.1 %)
TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION FUND $4,660,096 $4,725,848 $4,695,741 $4,529,273 4,528,462 (0.0 %)
STREET AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FUND
Property Tax $3,920,202 $4,220,202 $4,314,000 $4,209,000 $3,708,000 (11.9%)
County Road Tax 161,316 9,260 0 12,750 0 (100.0 %)
Fuel Tax Street 1,374,901 1,306,335 1,350,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 0.0%
Other Intergovernmental 14,396 91,834 0 30,000 0 (100.0 %)
Charges for Services 77,227 35,274 15,760 26,970 215,760 700.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue 57,244 62,317 60,050 20,064 20,050 (0.1 %)
Other Financing Sources 68,412 83,055 0 50,610 50,000 (1.2%)
Transfers From Other Funds 0 0 25,000 25,000 40,000 60.0%
TOTAL REVENUE $5,673,698 $5, 808, 277 $5,764,810 $5,574,394 $5,233,810 (6.1 %)
Beginning Fund Balance 1,064,220 1,386,069 1,372,651 1,372,651 1,260,353 (8.2%)
TOTAL STREET & TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FUND $6, 737, 918 $7,194,346 $7,137,461 $6,947,045 $6,494,163 (6.5 %)
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $61,854,224 $65,621,587 $67,336,826 $66,032,829 $63,886,257 (3.3 %)
TOTAL REVENUE $54,919,116 $57,435,371 $58,714,088 $57,410,091 $58,138,533 1.3%
Total Beginning Fund Balance 6, 935, 108 8, 186,216 8,622,738 8,622,738 5,747,724 (33.3 %)
TOTAL RESOURCES 61,854,224 65,621,587 67,336,826 66,032,829 63,886,257 (3.3 %)
General Government: Revenue Trends • Section II -17
GENE L GOVT MENT: E ENDITURE TRENDS
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 2010.
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.
PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE COSTS
VS. OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AND CPI
2000 BUDGET TO 2010 BUDGET
Criminal Justice $11,346,659 66
Other $4,976,419 33.5°o
Consumer Price Index 30 9° 0
Criminal Justice includes Police Operations. Pensions. Public Safety Communications Jail Costs/SecurM District and
Municipal Court Prosecution and Indigent Defense. and 40°0 of Information Systems
Cumulatively, over the past ten years Criminal Justice budgets have increased 66%. By
comparison, all other General Government expenses have increased by only 33.5%. During
this same ten-year period the Seattle-Tacoma Consumer Price Index increased by 7
30.9
Criminal justice cost increases are nearly 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.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE FU
With the loss o f m in 2000 and caps on Property Tax Levies, funding available for
criminal justice needs is insufficient to offset increases in Criminal Justice costs. (The
following chart depicts the growth in Law and Justice operations costs for 2008, 2009
estimate and 2010 budget). The .3% Criminal Justice Sales Tax has helped in addressing
some of the issues, but Cities only get 40% of the collected tax, Yakima County gets the
other 60%.
18 — Section II • General Government: Expenditure Trends
In reviewing the following chart and graph, it should be noted that it includes only
General Fund expenditures on criminal justice. Another $1,071,000 is budgeted in the Law
and Justice Capital Fund, (not a General Government fund). Also good to review is the
Criminal Justice Expenditures as a Percentage of Total General Fund chart below, which
demonstrates that over half of General Fund's budget is dedicated to criminal justice.
Note: The large jump in the percentage in 2007 was the result of Council's adoption of the
Safe Community Action Plan, which allocated a one time gain in the property tax levy as
a result of the library annexation of about $650,000 to fund additional Police officers in a
dedicated pro- active anti -crime unit. This ratio keeps spreading as the Police Department
has been successful in obtaining grants in recent years.
SCHEDULE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EXPENDITURES
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008 THRU 2010 FORECAST
% CHANGE
2008 2009 2010 2010 FROM
DESCRIPTION ACTUAL ESTIMATE FORECAST 2009
Police Operations & Administration $17,616,848 $18,662,347 $18,930,338 1.4%
Outside /Inside Jail Costs 3,286,127 4,203,732 4,178,611 (0.6 %)
District Court /Municipal Court & Probation 1,229,520 1,341,196 1,264,570 (5.7 %)
Prosecution Costs /Indigent Defense 1,107,061 1,221,039 1,249,331 2.3%
Other Related Expenses
Police Pension 1,279,173 1,352,146 1,373,040 1.5%
Emergency Dispatch Transfer 440,000 440,000 425,000 (3.4 %)
Transfer -Law & Justice Center (1) 149,480 153,500 161,000 4.9%
Other Related Expenses Total 1,868,653 1,945,646 1,959,040 0.7%
GRAND TOTAL $25,108,209 $27,373,960 $27,581,890 0.8%
(1) Utility Tax transfer from General Fund.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE EXPENDITURES AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GENERAL FUND
58.0%
- •
50.0%
■
46.0%
42.0% I I I I I I I I I
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget
■' Criminal Justice All Other
General Government: Expenditure Trends • Section 11 - 19
The following chart compares per capita criminal justice expenditures with comparable
cities based on 2008 data. Yakima has the second highest per capita percentage of revenue
spent on Criminal Justice among the 12 comparable cities; Yakima has been first for the last
five out of nine years.
PERCENT OF PER CAPITA TOTAL REVENUE SPENT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN 2008 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
23.6%
25.0% - The percentage of Yakima's total revenue spent on criminal I /
Justice is 21.2 %, which is 5.5% more than the average 212%
percentage of 15.7%
183% 18.5%
20.0%- 17.0% 17.5%
16.1 %
14.9%
15.0 % - 12.1% 12.6%
9.0
10.0%- 7.7%
5.0%-
Richland Redmond Bellingham Bellevue Everett Kent Kirkland Renton Kennewick Pasco Yakima Auburn
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
The following chart depicts City -wide staffing levels per 1,000 population.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETED POSITIONS COMPARISONS 0 )
FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS
8.00 7.2 5.7 5 � 5.8
7.00 5.9 5.9
6.00
5.00
4
17
.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Number of General Gov't. Employees 460.4 429.1 447.4 462.3 476.7 497.3
Employees Per Capita 7.2 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.9
Square Miles 19.3 19.3 24.1 24.2 25.9 27.6
Population 64,290 73,040 79,120 79,480 82,867 83,731
(1) Does not include temporary employees (number of employees are stated in Full -Time Equivalents).
20 - Section II • General Government: Expenditure Trends
There are 5 major events that have had significant effect on City Staffing levels:
1. City population has increased 19,441 from 1998 to 2008, or 30%.
2. In 2000 33.21 positions were deleted as a cost containment measure associated with
the City's loss of MVET Revenue.
3. 2002 through 2004 36.35 FTE's were added in Police, Fire and Streets to support
services to a large newly annexed area.
4. In 2005, 12.75 FTE's in Police, Courts and legal were added as a result of voter
approval of a 0.3% increase in the sales tax rate for Criminal Justice.
5. In 2007 9 positions were added in the Police Department as part of the Safe
Community Action Plan (SCAP), paid for by the increase in property tax realized
when the City annexed to the Rural Library District, and 4 positions were added
because of Public Safety grants.
It should be noted that only a net of 47 new FTE positions have been added since 1998,
only 10.5% over the past 10 years. Most of these additions were either in response to
criminal justice issues, annexations, or both. This is reflective of the next chart on per capita
expenditures on payroll, where Yakima is fourth from the bottom of the comparable cities.
The 2010 budget has a net reduction of over 23 positions proposed in response to the
current economic recession. This will reduce the ratio to less than 5.6 employees per
1,000 population, the lowest rate in over a decade.
SALARY AND BENEFIT COSTS
The following graph is based on information gathered by the State Auditor's Office. It
identifies the per capita salary costs. This analysis indicates that the City of Yakima spends,
on the average, S122 less per capita on salaries than other comparable cities. Yakima
employs fewer people per capita than 8 other cities. To maintain levels of service during
periods of peak workload demands, the City uses contract and temporary labor when
possible.
General Government: Expenditure Trends • Section 11-21
2008 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ON PAYROLL 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$1,000- $931
$852 ".
$900- Yakima's per capita expenditures on payroll is $512, which
is $122 less than the average city per capita of $634 $789
$800- $675 $676 $716
$693
$700- $604
oe
$600 - $512
$500- $396 $426
$400- $339
$300 -
$200-
$100-
Pasco Kennewick Auburn Yakima Richland Bellingham Kent Renton Kirkland Everett Bellevue Redmond
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
Finally, total City expenditures per capita are the third lowest of the 12 cities compared,
$704 below the average. Yakima does offer full services (i.e. Police, Fire, Water,
Wastewater, Irrigation, Refuse, and Transit) to its citizens. Even though we provide
services that some other cities do not provide, we are still the third to last in cost per citizen,
proving Yakima does "more with less" in delivering important services to our constituency.
2008 PER CAPITA TOTAL CITY EXPENDITURES 0 )
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$3,500- $3,094
$3,021
Yakima's per capita total expenditures are $1,319, which is
$3,000- $704 less than the average city per capita revenue of $2,023
$2,570
$2,500-
$2,255
$1,970 $1,975 $1,996 $2,015
$2,000- 0 0 t
$1,574
$1,500- $1,227 $1,257 $1,319
O
$1,000 -
$500
$0
Kennewick Pasco Yakima Auburn Kirkland Kent Renton Bellingham Everett Bellevue Redmond Richland
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
22 — Section II • General Government: Expenditure Trends
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
The following chart illustrates that the total 2010 General Government budget is
$59,618,355, $2,578,348 or 4.2% less than the 2009 amended budget of $62,196,703.
2009 - 2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
2009 2009 EST. 2010 -- CHANGE 2010 VS. 2009 --
AMENDED YEAR-END BUDGET -- PRELIMINARY VS. AMENDED --
BUDGET EXPENDITURES FORECAST DOLLARS PERCENT
General $51,744,327 $50,348,617 $50,007,298 ($1,737,029) (3.4%)
Parks & Recreation 4,377543 4,249,796 4,232,014 (145,529) (3.3%)
Street & Traffic Operations 6,074,833 5,686,692 5,379,043 (695,790) (11.5%)
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $62,196,703 $60,285,105 $59,618,355 ($2,578,348) (4.2%)
Section III that follows summarizes the budget reductions being proposed to bring the 2010
General Government Budget within available resources.
General Government: Expenditure Trends • Section 11-23
24 — Section II • General Government: Expenditure Trends
DEP TMENT INFO ' TION
2010 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
PROPOSED DEPARTMENTAL ADJUSTMENTS
% OF
2009 NON- 2009
AMENDED PERSONNEL PERSONNEL TOTAL AMENDED
ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCTION BUDGET REDUCTION REDUCTION REDUCTIONS BUDGET
Police $23,378,366 $226,000 $217,500 $443,500 1.9%
Fire 8,909,315 78,200 21,000 99,200 1.1%
Streets & Traffic Operations 6,074,833 367,700 337,900 705,600 11.6%
Parks 4,377,543 149,400 133,000 282,400 6.5%
Finance 4,733,957 65,200 550,666 615,866 13.0%
Community & Economic Development 4,367,307 556,700 64,900 621,6(X) 14.2%
City Management 3,467,577 277,700 51,150 328,850 9.5%
Municipal Court 1,321,304 48,300 10,000 58,300 4.4%
Sub Total - Eligible Reductions $56,630,202 $1,769,200 $1,386,116 $3,155,316* 5.6%
EXEMPT FROM REDUCTION
Non - Discretionary / Mandated'"
State Examiner $103,000
Indigent Defense 425,000
Police Pension 1,403,957
Probation 25,000
Utility Services 1,225,468
Sundome Debt Service 150,000
District Court 1,800
Transfers'' 2,232,275
Sub Total''' 5,566,500
GRAND TOTAL $62,196,702
(1) This category of Non - discretionary (mandated) represents functions that are required by law or by
contract. Utility Services are included as an exemption because they are funded 100% by the utilities.
Because of their nature, they are exempted from the reduction requirements.
(2) Includes "double budgeted" items transferred from General fund to Other funds. The largest amount is
the transfer of utility taxes to Parks & Recreation and Criminal Justice. The next largest is the transfer of a
portion of telephone utility tax to Public Safety Communications to support Dispatch. The transfer to the
contingency fund is included here as well as debt service on the ladder truck (issued in 2008).
(3) The total of this category included in the 2010 budget is $5,613,233, which is just $46,733 or 0.8% greater
than the 2009 amended budget.
* SUMMARY
The 2010 proposed budget is just $2.58 million less than the 2009 amended budget,
while the identified budget reductions added to $3.15 million. This is because almost
$600,000 represented growth in such budget areas as medical insurance, the Purchasing
consolidation, and the cost of expanding the credit card / online payment program.
Department Information • Section III —1
DEP 1TMENTAL INFO I.? TION - POLICE
POLICE
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
„ DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
ITEM FE
SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 Records Delete Police Svcs $45,000 Mid-year 2009 reduction
SU 114 Specialist 1
FTE) Vacant
2 Records Delete Police Svcs
SU 114 Specialist 1 $46,400
(1 FTE) Vacant
3 Records Delete Police Svcs
SU 114 Specialist 1 $49,300
(1 FTE) Filled
4 Records Delete Police $68,500
SU 114 Svcs Supervisor
(upon retirement
2/28/10
1 FTE to be vacant
(annual $82,200)
5 Records Delete Police Svcs $76,700
SU 114 Supervisor
FTE) Filled
6 Records Delete all Temps $81,300
SU 114 in the Records
Division
7 Patrol Transfer Police $78,000
SU 113 Officer to be
funded by new
Federal Grant
1 FTE Vacant
8 Fuel Savings $90,000 Mid-year 2009 reduction
Spec. Ops Eliminate Grant $140,800 Eliminate Grant
9
SU 117 Related Overtime Related Exp.:
Supplies $16,000
Professional Svcs $36,500
Travel/Training $5,000
10 Admin. Reduce $10,000 Reduce frequency of target
SU 119 Ammunition practice
11 Reduce $35,000 Reduce Rangemaster; labor
Professional Svcs negotiation support
2 — Section III • Department Information
POLICE (CONTINUED...)
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
„ DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
if
ITEM
SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
12 Miscellaneous $20,000
(registrations)
13 Travel/Training $5,000 In accordance with City
7.5% reduction Managers directive
TOTAL $586,000 $217,500
TOTAL POLICE REDUCTIONS ($803,500)
YPPA LABOR SETTLEMENT 360,000
NET CHANGE ($443,500)
Department Information • Section III — 3
MEMORANDUM
September 30, 2009
To: Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Sam Granato, Chief of Police
Kelly M. Rosenow, Deputy Chief of Police
Subject: 2010 Budget Alternatives
In 2010 the police department will experience a reduction in the number of non-sworn
law enforcement positions and reductions in overtime, inmate housing costs, professional
services, and general operating supplies/equipment.
The department will continue to emphasize community safety with the reduction of crime
continuing to be a priority.
In our budget discussions with you, it was emphasized reductions should not affect the
delivery of emergency services, and as such, sworn law enforcement personnel will not be
reduced.
The effect of reductions in the police department will be in the area of non-emergency
services, mostly in the area of the Services Division, especially in the Telephone Reporting
Unit (TRU). As noted in this report, the department has already put into effect reductions
in the hours of operation of TRU. This reduction in hours was necessary to ensure Services
Division personnel had the ability to process case reports and complete data entry.
During 2010 it is expected the department will implement the Spillman Records
Management System. While this is a priority, it is important to remember an
implementation of a new Records Management System is very time consuming. It is
anticipated the implementation will be conducted in phases, with priority being given to
the CAD, Records Management, and Mobile Reporting. Mobile Reporting will allow for
the officers to complete reports in the field, instead of completing reports in the station.
It is anticipated this project which will require coordination of a Captain working in
conjunction with the Services Division supervisors.
Once fully implemented the department should see a reduction in the amount of staffing
hours it takes to enter and maintain the department's reports.
4 — Section III • Department Information
SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS
INMATE HOUSING - REDUCE JAIL DAYS To OFFSET COUNTY RATE INCREASE
In an effort to reduce inmate housing costs the department will endeavor to manage and
monitor the housing costs in the various facilities. We will work to reduce inmate housing
costs in various manners and with the development and implementation of new programs
and ideas.
The reduction in housing of inmates cannot be accomplished by the police department
alone. The Assistant City Manager, Municipal Court Judge, Municipal Prosecutor and the
police department have studied various ways to reduce inmate housing. Mr. Zabell has
renegotiated the Public Defenders Agreement, which allows the Public Defenders to appear
at arraignments.
It is anticipated this should reduce inmate housing needs at YCDOC approximately
$150,000 to $175,000 in 2010. We expect this will allow us to control and hold the
cost of incarceration of inmates at the 2009 funding level. This is going to require the
police department, court, and prosecutor's office to work cooperatively to continue the
development of alternative inmate housing programs.
There are a number of alternative inmate housing programs the City of Yakima should
continue research into their effectiveness. These include the following:
Limited booking of misdemeanor inmates based on offense.
The practice of booking offenders who commit the crime of shoplifting under $50.00
has been discussed. The alternative option is to cite and release the offender. The
problem with this option is the message it sends to those who continue to commit
this crime to support their habits. It also sends a negative message to the business
community that the police are not going to help them.
Unfortunately, shoplifting is one of those crimes which falls low on the priority scale
when it becomes necessary to reduce jail costs.
Utilization of the CIT program offered by Comprehensive Mental Health.
This program allows for the officer to book a mentally disturbed person in an
alternative housing facility in lieu of booking then at the Yakima County Department
of Corrections. This will be a cost savings to the city not only in the housing costs,
but also in medical costs. This program is being piloted in 2009 to determine
effectiveness.
Decriminalize certain offenses.
The decriminalization of certain misdemeanor offenses will contribute to controlling
our jail population.
Department Information • Section III — 5
Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM)
While the city participates in an EHM program, it is our intention to increase
the number of clients enrolled in this program. Yakima County Department
of Corrections is currently in the process of finalizing a purchase of new EHM
equipment. This new equipment will allow for tracking of clients via radio
frequency, landlines, and GPS. The new EHM equipment includes an alcohol testing
function.
One option discussed is for the city to pay the cost of the client to be on the EHM
program in lieu of incarceration. We expect the EHM costs to range from $12.00 to
$20.00 a day as compared to the incarceration of misdemeanor inmates in Yakima
County Department of Correction at $79.25/day.
Driving While License Suspended 3 (DWLS 3).
DWLS 3 is one of the most common criminal traffic offenses for a police officer
to arrest a person for. The city's prosecutor's office has entered into a deferred
prosecution program with Yakima County Department of Probation in an effort to
reduce the number of repeat DWLS 3 offender's.
Booking of offenders on Misdemeanor and Felony charges.
This is an ongoing reminder to the officers not to book an individual at Yakima
County Department of Corrections on both misdemeanor and felony charges. The
city is charged 100% of the inmate's housing costs if a misdemeanor charge is
included with the felony charge.
Union Gap Jail Contract
The City of Union Gap jail contract should not be renewed for 2010, or we need to
recover our costs by charging the City of Union Gap the YCDOC rate. If not, the
City of Yakima is losing money. In 2009, the Yakima Police Department houses
misdemeanor inmates for the City of Union Gap at $55.00/day, as opposed to the
YCDOC rate of $71.25. For every bed we rent to Union Gap, especially in the long
term, we do not have a bed for the booking of a misdemeanor inmate arrested
by a Yakima Police Officer. The average daily population for City of Yakima
misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor inmates being housed at YCDOC is 32 YTD.
COPS HIRING GRANT: $78,000
The City of Yakima has received funding for seven (7) positions under the COPS Hiring
Program. COPS guidelines allows for funding of positions which are scheduled to be
eliminated. One (1) COPS funding position will be used to fund a position which was not
to be filled in 2010.
6 — Section III • Department Information
NON SWORN PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS: $367,200
The current proposal for the Yakima Police Department budget reductions is to eliminate
two Police Services Supervisor positions, two Police Services Specialist I positions and all
temporary positions, in addition to the one Police Services Specialist I deleted in the mid-
year reductions.
There are currently four Police Services Supervisors, one of which is serving as an Acting
Police Services Manager. The history of these positions is that they were created when
the Police Services division operated 24 hours a day and had a record bureau that was
on a separate floor in City Hall. It was decided that each shift needed to have direct
supervision. In reviewing the current workload of the supervisory staff, it was determined
that two of the supervisor positions were only supervising a limited staff of one to two
employees. Although the supervisors themselves were performing necessary tasks, it was
not an effective use of personnel. Other Police Services staff members were also assigned
to perform the same duties. Additionally, the Services division no longer operates 24
hours a day, and the work units are currently located in the same area. Historically, the
Police Services division has been fractionalized into separate work units, and it has been
an ongoing goal to unify the police services division. Reducing the number of supervisors
will assist in that unification, as there will be one unified management vision delivered
to employees rather than four separate, and often personally motivated, messages from
different supervisors.
SERVICES DIVISION REDUCTION IMPACT
A reduction in Services Division staffing will necessitate the following reductions in
providing service to the public:
1. Effective September 19, 2009, Services Division's hours of operation were changed to
Monday through Fridays, not including holidays, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
2. The Services Division clerical work week was changed to five (5) eight (8) hour shifts
instead of the current work schedule of four (4) ten (10) hour shifts with three days
off. The majority of the staff will be assigned to work during the hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. and 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., to provide services to the public. We will have
some staff who will work prior to or after these hours. We will have a limited staff
on duty for the weekends to ensure paperwork is processed. Those who work on
weekends or after normal business hours will not be taking calls or walk in reports.
Their sole function during non-public hours will be data entry of reports. The front
door of the department will be locked.
3. We are in discussion with Mr. Wantland for the installation of an intercom or phone
in the outer area of the police department for people to use after hours in case of
an emergency. We are also discussing the option of citizens being able to leave a
message and a Services Division staff person will call them back the next day to take
a report.
Department Information • Section III — 7
4. The Services Division will be open for those wishing to obtain gun permits, case
reports, or conduct other business not directly related to the filing of a case report
only during certain hours of operation. Example, we may only issue gun permits
Monday, Wednesday and Fridays, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., or by appointment.
While we are exploring this option, we will continue to research any statutory
limitations that would prohibit restricting hours of operation for gun permits.
5. The management of the Services Division will be assigned to a Captain. We do not
have adequate Lieutenants or Sergeants to assign as the Records Manager.
6. It is possible the department may lose two civilian supervisors (if not 3) to
retirement. We do not recommend filling of these positions unless a supervisory
analysis is conducted prior to replacing the positions.
7. All of the temporary positions for 2010 in Services/Records will not be filled.
Existing Services Division staff will need to assume these duties.
OTHER REDUCTIONS
Eliminate One Time Grant Related Expenditures
Overtime $140,800
Supplies 16,000
Professional Services 36,500
Travel/Training 5,000
Fuel Savings 90,000
Ammunition 10,000
Reduce Range Master and Labor Negotiation Support 35,000
Miscellaneous (Registrations) 20,000
Travel/Training — 7.5% Reduction 5,000
TOTAL $358,300
Total Department Reductions $803,500
YPPA Settlement 'I) 360,000
NET DEPARTMENT REDUCTIONS $443,500
(1) YPPA is currently the only labor bargaining unit with an increase in the 2010 budget. The settlement was
approximately $360,000, and other reductions needed to be made to offset this increase.
8 — Section III • Department Information
DEP ,i'TMENTAL INFO TION - FIRE
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 Fire (129) Elimination $67,200 Reduction of public access to YFD
Salaries & of Secretary II Office hours will be reduced.
Benefits Position Increased workload for Chiefs
FTE Filled) Administrative Assistant
2 Fire (123) Elimination of K9 $11,000 Reduced efficiency in Arson
Investigation Program Investigations Division.
(Overtime & Loss of ATF link/assistance.
Special Pay) Loss of a positive PR
programfor the dept.
3 Fire (320) Reduction in fuel $21,000 Mid-year 2009 reduction
Fuel Savings costs
4 032-122 Yakima Fourth of $2,750 50% reduction
July Committee
TOTAL - $ 1 0 1 ,950 $78,200 $23,750
Department Information • Section III — 9
MEMORANDUM
September 21, 2009
To: Dick Zais, City Manager
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director-Accounting & Budget
From: Charlie Hines, Fire Chief
Subject: 2010 Budget Reduction Impact
The financial and corresponding operational challenges facing the YFD have been a
compounding problem for a number of years. Unfortunately, the lack of funding has placed
YFD into a position of reducing service levels in order to maintain fiscal accountability.
The following are the proposed cuts that will be imposed for the 2010 budget and the
impact they will have. Each of these reductions will further erode the level of service
provided to the citizens of Yakima and increase the workload on remaining personnel and
apparatus.
NON-PERSONNEL OR FUEL /UTILITIES COSTS
Fuel cost reduction...$21,000
OTHER REDUCTIONS/ELIMINATIONS
Secretary II position eliminated - $67,200
The loss of this position will cause reduced productivity in our Training and
Investigations Divisions as a result of having limited clerical support. It will cause a
reduction in public access to Yakima Fire Department Administrative Offices. Office
hours will be reduced and will increase the workload for the Deputy Chief's and the
Chief's Administrative Assistant.
Canine program eliminated - $11,000
There will be a reduction in the efficiency in the Arson Investigations Division. YFD
will lose their link with ATF as well as some of their assistance. This will also be a
loss of positive PR for the department.
Reduce Fourth of July Committee Contribution - $2,750
The Council Budget Committee recommended a 50% reduction to all General
Government Outside Agencies.
10 — Section III • Department Information
DE P4 • T ME N TAL INFO TION - PUBLIC WO • S / STREETS
PUBLIC AREA LIGHTING
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 133-116 Energy Savings $23,000 Federal Energy Conservation
- Street Light Grant for switch over to energy
Conversion to LED efficient lighting. Annual
energy savings estimate
2 Fuel Savings $4,200 Mid-year 2009 reduction
TOTAL - $27,200 $27,200
TRAFFIC CONTROL
1 133-525 Eliminate Traffic $51,000 Reduced ability to accomplish
Signal Aide routine traffic signal
1 FTE vacant maintenance
2 133-525 Eliminate Traffic $90,400 Reduced ability to complete
Sign Supervisor striping and pavement
1 FTE vacant marking animal maintenance.
Mid-year 2009 Reduction
3 133-525 Eliminate 2 $10,600 Reduced ability to complete
Seasonal Temp. striping and pavement
Workers marking annual maintenance.
4 Fuel Savings $4,200 Mid-year 2009 reduction
TOTAL - $156,200 $152,000 $4,200
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
1 133-526 Professional $28,000 Will not be able to fully
Services evaluate 40th Avenue corridor
in its entirety.
2 133-526 Eliminate $114,400 Mid-year 2009 Reduction
Supervising Shift most duties to Street/
Traffic Engineer Traffic Manager
FTE Vacant
Eliminate Seasonal
3 133-526 $3000
Temporary Worker
TOTAL - $145,400 $117,400 $28,000
TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION
1 133-639 Reduce PW $11,500
Administration
Charge
(Elimination of
Vacant DA II)
TOTAL - $11,500 $11,500
Department Information • Section III — 11
STREET MAINTENANCE
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 141-521 Eliminate Seasonal $5,000 Street Maintenance
Temporary Worker
2 141-521 Eliminate street $57,800
Maint. Specialist
1 FTE vacant
3 141-521 Reduce Small $2,000 Reduce replacement and
Tools & Minor repair of hand tools and small
Equipment equipment
4 141-521 Professional $4,500 Reduce contractors for
Services specialized work
($12,000 to $7,500)
5 141-521 Rentals - Outside $4,000 Reduce rental of specialized
equipment ($18,)00 to $14,000)
6 141-521 Fuel Savings $53,000 Mid-year 2009 Reduction
TOTAL $62,800 $63,500
PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAYS
1 141-522 Eliminate County $85,000 Reduced sidewalk cleaning
DOC Crew and weed abatement. Some
activities to he absorbed by
existing crews.
Mid-year 2009 Reduction
2 141-522 Eliminate $45,000 Shared cost of sidewalk
50/50 Sidewalk repairs with adjacent property
Program owners. Leaves only $4000 for
sidewalk repair.
TOTAL $130,000
SNOW & ICE CONTROL
1 141-524 Reduce Ice $13,000 Supplies from $125,000 to
Control Materials $112,000
2 141-524 Reduce $25,000 Professional Service from
Contracted Snow $30,000 to $5,000
Removal
TOTAL $38,000
STREET ADMINISTRATION
1 141-529 Reduce PW $24,000
Administration
Charge
(Elimination of
Vacant DA II)
12 — Section III • Department Information
STREET INTERFUND
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAIN,/ O, COSTS
ITEM DIVISION / $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 141 645 Transfer Portion $47,000
of Debt Service
Payment To
Arterial Street
Fund
DEPARTMENT TOTAL - $705,600 $367,700 $337,900
NEET2/»
1 Reduce street $150 Supplies $100,000
preservation Equipment Rental $50\000
program.
(U REET 2 This is not in the General Government budget but directly affects the ability of the Street
Maintenance division to maintain roadways.
Department Information • Section III I]
MEMORANDUM
September 21, 2009
To: Dick Zais, City Manager
Chris Waarvick, Public Works Director
From: Joe Rosen lund
Streets & Traffic Operations Manager
Subject: Budget Reduction Impacts — Streets & Traffic Operations Division
STREETS PRESERVATION, REPAIR AND SNOW/ICE PROGRAM
The primary impact to the Streets Division is in pavement maintenance and repair. In 2009
REET2 funding was reduced from $400,000 to $250,000. This forced us to eliminate chip
sealing in residential areas; approximately 24.5 miles of roadway. In 2010 an additional
20.5 miles of residential roadways will not be chip sealed. Should further reductions in the
Streets budget occur next year we will be forced to eliminate the arterial chip seal program
as well; approximately 6.5 miles were chipped sealed in 2009.
Grind and patch treatments in advance of chip seal projects has been reduced by 50% as
has stop-gap grind and patch repairs on arterials. We expect that trend to continue into
2010. If we are forced to eliminate chip sealing on arterial streets, grind and patch repairs
and crack sealing will be our only "preventative" street maintenance programs. We will
be maximizing those efforts in an attempt to maintain city streets in relatively good
condition until funding becomes available for more comprehensive pavement maintenance
treatments.
One position has been eliminated from Street Maintenance and one position has been held
vacant and won't be filled until City Manager approval.
In May of 2009 the Department of Corrections clean-up crew was eliminated saving $80,000
annually. The DOC crew performed numerous manual labor tasks such as sidewalk
sweeping, weed removal, and litter cleanup. The loss of this resource forces us to pull
skilled labor from other projects to accomplish these tasks when absolutely necessary. The
DOC has modified their program to allow for hourly billing for their work. There may be
opportunities next year to use these crews on case-by-case basis.
Sidewalk repair is limited to the 50/50 program. This sharing program has $45,000
allocated in 2009, but has been eliminated in the 2010 budget. There still remains $4,000 of
supplies to support sidewalk repair.
The ability to deliver our Snow and Ice Control program has not been significantly affected
as yet though $38,000 was removed from the 2010 budget for supplies and contractors.
We have enough material and funding to get through the end of the year unless weather
14 — Section III • Department Information
is more severe than normal in the early winter season. Further reduction in street
Maintenance FTE's will affect the Snow and Ice program.
On the positive side, street sweeping and arterial street weed abatement has been increased
this past year. The increased street sweeping is a direct result of the reduced chip seal
program. Personnel and equipment that are normally involved in chip seal cleanup efforts
have been available for routine cleaning of roadways. Starting in 2010 an additional
$200,000 is being provided for street sweeping by Stormwater to reduce pollutants. That
money is partially offsetting revenue reductions so that there is no net loss or gain in the
street sweeping program.
The Streets division has increased its level of spraying weeds on arterial roadways. The
program has been very successful in that few complaints were received regarding weeds
growing along or into those roadways.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Street lighting and traffic signal operations have been relatively stable over the past year
and are expected to remain so through 2010. Conversion of the higher wattage street
lights with LED streetlights, funded through the federal energy savings grant, will reduce
electrical power and routine maintenance costs. Should additional savings be required, we
have tentatively identified approximately 500 arterial street lights that could be turned off
with minimal impact to traffic safety.
Traffic Operations has lost several positions due to budget challenges in the past year
that has reduced the ability to maintain signs and pavement markings. The Traffic Sign
Supervisor position was eliminated along with two seasonal temporary positions. A vacant
Senior Traffic Sign Specialist position has been downgraded to Traffic Sign Specialist and
a proposed Sign Specialist position was eliminated. The Traffic Operations Supervisor
has taken on the duties of the eliminated Traffic Sign Supervisor position. The remaining
sign specialist position will be filled soon. The end result is a lack of personnel available to
complete the annual repainting of traffic stripes and pavement markings. The crews have
been able to maintain the critical areas near schools and CBD but there are locations we
may not complete before the end of the paint season.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Traffic Engineering has lost one position, the Supervising Traffic Engineer. Work performed
by this position has been taken over by the Streets & Traffic Operations Supervisor with the
exception of traffic concurrency reviews which is being done by the Planning Department.
Basic data collection, safety investigations, and signal operation and timing work have
not been affected by any budgetary changes as yet. More comprehensive data collection
and system upgrades are needed to keep signal operations in step with traffic growth
and changes in traffic patterns. Traffic Engineering, with assistance of Street Maintenance,
has begun a new management program to identify funding needs and more efficient
maintenance strategies. The previous pavement management program only looked at
classified roadways; the new program will also include local streets.
Department Information • Section III —15
SUMMARY
Streets and Traffic Operations have been impacted in two ways by 2009 and 2010 budget
cuts. The Streets Division has lost funding for street maintenance materials and Traffic
Operations has lost personnel to perform necessary tasks. Reduction in the materials
budget items has limited our ability to maintain streets in a condition consistent with the
recommendations in the 2005 Street Maintenance Gap analysis. Maintenance efforts will
become more reactive than proactive; patching potholes and repairing failed sections
instead of preventing them. Without an active pavement management program we cannot
tell what the overall effect on the street network will be or the long term cost of the deferred
maintenance. The information will be available for the next budget cycle. The summer
workload of the Streets crews will become oriented toward those tasks that require little or
no expenditures for materials. Snow and Ice Control will be maintained at its current level
but could be problematic if a major weather event occurs before the end of the year or if
there are more FTE reductions.
The Signs & Markings shop has not been able to maintain all of the existing pavement
markings and striping due to lack of personnel. Focus has been kept on school zones and
business districts but there is more work that can be done by the two paint crews within the
seasonal window.
Maintenance of traffic signals and street lighting is in good condition. Street lighting will
receive some upgrades through the federal energy efficiency grant but lighting on arterials
and collectors may be reduced with further reductions in the budget.
Traffic Engineering has been relatively unaffected so far by the budget cuts but is
falling behind in maintaining efficient traffic signal operations. Signal equipment and
communication upgrades are needed along with additional personnel to collect data and
monitor the system.
16 — Section III • Department Information
DEP T ME N TA L INFO TION - PUBLIC WO S/P S
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION PUBLIC IMPACT
1 Park Eliminate Park $(7(J() Salary + Benefits
2
Maintenance Maintenance Mid-year 2009 Reduction
(421) Technician
FTE) Vacant
2 Park Eliminate DOC $80,000 Ended DOC Contract in May
Maintenance contract 2009.
(421) (Prof. Svcs) Mid-year 2009 Reduction
3 Park Reduce Park $7,50() Reduce Tree Maintenance
Maintenance tree program Amount
(421) (maintenance)
4 Park Eliminate WV $25,000 End Cleaning Contract in May
Maintenance Park cleaning - Maintenance to do cleaning
(421) contract Mid-year 2009 Reduction
(Prof. Svcs)
5 Golf Course Eliminated Golf $41,700 Salary + Benefits
(423) Starter Position
(Part time .75
FTE) Vacant
6 Golf Course Open Golf Course In conjunction with 5 existing
(423) one month later temporaries will "cover" for
the shorter season
7 Senior Reduce Retired $1,500 Outside Agency
Center Senior Volunteer 50% reduction per CBC
(425) Program
8 Sports (426) Eliminated $40,500 Reduce ball field maintenance
Seasonal Park
Maintenance
Worker
FTE) Vacant
9 Grant Americorp Team $15,000 Reduced size of AmeriCorps
Sponsorship reduction Team to 12
(427) (Prof. Svcs)
10 Admin. Reduce Seasons $4,000 Outside Agency
(429) Music Festival 50% reduction per CBC
TOTAL - $282,400 $149,400 $133,000
Department Information • Section III —17
MEMORANDUM
September 17, 2009
To: Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director — Accounting and Finance
Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
From: Ken Wilkinson, Parks and Recreation Manager
Subject: Impact of Budget Reductions of Services Provided for Citizens
As per your request, please find listed below the predicted impacts on service delivery due
to the budget reductions to the Parks and Recreation Division.
Budget Reduction Impacts
1. Elimination of Park Maintenance Technician position — SU 421
Maintenance repair work will not be completed as quickly, facilities may be
unusable by citizens until repairs can be made outside contractors may need to be
used for simple repair work due to the lack of staffing.
2. Elimination of Dept. of Corrections Crew — SU 421
Trash in the parks will not be cleaned up as quickly. Graffiti will take longer to get
cleaned up or painted over. Special projects, like sod planting around the Apple
Valley Skate Park, will not get done or will take longer to accomplish or will need to
be completed by outside contractors.
3. Reduction of park tree maintenance budget line — SU 421
Fewer trees throughout the city and in the parks will be trimmed and fewer
dangerous trees will be removed.
4. Elimination of West Valley Community Park cleaning contract — SU 421
West Valley Community Park and rest room will need to be cleaned by Seasonal staff
and will not be cleaned as often.
5. Elimination of Golf Starter position — SU 423
Golf starter house will be staffed by inexperienced employees translating into poorer
customer service for participants.
6. Opening Golf Course one month later in 2010 — SU 423
Customers will not be able to enjoy golf during the month of March. Golf revenue
and expenses should both be less.
18 — Section III • Department Information
7. Reduce Retired Senior Volunteer Program - SU 425
The Council Budget Committee reduced all Outside Agency requests by 50% at their
September 2009 meeting.
8. Elimination of Park Maintenance Worker — Ball Fields — SU 426
Ball fields will not be maintained at the same level for baseball, softball and soccer.
9. Reduction of AmeriCorps Team size from 15 to 12 — SU 427
Less direct contact hours will be available for the after school and evening
programs for students at Hoover, Adams Elementary and SECC.
10. Reduce Seasons Music Festival - SU 425
The Council Budget Committee reduced all Outside Agency requests by 50% at their
September 2009 meeting.
Department Information • Section III —19
DEP • TMENTAL INFO TION - FIN CE
FINANCE
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 015-624 Eliminate 1 $19,500 ONDS ($19,500)
Accountant Utility Services ($58,700)
position
FTE) Vacant
Add 1 permanent ($42,000)
part-time
Financial Services
Technician
Re-allocate $34,900 ONDS $9,800
remaining Utility Services $25,100
Accountants
Net Savings $12,400 ONDS ($9,700)
Utility Services ($33,600)
2 015-624 Replace vacant $22,800
Treasury Services
Officer with
a more junior
employee
3 015-624 Reduce Travel & $1,000 In accordance with City
Training Managers directive
TOTAL - $36,200 $35,200 $1,000
20 — Section III • Department Information
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 095-129 Yakima County $15,000 50% reduction
Development
Association
2 095-319 Greater Yakima $2,950 50% reduction
Chamber of
Commerce
3 095-322 Hispanic $2,950 50% reduction
Chamber of
Commerce
4 095-611 Yakima Sunfair $500 50% reduction
Festival
Association
5 095-611 Yakima Basin $10,000 Eliminated
Storage Alliance
6 095-611 Allied Arts of $2,666 50% reduction
Yakima Valley —
ArtsVan
7 095-611 Citizens for Safe $10,000 50% reduction
Yakima Valley
Communities
8 095-611 Ya kima $5,000 50% reduction
Symphony
Orchestra
TOTAL - $49,066 $49,066
Department Information • Section III —21
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 052-103 Reduce Temporary $30,000 Will increase time necessary
Salaries assigned to place new patrol cars into
to mobile fleet the fleet.
technology May delay maintenance on
installation and operational cars reducing the
maintenance, available patrol fleet.
May require contracting with
outside services resulting in
higher costs.
Mid-year 2009 reduction
2 052-631 Not budgeting N/A While not exactly a budget
retirement reduction, the amount
cash out for budgeted for the annual salary
Information will be used as the retirement
Systems Manager cash out. As a result, the
($58,000) position will be left vacant
for the majority of the year.
This will put undo stress on
the remainder of the staff and
may result in delayed project
schedules.
3 052-631 Technology These budget line items fund
Equipment / acquisition and replacement
Software acquisition of technology equipment for
and replacement the entire City. At the current
funding: level of funding, we can
replace client computers on a
Non-Cap Comp Equip $40,000 fifteen-year cycle. I suggest
Prof. Svc — Sftwr Sys 197,300 that at least some of the capital
Cap Lease/Pchs (2-yr) 49,100 lease funding that expired
Machinery/Equip. 199,200 in 2009 be placed in a capital
Total Tech Acqu. $485,600 replacement fund to enable
us to better plan technology
($65,0000 mid-year acquisitions.
2009 reduction)
4 052-653 Offset printing $15,000 The City's offset printing
equipment equipment is over twenty
replacement years old. It should be replaced
over the next couple years to
prevent service interruptions
and expensive repairs. (in 2009
budget - deferred in both 2009
and 2010).
Mid-year 2009 reduction
TOTAL - $530,600 $30,000 $500,600
DEPARTMENT TOTAL - $615,866 $65,200 $550,666
22 — Section III • Department Information
MEMO' NDUM
September 30, 2009
To: Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Rita DeBord, Finance Director
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director Accounting and Budgets
Rick Pettyjohn, Information Systems Manager
Subject: Finance Department's - 2010 General Government Budget Reductions
The Finance Department consists of three Divisions — Financial Services, Information
Systems and Utility Customer Services; additionally, the Outside Agencies budgets are
included under the Finance category.
The Finance Department's proposed 2010 budget is approximately $5.1 million ($1.5 million
-Financial Services; $2.3 million - Information Systems, and $ 1.3 million - Utility Customer
Services) or 8.5% of the total General Government Budget — exclusive of Outside Agencies.
The 2010 General Fund Budget reflects $615,866 of budget reductions within the Finance
Department: $36,200 Finance Division; $530,600 Information Systems Divisions; and
$49,066 in Outside Agency budgets. (This represents a 12.7% reduction from the FY 2009
Finance and Information Systems Division Budgets eligible for reduction.)
Note: the expenditures of the Utility Customer Services Division are fully funded with dedicated
revenues from the Water, Irrigation, Wastewater and Refuse Utilities; therefore, the Utility
Customer Services Division is not included in the following discussion regarding the proposed
General Government Buds Reductions.
FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION
The Finance Division incurred the loss of three key employees during 2009: two
Accountants (one in January and one in August) and one Treasury Services Officer (in
August); one Accountant and one Treasury Services Officer position remain vacant at this
time. These are key positions within the Finance Division - they provide the backbone of
the services critical to the City's financial stability, operations, and internal controls. The
loss of any FTE in these positions will considerably weaken division operations as we are at
minimum staff levels in these key positions today.
However, after considerable review, analysis and discussion, Finance is proposing, and the
proposed 2010 budget reflects, the following staffing changes: (a) elimination of the vacant
Accountant position, (b) addition of a new, part-time (50%), lower level position (Financial
Services Technician) to help cover critical work load and provide some technical assistance
Department Information • Section III —23
to the remaining three accountants who will need to pick up much of the workload of the
eliminated Accountant position, and (c) funding for the Treasury Services Officer position.
The net savings to the City in the 2010 budget to eliminate one Accountant position and
add one 50% FTE Financial Service Technician position is approximately $55,700. Note:
the budget for the vacant Accountant position was split between Finance (20%), Utility
Services (60%), and ONDS (20%). Because the remaining Accountants will now need to
provide the support to these service areas, the proposed 2010 budget re-allocates portions
of two of the remaining Accountants to ONDS (fund 124) and to Utility Services. While
there is no net change in costs to the City of this re-allocation, there is a net savings to
Finance of $12,400.
The following table summarizes the above noted changes by Division:
DESCRIPTION FINANCE (0 1 5) Um. Svc (054) ONDS (124) TOTAL
Eliminate One Accountant Position ($19,500) ($58,700) ($19,500) ($97,700)
Re-allocate remaining Accountants (34,900) 25,100 9,800 0
Add 50% Fin. Svcs. Tech. Position 42,000 0 0 42,000
NET SAVINGS ($12,400) ($33,600) ($9,700) ($55,700)
Because of the critical nature of the Treasury Services Officer position and the extremely
heavy workload of this Division, management is recommending that this position be filled
as soon as possible. However, there will be a significant budget savings in 2010, and for
several years thereafter, due to the difference in salary and benefits previously paid to the
long-term employee who left the City's employment and that paid to a new - more junior
- employee filling the position, ($22,800 estimated savings in 2010). The total net savings
from the position changes noted above is approx. $35,200 in the Financial Services Budget.
Much of the work in the Financial Services Division is critical to the safeguarding of public
funds, is required in order to receive payments for services provided, and/or is mandated by
Federal or State statues and other regulations. That is, any reduction in staffing will cause a
delay of work in this Division and could result in additional costs. A few examples: if bills
are paid late, the City incurs late charges; if bank accounts are not properly managed, the City
incurs overdraft charges (or worse); if invoices aren't sent on a timely basis, the City's cash
flow is interrupted, and interest earnings are diminished; if check fraud on one of the City's
bank accounts isn't caught and reported the next business day, the City would be required
to absorb the loss; if grants are not properly administered and reported, the City could be
required to return the funds - even if the funds have already been expended on the intended
project/program. (Note: the City has been successful over the past few years in obtaining
Federal grants, either directly from the Federal Government or indirectly from Washington
State. Federal grant programs have an extremely high degree of administration required, and
Finance is involved in reporting and billing most of the grants Citywide.)
The Financial Services Division continually strives to improve our services and reduce
costs; this is evident in the staffing and organizational changes implemented over the past
several years - all focused on doing more with the same or fewer resources. However,
24 — Section III • Department Information
there is a minimum staffing level at which further staff reductions may actually result in
increased liability and/or costs; and we are at, or very near, that staffing level.
The City places a high reliance on the Finance Division to provide accurate, timely and
professional financial services to all City Departments, Executive Management, City
Council and to our citizens. And, there is no other department in the City that is likely
more aware of the City's extremely difficult and challenging financial situation or the
absolute necessity to reduce costs and maintain a strong fiscal position. Therefore, we have
strived to strike a balance — although somewhat precarious — between these two conflicting
goals in our 2010 proposed budget.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS DIVISION
The Information Systems Division provides hardware and software support for every
division, and automated function, of the City. The 19.5 employees in this division provide
technical support services — Citywide — for all of the following:
Maintain and Enhance existing software applications (includes: police, fire, 911/calls;
dispatch; courts, legal, accounting/finance, human resources, civil service, city records,
engineering, permits, codes, streets / traffic, parks, cemetery, utilities, transit, etc.);
Design and Implement new software applications systems (for all of the above);
Maintain and Enhance existing computer hardware (e.g.: computers, printers,
copiers, mobile data terminals — police/fire vehicles, wireless PDA devices —
Blackberries, etc., - data radios, microwaves, and fiber optics);
Administer, Maintain and Enhance the City's technology infrastructure (e.g.: system
network, databases, firewalls/System security, distributed processing, email spam
control, and all other system security and controls for infrastructure.);
Provide Printing services;
Maintain and Enhance City's Geographical Information Services (GIS);
Operate and Support other agencies — public safety systems for Selah and Union
Gap; a fire records system utilized by Fire Districts throughout the county; and
utility bill printing and distribution for the City of Toppenish
With the significant budget reductions in the 2010 (and previous years) budget, department
heads are looking more and more to technology for tools to provide efficiencies that will
help them maintain essential services while, at the same time, reducing costs/expenditures.
Unfortunately, the Information Systems Division has experienced significant budget
reductions every year for the past five to ten years — and the 2010 budget is no exception.
There are three major areas of budget reductions or freezes that have significant effect on
Information Systems operations. They are personnel, capital, and system replacements.
Department Information • Section III —25
Personnel
The Salary budget for Temporary employees in the 103 Service Unit (funded from
Criminal Justice Sales Tax revenues) has been reduced by nearly 50% for Information
Systems. This budget pays for support of the Police Department's mobile fleet.
Information Systems is responsible for the installation and support for a large
variety of technology equipment in the patrol cars including mobile data computers,
digital video recorders, global positioning systems, multiple data communications
modems, and license plate readers. The patrol cars are used in an extremely hostile
environment for electronic equipment and, thus, require a very high level of
maintenance and attention to keep them operating properly. If we are unable to
install and maintain this equipment properly, officers are less efficient and/or put at
risk due to the lack of proper tools to do their job. (Additionally, if the City relies on
outside service providers to perform this work, it results in much higher costs to the
City — this has been evaluated at different times over the years.)
The Information Systems Manager is planning to retire in 2010. In the past, when a
long-term employee planed to retire, the division's budget for the year of the retirement
included an estimate of the employee's "retirement cash-out" (funds accumulated
over the term of service that are paid to the employee upon retirement). However, the
2010 budget does not include any amount to cover the manager's retirement cash-out;
thus, the division will be required to absorb these costs. The division — which is already
hurting from an extremely heavy workload on the existing staff — will need to leave this
position vacant for many months in order to offset the costs of the manager's retirement
cash-out; placing yet a greater burden upon existing staff and further slowing down
necessary system maintenance, enhancement and/or implementation projects. This is
especially critical since the City is planning to implement a new public safety system in
2010 and already has a number of projects in process that will not be completed prior to
the manager's retirement; not to mention the list of projects that department's may be
requesting in order to help them meet their 2010 expenditure reduction targets.
Capital
The equipment budget in Service Unit 631 (Data Processing) has been dramatically
reduced over the last few years; resulting in an extremely extended replacement cycle
for technology equipment. Based on the 2010 budget, the City's replacement cycle
for technology equipment, including client computers, servers, data communications
equipment, and mobile technology, is over fifteen (15) years. Our current hardware won't
last another fifteen years; and our current software will certainly not support the ever
changing business needs, or citizen expectations, for the next fifteen years.
Additionally, this extremely long replacement cycle causes an increase in the number of
trouble calls Information Systems personnel must respond to (with it's already minimal
staff levels), extends computer "start-up times", which increases employee down-time, and
compatibility problems with other agencies will increase due to software obsolescence on
the City's computers, complicating and/or disrupting operations.
The City needs an established capital replacement budget and plan; without such, the IS
26 — Section III • Department Information
budget can vary dramatically from one year to the next as critical systems fail and/or are
replaced due to unreliability caused by age or obsolescence.
System Replacement
The City purchases new software systems through the 410 — Professional Service budget
within the Information Systems budget. This budget has been reduced by over 70% in
the 2010 budget from the 2009 amended budget. Information Systems developed and
implemented a large number of systems in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Many of these
systems are still in use. While these systems still work, they are very archaic, not well
integrated, and, by today's standards, difficult to use. In addition, many new opportunities
for efficiencies through automation have become practical due to new technologies over the
years. Without significantly increased funding for new technology over the next several
years, the City will miss opportunities to provide more efficient, and often less costly,
services to the community, will operate less efficiently in internal operations and will not be
able to respond to many citizen and employee requests in a timely manner — if at all.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUMMARY
As noted above, the entire City — all existing computer hardware, software and peripherals
for every department of the City — is supported by only 19.5 employees. The current
number of employees supporting the City's technology needs is well below that of most
cities of comparable size and is well below the recommended level of twenty years ago.
In 1991, Information Systems budget was $1.2 million and had a staff of 13.5 FTE's. At
that time, the City hired a consulting firm to develop an Information Systems Strategic
Plan. This plan identified systems the City should implement and recommended resource
levels. The recommended Information Systems budget for 1991 was $3.0 million with a
staffing level of 36 FTEs. As a comparison, in the 2010 budget — nearly twenty years later -
Information Systems budget is $2.3 million and has a current staffing level of 19.5 FTE's.
In spite of the tremendous growth in the capabilities and use of technology over the past 20
years, the City's investment of dollars and personnel in this area has fallen far below our
ability to meet their needs. Despite the significant reliance on technology within the City
and critical role technology plays in every aspect of City operations, Information Systems is
one of the, if not the, most under funded area of the City.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
Due to the severe reductions in the 2010 revenue projections, all discretionary funding to
Outside Agencies has been reduced 50% in the proposed 2010 budget — as recommended by
the Council Budget Committee at their September 2009 meeting.
Therefore, the 2010 budget for the following Outside Agencies is half the amount each agency
received in the 2009 budget: Yakima County Development Association (YCDA); Greater
Yakima Chamber of Commerce; Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Yakima Sunfair Festival
Association; Allied Arts of Yakima (Arts Van), Citizens for Safe Yakima Valley Communities,
and the Yakima Symphony Orchestra. (Note; funding for the Yakima Basin Storage Alliance
was completely eliminated from the 2010 proposed budget.)
Department Information • Section III —27
DEP • TMENTAL INFO ' TION - CO TY & ECONO C DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT / OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 021- 310 Transfer Assistant $64,100 Shift from Planning work to
Planner to ONDS support CED Director.
fund 124
(1.0 FTE)
2 021-310 Printing, legal $37,000 Result of a change in how
ads, Postage, notices are accomplished
Professional Svcs,
3 021-319 Delete mid-year $16,400 Upon retirement of CED
Deputy Director Director $21,900 annualized
(vacant for .75 of
2010)
4 021-310 Overtime $9,000 Mid-year 2009 reduction
5 021-319 Retirement/ $7,500 A portion allocated to ONDS
Reallocate 50% and Economic Development
Cash out of CED fund for prior service in these
Director funds
TOTAL - $134,000 $97,000 $37,000
CODES
1 022-145 Transfer $10,000 Abatement within CDBG
Dangerous Bldg boundaries is eligible for grant
Abatement to reimbursement.
ONDS Mid-year 2009 Reduction
2 022-149 Professional Svcs. $2,000
3 022-149 Printing $2,500
4 022-149 Fuel Savings $4,400
4 022-149/626 Delete Permit $51,400
Tech
(1 FTE) Vacant
5 022-149/626 Delete Fire Code $79,000 Mid-year 2009 reduction
Inspector
(1 FTE) Vacant
6 022-149/626 Transfer Code $66,600 Transfer to ONDS
Compliance
Officer
(1 FTE) Vacant
7 022-149/ Delete Mid-year $16,400 $21,900 annualized
223/626 Deputy Director
(vacant for .75 of
2010)
8 022-223 Delete Animal $67,100
Control Officer
(1 FTE) Filled
28 — Section III • Department Information
TOTAL - $299,400 $280,500 Total $18,900
ENGINEERING
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 041-528 Delete Eng. Office $46,100 Mid-year 2009 reduction
Assistant
(1 FIE) Vacant
2 041-528 Project Engineer $55,300 $82,500 annualized
One Position to
Retire 4/30/10
3 041-528 Delete mid-year $21,900 $29,200 annualized
Deputy Director
(vacant for .75 of
2010)
4 041-528 Reduce Temp $25,000
Personnel
5 041-528 Reduce Overtime $14,000
6 041-528 Fuel Savings $3,500
TOTAL - $165,800 $162,300 $3,500
CITY HALL
1 051-633 Reduce Temp $16,900
Personnel
2 051-633 Reduce Office $4,000
& Operating
Supplies
3 051-633 Reduce Small $1,500
Tools
TOTAL - $22,400 $16,900 Total $5,500
DEPARTMENT TOTAL - $621,600 $556,700 $64,900
Department Information • Section III —29
MEMORANDUM
September 22, 2009
To: Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Bill Cook, Director CED
Subject: 2010 Budget — Impacts of CED Budget Reductions
The Department of Community and Economic Development has identified nearly $622,000
of budget reductions for the FY 2010 General Fund Budget, including $484,300 of staff
reductions and cost shifts for permanent FTE's. This represents a 12.6% reduction from the
FY 2009 CED General Fund Budget. The following positions, by division, are proposed for
reduction (elimination) from the CED general fund budget package:
2010 GENERAL
DIVISION FTE's POSITION FUND COST
Planning 1 FTE Assistant Planner (transfer) $64,100
Codes 1 FTE Permit Tech 51,400
1 FTE Fire Code Inspector 79,000
1 FTE Animal Control Officer 67,100
1 FTE Code Compliance Officer (transfer) 66,600
Engineering 1 FTE Project Engineer (Ret. 4/30/10) 55,300
1 FTE Eng. Office Assistant 46,100
CED Admin. 1 FTE Deputy Director (Ret. 3/31/10) 54,700
Total Reductions 8 FTE $484,300
The department rationale for staff cuts, reassignments and cost shifting are based on the
primary objective of maintaining adequate levels of service at a lower cost to the general
fund. Furthermore, some reassignments also have to do with eligibility requirements for
the use of some federal funds, and we were mindful of matching up these opportunities
with the needs of the department and the priorities of the city council.
CODES
Staff Reductions: Three FTE positions budgeted in FY 2009 (Permit Tech, Fire Code
Inspector and Code Compliance Officer) were frozen when they became vacant. These
have all been eliminated from the FY 2010 General Fund Budget. In addition, one FTE
Animal Control Officer is also proposed for elimination from the general fund budget.
Cost Shift: Code Compliance is an eligible activity under CDBG. CED proposes to fill the
vacant and frozen Code Compliance Officer position using CDBG funds in FY 2010, which
will also create a promotional opportunity within the division. This action will also bring
the code compliance staffing back up to our 2008 level (4 FTE).
30 — Section III • Department Information
Service Impact & Adjustments: In order to manage the reduction in Permit Technicians
in the Permit Center, Codes and Planning have implemented a coordination effort that
places planners in the permit center throughout the day. This change also serves to provide
consistent and timely planning presence and professional advice at all times in the permit
center.
Animal Control procedures and services will remain the same, although with one less
ACO, response times may be impacted due to the larger geographic area that each ACO
must cover, and the animal transport capacity of our vehicles.
Our one Fire Inspector will carry out inspections of existing commercial buildings, schools
and offices, about 3,000 per year, with the help of our four Building Inspectors. However,
as construction activity increases, the priority for the Building Inspectors will be to provide
timely construction inspections for projects. This may extend the period it takes to inspect
all 3,000 locations. For this reason, city management is working on a plan to shift this
responsibility to the Fire Department at some point in the future.
PLANNING & CED ADMINISTRATION
Staff Reductions: One FTE Assistant Planner ($64,100) and the Deputy Director ($54,700)
will be eliminated from the general fund budget. Both of these positions are filled.
The Deputy Director will become vacant upon the retirement of the CED Director and
subsequent promotion.
Cost Shift: The Assistant Planner will be reassigned to work for the Director of CED, and
paid for with federal grant funds for one year.
Reduction in maintenance and operation costs: The reductions are related to the overall
budget constraints brought about by decreasing revenue. Changes will be made to the
mailing notice procedures including a post card notification system rather than mailing
complete application information. We will be able to further reduce operating costs by
limiting distribution of hard copy documents and relying more on posting items on the
internet.
Service Impact & Adjustments: The Director of Community & Economic Development
will retire from the city in April 2010. The City Manager intends to promote the Deputy
Director to Director at that time, and eliminate the position. In addition to the second
in command and division management responsibilities, the Deputy Director provides
additional staff support to the City Manager and other departments, primarily in grant
writing and intergovernmental affairs, securing appropriations and other benefits from
state and federal government to accomplish the city council strategic priorities. While the
external functions will be expected to continue with the promotion to Director, a number of
federal initiatives have administrative responsibilities that require staff support for at least
a year. These initiatives include:
Department Information • Section III — 31
• Renewal Community Designation: The city's top economic development incentive
program, the program is likely to be extended for up to two years, and will require
a good deal of close out activities to satisfy HUD and Department of Treasury
requirements.
• Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP): The city received over $500,000 of NSP
funds that must be used over the next 18 months. NSP will require the city to identify,
acquire and redevelop or sell abandoned and/or foreclosed residential properties.
• CDBG-R: This additional $318,000 of CDBG funds came as a result of the federal
stimulus package, and must also be spent in the next 18 months. These funds
will also have a significant workload as it relates to reporting and monitoring
requirements, which are more cumbersome than traditional CDBG.
• Energy Efficiency Block Grant: The city will receive over $800,000 of EEBG as a
result of the stimulus bill. Again, there is a short time frame for spending the money,
and separate reporting and monitoring requirements.
As the position is funded by federal funds, planning workload will be redistributed among
the remaining staff, in addition to the new responsibilities and time provided to assist with
the Permit Center staff reduction.
ENGINEERING
The reduction in Engineering does not have a cost shift alternative, and the workload for
design of new projects will need to be redistributed among staff.
The reductions and cost shifts will leave CED in a position of being sized to the current
workload, however, the CED workload includes a component that is a lead indicator of
economic growth, and we need to be right sized to meet this need as it grows.
32 — Section III • Department Information
DEP ,,""TMENTAL INFO TION - CITY AGER
HUMAN RESOURCES
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 016/Various Reduce temporary $3,300 Reduce coverage for leave
personnel time/special projects.
2 Reduce Overtime $1,500
3 Reduce Prof. $5,000 Reduce studies - reclass
services support
4 Reduce Supplies/ $6,800
Small Tools
5 Reduce Travel & $2,000 hi accordance with City
Training Managers directive
TOTAL - $18,600 $4,800 $13,800
CLERKS & RECORDS
1 014 Reduce temporary $3,500 Reduce coverage for leave
personnel time/special projects.
2 Reduce Overtime $2,000
3 Reduce Prof. $4,000 2009 budget included a
services "catch-up" for Municipal Code
codification
4 Reduce Travel & $1,100 In accordance with City
Training Managers directive
TOTAL - $10,600 $5,500 $5,100
CITY COUNCIL
1 011 Reduce Travel & $1,000 In accordance with City
Training Managers directive
TOTAL - $1,000 $1,000
CITY MANAGER
1 012 Reduce Temporary $1,000
Personnel
2 012 Reduce Travel and $1,250 In accordance with City
Training & related Managers directive
registrations
TOTAL - $2,250 $1,000 $1,250
Department Information • Section III — 33
LEGAL
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 Civil Delete Senior $111,100 Mid-year 2009 reduction
SU 622 Assistant City
Attorney I
Vacant (1.0 FTE)
2 Civil Professional $30,000 Reduced budget for outside
SU 622 Services counsel assistance: $30,000
reduction $7,500 Identified as a
(Account 410) Mid-year 2009 Reduction
3 Prosecution Delete Assistant $91,600 Annual salary and benefits.
SU 132 City Attorney I
Vacant (1.0 FTE)
4 Civil Transfer 60% Asst. $63,700 Mid-year 2009 reduction
SU 622 City Attorney 11 to
Risk Mgmt. Fund
TOTAL - $296,400 $266,400 $30,000
DEPARTMENT TOTAL - $328,850 $277,700 $51,150
34 — Section III • Department Information
MEMORANDUM
September 29, 2009
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council
From: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Subject: 2010 Budget Reductions
In the Human Resources Division, there are two budget items that are reduced. The first,
reducing the funding for temporary employees would result in a cost savings of $3,300.
However, reducing funding for temporary employees reduces the ability to accomplish
specialized projects in the clerical and record keeping operations of the department and
reduces the ability to cover absences due to scheduled time off for staff.
The second budget item that is being reduced is the operations and maintenance budget
item which would result in a cost savings of S15,300. The operations and maintenance
budget item includes professional services, overtime, supplies, small tools, and travel &
training expenses. Reductions in these line items affect our ability to respond to special
projects in a timely manner or shift priorities to an unforeseen project, attend training
programs to improve or maintain skill levels or learn about new topics or regulations in the
human resources field. Further, reductions in other service units will reduce our ability to
replace outdated or inadequate equipment or supplies.
In the Clerks and Records Division, staff feels reductions in temporary salaries, overtime,
transportation, and the miscellaneous line items could be reduced. The temporary salaries
could be reduced $3,500 but would reduce available options for temporary employee
assistance with work overload. Overtime could be reduced by $2,000. By reducing the
funds available for overtime, on-going projects may be delayed due to less time working
and flex time would need to be applied so as not to accrue over time for staff staying late to
attend Council meetings, prepare Council packets, etc.
The transportation budget could be reduced $500. The impact would be less out of town
travel for training opportunities and more on-line training eliminating the personal
interaction. The miscellaneous budget could be reduced $600. The impact would be less
on-site training registration fees. The professional services budget item for records could be
reduced $4,000 without impacting the current needs of the department. (Primarily because
the 2009 includes almost 18 months in expenses to codify the Municipal Code. Once this
function is "caught up", the new proposed budget should be adequate). Reductions in
these five areas would result in a total budget savings of $10,600.
The City Manager office also reduced temporary personnel by $1,000, which will limit
assistance for projects and coverage during times of extended leave.
Department Information • Section III — 35
In accordance with the City Managers directive, the travel budgets were reduced by 7.5%
or $1,000 in the City Council budget and $750 in the City Managers budget. The City
Manager also reduced the miscellaneous budget (which supports registration fees) by S500,
for a total reduction of $3,250 in these two divisions.
The Legal department has prepared a separate memorandum on its budget reductions
which follow.
36 — Section III • Department Information
MEMORANDUM
September 22, 2009
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
Subject: Legal Department - Impact of Budget Reductions for Mid-Year 2009 and Year
2010 Budgets
The Legal Department is responsible for a very high volume of significant legal work
required by the City in both the civil law and criminal law areas. The Legal Department
budgets for mid-year 2009 and 2010 reflect significant position budget reductions at the
attorney level. These reductions will compromise the ability of the Legal Department to
meet its standard of handling a high volume of complex and diverse legal work.
The mid-year 2009 budget adjustment and the proposed 2010 budget reduction reflect no
budget funding for two key attorney positions: a Senior Assistant City Attorney I position
in the Civil Division, and an Assistant City Attorney I position in the Prosecution Division.
In addition, there is a reduction in resources available to enlist outside counsel assistance
in the amount of $30,000 in the Civil Division budget, which is a reduction of 50% in the
2010 budget as compared with the original 2009 budget amount. These reductions will
have a significant impact on legal services in key areas provided by both the Civil Division
and Prosecution Division. The impact of the lack of funding for two attorney positions
and the decrease in budgeted outside counsel expense is discussed below for each budget
reduction.
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY POSITION IN THE CIVIL DIVISION
Service Unit 622, Legal Counsel, Account 110 Salaries and Wages - The elimination of
funding for this position in the 2009 amended budget and the proposed 2010 budget has
a significant impact on the Legal Department and the City. This is the attorney position
that formerly was held by the current City Attorney until February 2009. The position
allowed the City to both save money and increase productivity by reducing outside legal
counsel expenses and consolidating necessary land use work. In recent years, economic
development processes and land use work, including land use hearings, have grown in
time and complexity, necessitating ever greater involvement of legal counsel.
In addition, there has been a significant increase in the number and complexity of many
civil matters, including but not limited to civil litigation, employment and personnel
matters and related employment litigation, and public disclosure requests, requiring in
some cases legal review and production of thousands of pages of City documents.
Department Information • Section III — 37
The reduction for budget purposes of this Senior Assistant City Attorney position
essentially removes what was a high-demand position which assisted greatly in the overall
goal of providing legal assistance to City Departments and reducing outside counsel
expenses. This was not an unnecessary position within the City, but rather a crucial
attorney position carrying a heavy caseload of civil matters.
REDUCED CIVIL DIVISION BUDGET FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Service Unit 622, Legal Counsel, Account 410 Professional Services - The Legal Department
Civil Division professional services account for 2009 originally contained a budgeted
amount of $60,000 for outside counsel expenses. This was a 7.7% decrease from the 2008
amended budget amount of $65,000. The September 2009 budget adjustment has reduced
the amount in this account for outside counsel expenses by a total of 50%, from $60,000 to
$30,000. This significant budget reduction of 50% as compared to the original 2009 budget,
for a total amount of S30,000, also has been made in the proposed 2010 budget. The need
for outside legal counsel cannot always be foreseen at budget time, and this can cause
the account to fluctuate over time. Coupled with the reduction of a Senior Assistant City
Attorney position in the Civil Division, this presents significant challenges for the Legal
Department and the City, since legal needs of the City and the corresponding caseload in
the Legal Department have increased, not decreased, over time.
PROSECUTOR POSITION IN THE PROSECUTION DIVISION
Service Unit 131, Prosecution, Account 110 Salaries and Wages - The Legal Department has
a Prosecutor position that is not funded and will remain vacant during the 2010 budget
period. The prosecutor caseload was already very heavy. In 2008, the Prosecution Division
handled 6,000 criminal cases and 2,800 probation violation matters. The Prosecutor in the
vacant unfunded position handled a caseload of 1,734 cases a year and covered a portion
of the court calendars. The caseload and the number of court calendars were not reduced
when the position was unfunded and the remaining prosecutors are doing their best to
absorb the additional caseload while appearing at more hearings. As a result of the lost
position, the caseload per prosecutor has ballooned to 2,312 cases per year, and with less
office time, prosecutors can spend about 15 minutes per case.
To put these numbers into context, the American Prosecutors Research Institute and
Office of Justice Programs recommend that a prosecutor handle a caseload of 400-590
misdemeanor cases a year. The last time the Prosecution Division conducted a poll,
the county and city standard across the State was anywhere from 800 to 1,200 cases
per prosecutor per year. These same counties and cities also have experienced staffing
reductions, but they were starting at a level of a more reasonable caseload per prosecutor.
The demand for other prosecution services also remains unchanged. Prosecutors are
still answering officer questions (on a daily basis), answering questions from the public,
handling appeals, contested infractions, car and dog impound hearings, advising on public
disclosure questions, and preparing and conducting officer trainings (four six-hour training
sessions).
38 — Section III • Department Information
The Prosecution Division is thinking creatively during this challenging period and is
poised to implement, upon Council approval, some measures designed to reduce the
caseload. This task is made more challenging by the additions to our caseload; for example,
the State increase in the felony property crime threshold from $250 to $750 will certainly
result in an increase in misdemeanor property crimes. Similarly, the increased emphasis on
prosecution of code violations is also adding time-intensive matters to the overall caseload.
Department Information • Section III — 39
DEP • TMENTAL INFO TION M ICIPAL COURT
MUNICIPAL COURT
PERSONNEL CHANGES CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS
ITEM DIVISION I $ COST $ COST
# SERVICE UNIT DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION NOTES
1 018-129 Delete Municipal $48,300
Court Clerk
(1A1
2 018-103 Professional $10,000
Services (total
reduced from
$163,000 to
$153,000)
TOTAL - $58,300 $48,300 $10,000
40 — Section III • Department Information
MEMORANDUM
September 17, 2009
To: Yakima City Council
Dick Zais, Yakima City Manager
From: Kelley Olwell, Presiding Judge Yakima Municipal Court
Susan Woodard, Judge Yakima Municipal Court
Linda Hagert, Court Services Manager
Subject: Impact of the 2010 Budget Reduction of the position of Municipal Court Cashier
Due to the budget challenges facing the City of Yakima, the Municipal Court has been
required to eliminate the Court Cashier position from its 2010 Budget and reduce the hours
of operation to the public to 4 hours per day.
The Municipal Court Cashier position is the only position of its kind within the Court. This
position was created in June, 2008, under filling, and subsequently eliminating, the Deputy
Court Services Manager from the court's 2009 budget.
Examples of the duties performed by this position include collecting and receipting fine/
penalty payments, recalling bench warrants, entering infraction and criminal citations
and assembling court files, setting court dates for defendants, adjudicating cases when the
defendant has failed to appear at scheduled traffic infraction hearing or failed to respond to
a traffic infraction and reporting this information to the Department of Licensing, directing
the public and parties to the correct courtroom, accepting and filing Requests for Access
to Records from the public and various agencies with which the court conducts business,
processing the court's daily mail including a variety of various legal correspondence and
payment of fines/penalties. The cashier position is cross-trained in courtroom clerking for
civil infraction cases.
The cashier is the first point of contact for the public. Due to the constant limitation in
court staffing, the court has only been able to provide one open service window to the
public on a daily basis. Often times there are lines that stretch across the lobby with people
waiting for service at the court's window.
The court's current hours of operation are from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm, closing to the public
at 4:00 pin to allow the cashier to receipt payments made by mail, balance the cash drawer
and process and route other documents that are filed through the service window during
the day.
Department Information • Section III —41
The impact of losing the cashier position will be crippling to our constantly strained efforts
to provide criminal justice services to the public. Losing the cashier position means that all
of the above listed cashier responsibilities will have to be absorbed by the remaining, and
already overburdened, Municipal Court Clerks whose responsibilities lie primarily inside
the courtroom.
As a result of losing this cashier position, commencing January 4, 2010, the business hours
for the Municipal Court will be from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm. However, the hours that the
window will be open to the public for service will be 9:00 am until 11:00 am and 1:30 pm
until 3:30 pm.
The Municipal Court remains committed to delivering the best possible criminal justice
services with the resources provided.
42 — Section III • Department Information
AT YOU PAY D AT YOU GET
This section is presented to assist the reader in understanding the taxes they pay, what
governmental entity receives those tax revenues and how the City spends their allocated portion.
Enclosed, you'll find charts and graphs which identify how much of the taxpayers' dollar comes
to the City and what percentage of the City's total revenues each type of tax/charge represents.
Also included is (a) an outline of the City taxes and utility charges collected from a typical Yakima
household; (b) a depiction of how those revenues are then distributed between the various Cit y
services/functions and (c) the amount a typical four-person household pays for these services.
MAJOR TAXES PAID
SALES AND USE TAX
There is a 8.2% sales tax charged on the sale of goods within the City. The vast majority
of this revenue is allocated to the State, not the City. The State receives 6.5% while the
City receives .85% for the general fund and an additional 0.3% that is restricted for transit
services, and .15% goes to the County, and .40% represents county wide taxes for Criminal
Justice that is allocated between Cities and the County. (Refer to the following chart for a
complete detailed listing of how this revenue is allocated.)
Following is an example of how the sales taxes paid by the consumer are allocated between
the City and the State. Based on the assumption that a family with a taxable income of
$40,000 will spend $10,000 on items on which sales tax will be applied, they will pay
approximately $820 in sales taxes annually. Of this amount, 14.0% or approximately $115
goes to the City (S85 or .85% for general fund and $30 or 0.3% for transit services).
The following chart depicts how much of each dollar of sales tax revenue is allocated to the
State, the City and the County.
ALLOCATION OF SALES TAX COLLECTION
State of Washington Yakima Transit
3.7'
t
) trf ' 4 smritit ',troll
. 4
INT 2 A -4
A22123565 A ItA,
liam
Lt . ....rtymettc . .N `r"
"E" thei
City of Yakima
(General Fund) County
10.3' 6.7'
What You Pay and What You Get • Section IV 1
SALES TAX RATES WITHIN YAKIMA CITY LIMITS
(in descending order by total allocation)
EXAMPLE
RATE % OF TOTAL ($ I 00 SALE)
State of Washington 6.50% 79.3% $6.50
City of Yakima (General Fund) '') 0.85% 10.3% $0.85
Yakima Transit 0.30% 3.7% $0.30
Yakima County (Current Expense Fund)"' 0.15% 1.8% $0.15
Yakima County Criminal Justice '') R40% 4.9% $0.40
TOTAL SALES TAX RATE IN CITY LIMITS 8.20% 100% $8.20
(1) The City charges 1%; however, the county receives .15% of the cities' sales tax collections.
(2) This tax is allocated among the cities and the county to support Criminal Justice uses.
PROPERTY TAXES
The total property taxes paid by property owners within the City of Yakima include taxes
levied by several governmental entities: the State, School Districts, Special County-wide
voted levies and the City's general and special voter approved levies. The percentage of
the total property taxes levied by, and allocated to, each individual governmental entity
will change slightly from year to year. The City's portion is generally under 30% of the
total amount collected. (Refer to the graph and chart below for how the 2009 property
taxes were allocated between these governmental entities.)
2009 PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION
Yakima School District City of Yakima Library
.38 .25' .04'
I I I
( .': •‘ * 4i i , ... . .. .7 1 422123 5 6 5 1 A * ..: J7 'i
■6 , 4,-.. - -*:-H — , : - . ; '.: „. - - '.......- ..--- , ,,.: • -- ,;.*::: : ::'. t 1 i
1 I I
State of Washington Schools Yakima County EMS
.17' .14' .02'
CITY OF YAKIMA PROPERTY Tax — In 2009, a typical City resident pays approximately $11.75 per
thousand of assessed value on property taxes. Only $3.01, or about 25.7% goes to the City,
with the balance divided between the County, schools, and other special districts.
DESCRIPTION OF How PROPERTY TAXES ARE LEVIED — The following explanation is included to help the
reader understand how property taxes are assessed to the individual property owners.
To aid in this explanation, three commonly used terms must be understood. They are
Property Tax Levy, Property Tax Rate and Assessed Value.
2 — Section IV • What You Pay and What You Get
Property Tax Levy — is the total amount of money that is authorized to be collected.
Property Tax Rate — is the property tax amount that will be applied to every $1,000 of
assessed value; the rate is determined by simply dividing the levy amount by the total
assessed value amount and dividing that number by 1,000.
Assessed Value — is the total value, as determined by the County Assessor's Office, of all
property within the City.
In other words, an increase in assessed value does not affect the total amount levied
or collected by the governmental entity. Nor does it automatically affect the amount
the property owner must pay. The dollar amount of the levy is restricted by law — the
assessed value is simply the means to allocate the total dollars among the property
owners. A change in one property owner's assessed value will affect his/her property
tax bill only if the change is significant enough to change that property owner's
percentage of the total assessed value of all property within the taxing districts.
(Example: if the amount of property tax levied does not change from one year to the
next, and every property owner's assessed value goes up 3%, there will be no change
in the property tax owed by any of the property owners. This is due to the fact that
everyone's assessed value increase by the same amount; therefore, every property
owner's percentage of the total tax levy remained the same.)
PROPERTY TAX CODE AREA #334 (YAKIMA SCHOOLS) - CONSOLIDATED LEVY AND RATES
2008 ASSESSED VALUATION - 2009 TAX YEAR
AMOUNT PERCENT
2008 2009 OF
PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE LEVY LEVY
CITY LEVY
General Fund $1.5168 $8,143,717
Parks & Recreation 0.3024 1,623,500
Street & Traffic Operations 0.7840 4,209,000
Firemen's Relief & Pension 0.2855 1,532,765
Total Operating Levy $2.8886 $15,508,982
Total Bond Levy 0.0505 $268,000 0.4%
TOTAL CITY LEVY $2.9391 $15,776,982 25.6%
OTHER LEVIES
School District #7 38.0%
Operation & Maintenance $2.7934 $14,808,637
Bond Redemption 1.5719 8,333,106
State Schools 1.9217 10,317,529 16.7%
Library 0.4483 2,406,904 3.9%
Yakima County 1.4549 7,811,298 13.9%
Yakima County Flood Control 0.0849 455,825
Juvenile Justice Bond 0.0524 277,788
EMS Levy 0.2124 1,140,367 1.9%
TOTAL OTHER LEVIES $8.5399 $45,551,454 74.4%
TOTAL LEVY CODE #334 $11.4790 $61,328,436 100.0%
What You Pay and What You Get • Section IV— 3
CITY TAXES AND UTILITY CHARGES
The taxes and utility charges shown in the following charts are only those directly levied
by the City. In the cases of sales and property taxes, the 2 major taxes paid directly by
Washington residents, only a small portion of the total tax belongs to the City.
To illustrate what a typical household might pay, the following assumptions were made.
Property tax based on $120,000 home; Sales tax based on $42,000 annual income and
$10,500 taxable purchases; Utilities based on 96 gallon can for Refuse, 1,300 cubic foot
monthly consumption for Water /Sewer; Irrigation for 7,000 square foot lot; Stormwater
based on impervious surface; Gas /electricity $2,500, telephone $960, cable television $600.
Based on these assumptions, a typical household in Yakima paid approximately $189 a
month, or $2,264 a year, as depicted in the following charts.
ANNUAL TAXES AND UTILITY CHARGES LEVIED
BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA ON THE TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD FOR 2009
REVENUE RATE PER 1,000 COST PER HOUSEHOLD
Property Taxes - General $2.889/1,000 $347
Special Levy Property Taxes $0.050/1,000 6
Sales Taxes - General 121
Transit Sales Tax 32
Tax on City -owned Utilities - General 145
Tax on Private Utilities - General 244
Water, Wastewater and Refuse Utility Charges (excluding Utility Tax) 1,106
Stormwater 40
Irrigation Assessment 223
TOTAL ANNUAL CITY TAXES, UTILITIES AND ASSESSMENT CHARGES $2,264
CITY TAXES AND UTILITY CHARGES
COST TO TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD — $2,264 ANNUALLY
Parks
$50 Wastewater
Water $582
$337
Stormwater
Streets
$65
Transit Division
Other $32
$122
12; fuse
87 r Other Special
Revenue $2 Funds 9
General
Government 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Debt Se $15e Funds
$60 Special Levy Debt
$6
Irrigation
$223 Public Safety
$610
Capital
Project Funds
$28
4 — Section IV • What You Pay and What You Get
GENERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE
The total 2010 proposed General Government Revenue Budget is approximately $58.1
million.
The following chart breaks this dollar amount down by the source of the revenue. You'll
note that three revenue sources — sales tax, property tax and franchise and utility taxes —
generate over 71% of the total general fund revenues.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE
(BASED ON 2010 BUDGET OF $58.1 MILLION)
262 212 72 41
Sales Tax Franchise & Intergovernment & Other
Utility Tax State Shared Revenue Revenue
($15,2 Million) ($12,3 Million) ($4 3 Million) (2.4 Million)
1 1
0 1
L 1 Tilti 1 e-iiiiiii 14;6 NE's. (ir.tm mut.. 1 ik, 4:1
i*„ • ; or ,, _, .,,,,.. , ,,,,,,,,....
%.
, , a
1 q
I I
241 11.5 5.7
Property Tax Licenses, Permits Fines &
($14 0 Million) & Charges Other Taxes
for Services ($3.3 Million)
($6,7 Million)
Note: The term "General Government" refers to basic tax-supported functions. The major
functions included in this category are: Police, Fire, Streets and Traffic Operations, Parks
and Recreation and Code Administration services. These functions use about 84.5% of
General Government revenues. Other administrative services include Information Systems
(i.e. computer support), Legal, Finance, and Human Resources — services necessary for any
organization to function.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
The following chart depicts the breakdown of the proposed 2010 general government
expenditure budget. This breakdown identifies that the City spends over 66% (o
approximately $39.5 million) of its available resources on providing public safety services
(Police, Municipal Court, Fire, Code Enforcement and Dispatch services). Additionally,
the City allocates over 9.0% of its resources to maintaining and operating the Streets and
Traffic Systems and another 7.1% to provide Parks and Recreation programs an d services.
Providing the existing services in these four basic categories takes 82.1% of all the City's
available general government resources.
What You Pay and What You Get • Section IV— 5
Providing the services in these four critical areas is labor intensive; approximately 76.2%
of these costs are personnel related. Therefore, any significant budget reductions in these
areas will require a reduction in personnel and the related services these individuals
perform. Conversely, any significant reductions in the overall general government budget
that do not include these four largest areas of the budget will severely limit the services
the remaining departments will be able to provide (i.e.: Finance and Legal, Community
Planning and Project Engineering; Administration and the Library).
Breaking down the City's general government budget by these major service areas and
identifying the percentage of each available dollar that the City allocates to each of these
areas provides the reader with a visual picture of where the focus and priorities of the
City have been placed. Additionally, this chart will assist the reader in understanding the
difficult challenges facing the City should it become necessary to implement a significant
reduction in the City's proposed budget without affecting the public safety budget and
services.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
(BASED ON 2010 BUDGET OF $59.6 MILLION)
46.7 9.0' 7.1' 3.5'
Police Sr Streets Sr Parks Sr Community Planning
Courts Traffic Recreation Project Engineering
$27.8 Million $5.4 Million $4.2 Million $1.8 Million
I I
.0.i . -- --L--7---;: , - - : k .
0, .. _
,e ..., ,‘,.* — ; ;I , .._ ;f ;.:.•, ,, , .,. • ;,;;;;. . II . :;;;,•,- ...;; +.;;;- ; ;;;; .. --;;;; .' ,, — I ;;•:: i 1,,
r , o ,' ,,/ TAT Es cw VW/
it
. t ,..., ...
A 2_ 012.05t3b A * .., y "'I
,. 4Itc ‘:,-
ii - 4i . "'- k.. --- I ‘ ; IIIIIIIIII II I • ; - gs.
! 'Ile ' %. "•,:'," ;;I ^ ''
•I R•
: A ? 21 2 3 U
1, , 4 : i - < I T .I .t .' ,.....fe - . ''''Azr• .4 ,,,, e ,
I 4L- ibr - ; -: - ,. 7.. in ' ' ). .. * *s .. . , v L.4
I T' * "if14. -,..;1**01,,fte,.-:,,P4o f. ''' .....".....b..; '' .:, „le ' 44 - '' 217
1 1 I
19.6' 7.5' 7.0'
Fire / Code Financial Sr Governance/
Enforcement Legal Services Administration
$11.7 Million $4.5 Million $4.2 Million
ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURES
Following is a detailed analysis of the City of Yakima's local tax structure. This analysis
shows the various sources of City revenue and identifies what type of services these
revenues will fund in 2010. Additionally, this analysis reflects the cost of each of these
services to a typical household.
The non-tax funding sources identified include all sources except directly levied taxes
(shown in the adjacent column) which are property, sales and utility taxes. The non-local
tax amounts are made up of direct charges for services, state shared revenues, grants,
interfund charges, beginning balances, and other miscellaneous sources.
6 — Section IV • What You Pay and What You Get
Municipal public safety services consume the greatest share of local taxes, $610 per
household per year, or 71.2% of the total general taxes paid. Other General Government
services cost $60 per household annually, or 7.0%. Streets and Parks together cost S115 per
household annually, or 13.5% of general taxes paid.
The utilities combine to cost approximately $1,106 annually per household. (Many of the
costs included in the budgets of the utilities fund State and Federal mandates that local
citizens must pay.)
ALLOCATION OF TAXES AND UTILITY CHARGES
(BASED ON 2010 PROPOSED BUDGET - BUDGET NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS)
2010 NON-TAX ALLOCATION HOUSEHOLD 2010 PERM.
PROPOSED FUNDING LOCAL OF TAXES TYPICAL BUDGETED
BUDGET SOURCES TAXES COLLECTED COSTS I POSITIONS
LOCAL DIRECT GENERAL PURPOSE TAX SUPPORTED FUNCTIONS
Public Safety (Police Fire & Pensions) $41,139 $6,526 $34,613 71.15% $610 321.50
General Government 15,296 11,889 3,407 7.00% 60 139.25
Streets Department 5,379 1,671 3,708 7.62% 65 39.00
Parks Department 4,232 1,369 2,863 5.88% 50 23.10
Other Special Revenue Funds 4,563 2,943 1,620 3.33% 29 13.75
Debt Service Funds 2,995 2,167 828 1.70% 15 0.00
Capital Project Funds 11,983 10,372 1,611 3.31% 28 0.00
LOCAL DIRECT SPECIAL PURPOSE TAX SUPPORTED FUNCTIONS
Special Levy Debt 504 207 297 6 0.00
Transit Division 9,894 5,449 4,445 32 50.00
NON-LOCAL TAX SUPPORTED FUNCTIONS
Street Construction 22,693 22,693 0 0 0.00
Refuse-18,767 Residential accounts 4,650 4,650 0 187 19.00
Wastewater-22,591 Residential accounts 25,681 25,681 0 582 60.00
Water-1Z349 Residential accounts 11,056 11,056 0 337 31.00
Equipment Rental 5,198 5,198 0 0 12.00
Public Works Administration 1,192 1,192 0 0 9.00
Self-insurance Reserve 5,291 5,291 0 0 0.00
Employee Benefit Reserve 10,643 10,643 0 0 0.00
Irrigation-10,541 Residential accounts 5,681 5,681 0 223 8.00
PBIA 215 215 0 0 0.00
Storm Water 2,471 2,471 0 40 9.50
TOTALS $190,756 $137,364 $53,392 $2,264 735.10
(1) Based on 2010 cost for a typical four-person household: Property tax based on $120,000 home; sales tax
based on $42,000 annual income and $10,500 taxable purchases; utilities based on 96 gallon can for refuse,
1,300 cubic foot monthly consumption for water/sewer; irrigation for 7,000 square foot lot; gas/electricity
$2,500, telephone $960, and cable TV $600.
What You Pay and What You Get • Section IV- 7
TAX BURDEN - FEDERAL VS. LOCAL
The Tax Foundation of Washington D.C. publishes a Special Report each April, called
"America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day". This is when Americans will have earned enough
money to pay off their total tax bill for the year. Taxes at all levels of government are
included, whether levied by the federal government or state and local governments. Tax
Freedom Day in 2009 fell on April 13th, eight days earlier than it did in 2008, and a full two
weeks earlier than in 2007. Tax Freedom Day was on April 26th and April 23rd in 2006 and
2005, respectively. On average in 2009, Americans will work 65 days to afford their federal
taxes and 38 more days to afford state and local taxes.
According to the Foundation's report, "Not since 1967 has Tax Freedom Day come earlier
than this year's April 13 date. This shift has been driven by two factors: the recession
has reduced tax collections even faster than it has reduced income; and the stimulus
package, a.k.a. HR 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, includes large
temporary tax cuts for 2009 and 2010."
Since 1977, state and local tax burdens have risen and fallen from a high of 10.4% in 1994
down to 8.9% in 2008. The report indicates that Washington State is ranked 5th highest in
the nation for federal per capita taxes paid in 2008. However, it is ranked 35th in the nation
for state and local taxes per capita. This demonstrates that Puget Sound, with a higher cost
of living and commensurately higher salaries, generated high federal income tax payments.
(Some of the wealthiest people in the world live in Washington State.) It also demonstrates
how small the state and local tax burden is in comparison to the total taxes paid — at less
than one third of the total tax burden (currently at 28.2%).
For the most part, local taxes cost the least and provide citizens with the services they need
and care about the most — they have the most direct bearing on their quality of life. This is
also the level where citizens are most empowered to affect government policy and monitor
accountability. There are per capita comparisons presented in the Budget, which contrasts
the City of Yakima with other similar cities in Washington State. Yakima is consistently
below the average in per capita taxes.
8 — Section IV • What You Pay and What You Get
OTHER OPE ".. i , TING D ENTERPRISE F DS
2009 year -end estimates for the City's Other Operating and Enterprise Funds are summarized
below:
2009 BUDGET STATUS
2009 2009 Esr. 2009 2009
AMENDED ACTUAL ESTIMATED EST. ENDING
FUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES VARIANCE RESOURCES BALANCE
Economic Development $146, 173 $98,970 $47,203 $286,955 $187,985
Neighborhood Development (Housing) 4,525,424 4,261,559 263,865 4,865,960 604,401
Community Relations 577,802 543,824 33,978 1,343,775 799,951
Community Services 487,712 349,712 138,000 395,88() 46,168
Growth Mgmt/Commute T Trip Red Fund 49,745 49,745 0 49,838 93
Cemetery 260,420 256,912 3,508 309,469 52,557
Emergency Services 1,167,430 1,141,339 26,091 1,240,897 99,558
Public Safety Communications 3,028,165 2,900,907 127,258 3,161,344 260,437
Police Grants 0 0 0 224,000 224,000
Downtown Yakima Improvement District 204,592 202,399 2,193 211,666 9,267
Trolley (Yakima Interurban Lines) 248,207 221,621 26,586 225,552 3,931
Front Street Business Improvement 3,000 3,000 0 11,002 8,002
Tourist Promotion 1,474,205 1,303,209 170,996 1,488,903 185,694
Capitol Theatre 318,513 318,513 0 447,167 128,654
PFD Revenue - Convention Center 696,000 666,775 29,225 817,508 150,733
Tourist Promotion Area 405,088 374,834 30,254 375,248 414
PFD Revenue - Capitol Theatre 498,000 480,000 18,000 498,000 18,000
Stormwater Operating 1,801,039 1,799,628 1,411 2,145,651 346,023
Transit 7,460,107 6,903,596 556,511 7,515,751 612,155
Refuse 4,652,022 4,592,614 59,408 4,845,037 252,423
Wastewater 16, 875, 924 16, 717 ,073 158,851 18,625,769 1,908,696
Water 7,303,953 7,257,874 46,079 8,999,158 1,741,284
Irrigation 2,784,200 2,756,837 27,363 2,928,485 171,648
Equipment Rental 5,998,773 5,182,028 816,745 9,293,796 4,111,768
Environmental 1,381,220 855,000 526,220 1,349,244 494,244
Public Works Administration 1,199,463 1,177,556 21,907 1,364,923 187,367
TOTAL $63,547,177 $60,415,525 $3,131,652 $73,020,978 $12,605,453
All Operating and Enterprise Funds are anticipated to end 2009 with positive fund balances.
This analysis includes appropriations approved by Council through September. All
operating funds are anticipating actual expenditures within authorized levels.
Other Funds • Section V -1
2010 projections for Other Operating and Enterprise Funds expenditures and resources are
reflected below. (Resources include the beginning fund balance plus current year revenue,
to arrive at a total available to spend.)
PROPOSED 2010 BUDGET
2010 2010 2010
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
FUND RESOURCES EXPENSE BALANCE
Economic Development $230,985 $99,306 $131,679
Neighborhood Development (Housing) 2,977,847 2,529,187 448,660
Community Relations 1,281,151 561,448 719,703
Community Services 384,502 303,334 81,168
Growth Mgmt/Commute Trip Reduction Fund 93 0 93
Cemetery 299,307 256,155 43,152
Emergency Services 1,163,428 1,110,329 53,099
Public Safety Communications 3,196,747 2,994,394 202,353
Police Grants 814,000 683,019 130,981
Downtown Yakima Improvement District 219,437 209,989 9,448
Trolley 12,917
7,848 5,069
Front Street Business Improvement Area 11,537 5,000 6,537
Tourist Promotion 1,590,194 1,469,180 121,014
Capitol Theatre 439,081 319,749 119,332
PFD Revenue - Convention Center 831,733 689,000 142,733
Tourist Promotion Area 378,619 378,205 414
PFD Revenue - Capitol Theatre 521,000 502,000 19,000
Recovery Program Grants 814,000 814,000 0
Stormwa ter Operating 2,446,023 2,103,128 342,895
Transit 7,728,255 7,200,452 527,803
Refuse 4,939,573 4,649,892 289,681
Wastewater 19,167,910 17,570,394 1,597,516
Water 9,136,121 7,774,807 1,361,314
Irrigation 2,943,248 2,758,394 184,854
Equipment Rental 9,102,072 5,198,027 3,904,045
En vi ron mental 1,057,244 828,450 228,794
Public Works Administration 1,372,698 1,191,886 180,812
TOTAL OTHER OPERATING AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS $73,059,722 $62,207,573 $10,852,149
See Exhibit I for additional detail of Other Operating and Enterprise Funds.
The following chart depicts a summary of resources and expenditures for major operating
and Utility fund operations for 2010, including contingency, operating reserve funds and
employee benefit funds. Although Equipment Rental is included on the table above, it is
split into an operating component and capital component for charting operating vs. capital
budgets.
2 - Section V • Other Eunds
2010 RESTRICTED OPERATING AND RESERVE FUNDS
2010
Forecast
Division Budget Dollars in Millions
Reserves, Risk Mgmt, Emp Benefits $17,043,047 1
Cap Theatre, Cemetery, Trust Rsys 23,343,581 Reserves, Charges
Wastewater 17,570,394
19,167,910 Wastewater Rates, Operating Reserves
Water /Irrigation 10,533,201
12,079,369 I Water Rates, Irrigation Fees, Reserves
Transit 7,200,452
7,728,255 1 Transit Sales Tax, Oper Grants, Fare Box
Refuse 4,649,892
4,939,573 1 Refuse Rates
Equipment Rental 3,572,527 ❑ Expenditures
3,615,596 Charges ❑ Resources
Stormwater 2,103,128
2,446,023 I Stormwater Fees
Special Purpose, Housing, Emer Svs 14,852,479
Public Wks Admin, Cable TV, Misc 17,496,520 Charges, Grants, Taxes, Reserves
Total Expenditures $77,525,120
Total Resources $90,816,827
OPERATING FUNDS
For more information on policy issues that affect these funds see the Policy Issue Summary
in Exhibit II.
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
This fund reflects resources of $230,985 and expenditures of $99,306 for 2010. These funds
are planned to be used to spur economic development. Expenditures include an allocation
of Community and Economic Development positions and continuation of Federal legislative
funding efforts.
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - ONDS)
This fund contains programs funded by Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Horne ownership
(HOME) grants. Expenditures are budgeted at S2,529,187 and are subject to the public
hearing process. With a focus on stimulus funding in the Federal Budget, the 2010 budget
anticipates a similar allocation as the 2009 program grants. Because of the programmatic
nature of the Community Development Budget, along with differences in reporting
time frame for Federal programs, the City budget is annually adjusted to reflect the final
outcome of prior year programs. The 2010 ending balance is projected to be $448,660.
Other Funds • Section V — 3
THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS FUND
The Community Relations fund expects resources of S1,281,151 for 2010. Expenditures are
estimated to be $561,448, leaving the balance estimated at $719,703 for year-end, earmarked
primarily for capital expenditure on production equipment/cable TV facilities.
THE COMMUNITY SERVICES FUND
This fund includes the 4th year of the Healthy Families Yakima program, which is a 5-year
demonstration project through the Department of Social and Health Services. Total resources,
which include grant revenue and match contributions, are estimated to be $384,502, and
expenditures are budgeted to be $303,334, leaving an ending balance of $81,168.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUND
This fund has special projects/grants related to growth management issues that have been
accounted for in this fund. There is no activity planned for this fund. The projected ending
balance is $93.
CEMETERY FUND
Resources within this fund for 2010 are projected at $299,307, expenditures are estimated to
be $256,155, and the estimated ending balance is projected at $43,152. The Cemetery Fund
is depending on a S50,000 operational subsidy from the Parks and Recreation Fund.
THE EMERGENCY SERVICES FUND
Resources in this fund reflect revenues of $1,163,428 and expenditures of $1,110,329 related
to the provision of Emergency Medical Services, and are supported by an allocation of
the countywide special EMS Property Tax Levy, which was renewed by the voters in
September 2002. The 2010 ending balance is projected to be $53,099.
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS FUND
This fund expects resources of $3,196,747 and expenditures of $2,994,394 for 2010, leaving
a balance of $202,353 at year-end. This fund accounts for 9-1-1 Calltakers, supported by
Yakima County 9-1-1 resources in the amount of $1,372,350. General Fund expenditures
include a transfer of $850,000 for dispatch.
POLICE GRANTS
This is a newly created fund. It accounts for the Federal/State forfeited narcotics and
the COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP), both of which have stringent reporting
requirements. CHRP is a three year program grant with a total grant of S1.5 million and
will be used to hire seven new police officers. Resources for 2010 are estimated to be
$814,000 and expenditures are budgeted at $683,019, leaving an ending balance of $130,981.
DOWNTOWN YAKIMA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (DYBID) FUND
Resources in this fund are projected to be $219,437, coming primarily from the new
Business Improvement District established mid-2008, while expenditures are projected at
$209,989. The ending balance for 2010 is projected at $9,448. Much of the 2010 budget is
targeted toward maintaining the recent downtown revitalization efforts.
4 — Section V • Other Funds
THE TROLLEY FUND
This fund projects resources of S12,917 and expenditures of $7,848 for 2010. It should
be noted that the final budget will be modified to include the continuation of a grant-
supported improvement project at the Trolley barn. The year-end balance is projected at
$5,069.
THE FRONT STREET BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FUND
This fund projects resources of $11,537 and expenditures of S5,000 - leaving an ending
balance of $6,537 for 2010.
THE TOURISM PROMOTION/YAKIMA CONVENTION CENTER FUND
This fund's budget anticipates resources of $1,590,194 (this includes a transfer of $150,000
from the Public Facility District) and expenditures of $1,469,180, and thus is expected to
end 2010 with a balance of $121,014.
THE CAPITOL THEATRE FUND
This fund is expected to have resources of $439,081 and expenditures of $319,749, leaving
an estimated ending balance of $119,332.
THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT - CONVENTION CENTER FUND
This fund includes resources estimated to be $831,733 for 2010. Expenditures are estimated
to be $689,000. Of this amount $460,000 for debt service on the Convention Center bonds
issued in 2002 and $150,000 is for supplemental support of Convention Center operations,
while $55,000 is for Convention Center Capital Fund. This leaves a fund balance of $142,733
at the end of 2010.
THE TOURIST PROMOTION AREA
This fund accounts for a self-assessment imposed by the lodging industry to promote
tourism. Resources are estimated to be $378,619, with expenditures programmed at
$378,205, leaving a balance at the end of 2010 of $414.
THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT - CAPITOL THEATRE
This fund includes resources estimated to be $521,000 for 2010. Expenditures are estimated
to be $502,000. Of this amount $460,000 is designated for debt service on the Capitol
Expansion bond issued in 2009 and $30,000 for Capitol Theatre Construction Fund to be
available for project contingency. This leaves a fund balance of $19,000 at the end of 2010.
RECOVERY PROGRAM GRANTS
This is a new fund established to account for Federal Recovery Grants that have stringent
reporting requirements and cross operational lines. These are 100% grants (i.e. no local
match requirements), so that both the revenues and expenditures for 2010 are $814,000,
with no ending reserve balance. Staff is currently of the understanding that a portion of the
grant can be advanced. If it is reimbursement only, options will need to be researched to
provide cash flow.
Other Funds • Section V - 5
STORMWATER OPERATING FUND
Expenditures in this fund are estimated to be $2,103,128 and resources are projected to be
$2,446,023 for 2010. An ending balance of $342,895 is currently projected for 2010. This is
the third year of the new Stormwater Utility - the budget was developed assuming a rate
of $40 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) annually (see Policy Issue). The expenditure
budget includes reimbursement of the Wastewater Utility for its advanced funding of
the Stormwater program, and a S200,000 transfer to the streets fund to support the street
sweeping program.
TRANSIT FUND
Expenditures in this fund are estimated to be $7,200,452 and resources are projected to be
$7,728,255 for 2010. Total Transit sales taxes for 2009 are forecast to be $4,400,000 which
is about $450,000 less than the 2008 actual. The 2010 budget includes a total of $4,445,000
with $4,295,000 allocated to operations and $150,000 to capital. Fortunately, the savings
in fuel prices and PERS rates made up for the sales tax reduction, so that route reductions
are not yet needed to balance this budget. This fund also includes an operating grant of
$1,765,000. An ending balance of $527,803 is currently projected for 2010.
THE REFUSE FUND
The expenditure budget in this fund for 2010 is $4,649,892. Total resources are estimated
to be $4,939,573, and an ending balance is currently projected at $289,681 (see unbudgeted
policy issue for a potential rate increase to cover rising landfill costs).
WASTEWATER FUND
Resources for this fund in 2010 are expected to total $19,167,910. Expenditures are
budgeted at $17,570,394 and the 2010 year-end balance is currently projected to be
$1,597,516. Transfers of about $3.10 million to Wastewater Construction Funds, and $3.11
million to provide for Wastewater Bond redemption and repayments of Public Works Trust
Fund Loans are currently programmed in this budget. The proposed 2010 Sewer budget
includes continued implementation of the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and the Wastewater
Facilities Plan. The 2010 projected resources include the continuation of a prior year policy
issue to implement a rate adjustment of 3.5%. See policy issues for position upgrade and
new capital projects.
WATER FUND
Resources of $9,136,121 are projected for 2010 in this fund. Expenditures are estimated to
be $7,774,807 leaving S1,361,314 at the end of 2010. These costs include $800,000 transfer to
the Capital Fund, and about $566,000 to provide for Water Bond Debt Service, repayments
of Water Public Works Trust Fund Loans and $100,000 to continue implementation of a
new utility management / billing system. The 2010 projected resources include the rate
adjustment of 5.5% that was approved by Council in 2008.
IRRIGATION FUND
Resources for 2010 are projected to be $2,943,248 in this fund, and expenditures are
estimated to be S2,758,394, which includes a transfer of S881,000 to the Irrigation Capital
Fund, about $356,000 to provide debt service for an Irrigation bond and Public Works
6 — Section V • Other Funds
Trust Fund loan and $60,000 for the new utility management / billing system. The 2010
ending fund balance is projected to be $184,854.
THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
The budget for this fund in 2010 is $5,198,027 of which $3,438,770 is the maintenance and
operations budget, and $1,759,257 is the Equipment Replacement budget. Resources
are expected to be $9,102,072 while the ending fund balance for 2010 is expected to be
$3,904,045, most of which represents capital equipment replacement reserves.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND
This fund was created to provide for cleanup of environmental hazards. Funding for the
program is from a surcharge on vehicle fuel sales in the Equipment Rental Fund. For 2010,
$1,057,244 in resources is expected to be available (this includes $300,000 of Department of
Ecology grants to complete the Richardson Airway Dirt Removal and Yakima Airport Tank
Cleanup projects) and $828,450 is expected to be spent. A year-end balance of $228,794 is
projected.
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION FUND
Expenditures for 2010 are expected to be $1,191,886 for this fund. Resources for 2010 are
expected to be $1,372,698 generated from operating funds located in the Public Works
complex, resulting in a year-end balance of $180,812. A vacant Department Assistant II
position is deleted from this budget as part of the General Government budget reduction
measures. The savings translated into a reduction in charges to the Streets and Parks funds.
RESERVE FUNDS — EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVES
THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION RESERVE FUND
This self insured fund in estimated to end 2010 with a balance of $264,980. Resources
are projected to be $501,841 and expenditures for claims and other related expenses are
estimated at $236,861. Due to an anticipated increase of unemployment claims from budget
reduction measures, rates are adjusted from .00247% to .00309%.
EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFIT RESERVE FUND
Expenditures in this fund for 2009 are projected to be $10,553,586, while resources are
$12,708,769, leaving an ending balance projected to be $2,155,183. The 2010 budget
includes a rate adjustment of about 7.5%. The insurance board continues to monitor
the plan and review potential cost containment measures, with a goal of reducing the
magnitude of future annual premium increases.
THE WORKERS COMPENSATION RESERVE FUND
This fund is estimating a year-end balance of $1,107,895, the result of resources totaling
$2,574,590 and expenditures of $1,466,695. Ongoing efforts in claim management and
safety training are in place to slowdown the number of claims/costs.
Other Funds • Section V— 7
WELLNESS/EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP) FUND
Projected total resources for 2010 are S204,475 in this fund, and expenditures are $89,849
with a projected year-end balance of $114,626.
THE FIREMEN'S RELIEF AND PENSION FUND
This fund is projecting resources of $2,414,406 and expenditures of $1,624,792, leaving an
estimated 2010 year-end balance of $789,614.
The Fire Pension property tax allocation for 2010 of $1,502,765 is 2% less than the 2009
allocation of $1,532,765 in order to keep more resources in the General Government funds,
since this fund's reserves are almost 50% of the annual budget. The City is mandated
to allocate property tax to fund pension and LEOFF I medical and long-term care
requirements.
OPERATING RESERVES
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE
For 2010, Risk Management Fund departmental contributions totaling S2,293,000 are
programmed from City departments, an increase of 5.0% for most operating divisions. The
increase helps pay for liability and other insurance coverage and increased claims costs,
and to meet reserve requirements. These charges, along with interest earnings, combine for
projected 2010 revenues of $2,589,000.
Total resources to the Risk Management Reserve for 2010 are expected to be $3,653,275.
Based on personnel costs, claims experience and other insurance/ professional services
costs, expenditures are estimated to be $2,759,337, and the year-end 2010 reserve balance is
estimated to be $893,938. These reserve levels are still considered marginal in comparison
to the existing liability for incurred claims; however, the combination of reductions in
deductible levels and proactive legal overview of land use actions are expected to limit future
liability. The reserve balance in this fund will continue to be monitored for adequacy.
GENERAL CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
The Contingency Reserve Fund is estimated to end 2010 with a balance of $1,919. For 2010,
$50,000 is programmed to be transferred from the General Fund to this fund. $225,000 is
appropriated for contingency purposes during 2010.
CAPITOL THEATRE RESERVE
The Capitol Theatre Reserve projects resources for 2010 of $461,441. Interest earnings on
this balance partially support an annual transfer to the Capitol Theatre Operating Fund
Reserve of S71,927. The projected 2010 ending balance is $389,514.
GENERAL FUND CASH FLOW RESERVE
General Fund cash flow reserves for 2010 are estimated at $2,856,334. This source is a
contingency for unbudgeted policy issues, results of negotiations for unsettled bargaining
units, other unknown expenses and potential revenue shortfalls.
8 — Section V • Other Funds
In summation, the City's 2010 General Reserve position is estimated to be as shown in the
following chart.
2010 GENERAL RESERVE POSITION
2008 2009 2010
FUND ACTUAL ESTIMATED PROJECTED
Contingency Fund 5351,919 5176,q9 81,919
General Fund Cash Flow 6,798,731 4,207,894 2,856,334
Capitol Theatre Reserve 521,118 458,441 389,514
Risk Management Reserve 1,146,767 1,063,775 893,93s
TOTAL 88,818,535 85,907,029 84,141,705
The economic downturn has put pressure on the general reserves of the City. Because these
reserves are at minimum levels, they will be scrutinized for negative trends and adequacy
as we move forward.
Exhibit I contains additional detail of funds categorized as Operating Reserves.
Other Funds • Section V— 9
10 — Section V • Other Funds
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT F DS
For 2009, a number of capital improvements were programmed for an amended capital
budget of $62.3 million. However, capital improvement expenditures for 2009 were
estimated to be $30.8 million, a spending level approximately $31.5 million below budgeted
levels. These projects are rebudgeted in 2010 along with additional capital improvements.
Examples of the projects being rebudgeted include the Railroad Grade Separation; 16th
Avenue & Washington Avenue reconstruction; Summitview & 66th Avenue Signalization;
the Capitol Theatre expansion / refurbishment; Automated Meter Reading; and Irrigation
system refurbishment. (See Exhibit I for a summary of the status of the capital funds.)
The following describes the relationship of resources and expenditures for major capital
budgets of the City, including debt service and the capital portion of the Equipment Rental
Fund.
2010 RESTRICTED CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
2010
Forecast
Division Budget Dollars in Millions
Streets $25,035,667
29,659,662 Reserves, Grants, .5 Gas Tax, Real Estate Excise Tax
Wastewater 8,111,970
12,795,856 I Reserves, Charges, Loans
Water /Irrigation 6,203,272
8,850,036 I Reserves, Charges, Loans
Transit 2,693,750
3,430,603 1 Reserves, Grants, Taxes
Equipment Rental 1,625,000 [ I ❑ Total Expenditures
5,486,476 Reserves, Charges
❑ Total Resources
Storm Water 368,040
679,525 Reserves, Charges
Sp Purp Cap, Misc G.O. Debt 9,575,017
11,939,376 I Reserves, Grants, Taxes, Loans
Total Expenditures $53,612,716
Total Resources $72,841,534
For 2010, Capital Fund expenditures of $45,527,472 are estimated as follows, inclusive of
carry -over projects from 2009:
Capital Improvement Funds • Section VI —1
STREET / OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Total projects of $24 million (including carryover projects and Debt Service; excluding
capital transfers of REET 1 (S100,000) to support Fire and Parks capital improvement).
Summitview and 66th Avenue signalization (carry -over) — $615,000
Nob Hill overpass repair (carry -over) — $564,000 (Federal grant)
Sixteenth Avenue and Washington Avenue reconstruction (carry -over) — $1,201,000
(State grant, REET 2)
Railroad grade separation — $18,200,000 (State and Federal grants; Public Works
Trust Fund loan)
Debt Service — $1,193,883
Other miscellaneous projects including a $155,000 contingency; $456,007 utility
services system (funded by wastewater, water, and irrigation operating funds);
$287,743 Consolidated Financial System (funded by various Operating Funds) —
$2,326,847
Arterial Street Gas tax and the Real Estate Excise Taxes are the primary local revenue
sources for street projects. These revenues are used to match state and federal grants when
possible to maximize funding for projects.
IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENT FUND
Total 2010 projects — $2,600,000.
General irrigation system refurbishment Phase III (carry -over) — $900,000
Capitol Hill refurbishment (carry -over plus 2010 additional project cost) —
$1,200,000
General irrigation system refurbishment Phase IV - $300,000
Other irrigation system improvements — S200,000
DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT FUND
Total 2010 projects — $2,997,200.
New well project (carry -over) — $1,157,200 (funded by Public Works Trust Fund
loan)
Design Water Treatment Plant Lagoons (carry -over) — $100,000
2010 Water main replacement — $150,000
2 — Section VI • Capital Improvement Fuynds
Automated Meter Reading System (carry-over plus 2010 additional project cost /
shared with Wastewater) — $1,500,000
Other water capital projects — S90,000
FIRE CAPITAL FUND
Total 2010 projects — $555,500.
Machinery and Equipment (staff vehicle, mobile data replacement) — $58,500
Fire Station 94 remodel (carry-over) — $460,000 ( funded by REET 1)
Other miscellaneous upgrades to equipment and fire stations — $37,000
WASTEWATER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Facility projects and other sewer improvements, including sewer line extension
rehabilitation and other costs, total $5,905,000.
Congdon sewer main (carry over) — $750,000
Wastewater Collection System Evaluation (topic of Policy Issue) - $200,000
Neighborhood sewer main (carry over) — $300,000
Automated Meter Reading System (shared with Water) — $750,000
Speedway/Race St Interceptor (additional project cost) — $850,000
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Tip Out & Power Distribution
(additional project cost) See Policy Issue — $735,000 (Revenue Bond)
2009 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan update (additional project cost) — $150,000
Building for Nutrient Removal Equipment (topic of Policy Issue) - $300,000
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) Issues See Policy Issue - $1,000,0000
Other Wastewater miscellaneous capital needs (including a $670,000 contingency) -
$870,000
Capital Improvement Funds • Section VI — 3
STORMWATER CAPITAL FUND
Total 2010 budget - $368,040:
Contingency for Capital Facilities projects (partial carry-over) - $125,000
Fair Avenue/Nob Hill drainage improvement - $130,000
J Street Low Impact Development (LID) - $113,040 (state grant - joint project with
Yakima County)
TRANSIT CAPITAL
The 2010 budget of $2,693,750 is for miscellaneous capital needs and vehicle replacement.
Continuation of repaving project at Public Works - $320,000
Bus Replacement plan ( 5 buses) - $2,000,000 federal grant (topic of Policy Issue)
Replace Dial-a-ride vehicles - $228,750
Other capital needs - $145,000
PARKS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
$560,000 for various project/capital needs in 2010.
Upper Kiwanis development (carry-over)- $475,000 (state grant, line of credit,
REET 1 and contributions)
Other capital needs - $85,000
OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS 1 TRANSFERS
City Hall rehabilitation/refurbishment/contingency - $250,000 for continued
refurbishment projects. (REET 1)
Transfer of REET 1 to support Fire and Parks capital improvements - $100,000
Law and Justice Capital fund - $1,071,000 for the Police Station/Legal Center related
equipment and projects including:
• Vehicle replacement - $115,000
• Technology and Equipment to enhance crime reduction - $500,000 (Federal
grant)
• Safety and communication equipment for mobile units - $175,000
• Other miscellaneous projects and equipment - $281,000
Convention Center Capital Improvements - $191,000 is programmed for ongoing
capital needs of the Center for 2010.
4 - Section VI • Capital Improvement Funds
LID CONSTRUCTION
There are no local improvement district projects budgeted in 2010.
CBD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
This fund includes $1,135,252 for improvements in the Central Business District.
Contract for maintenance (reduced from $50,000 in 2009) - S40,000
Downtown Revitalization Phase IV - $988,000 (state grant)
Other projects / contingency - $107,252
CAPITOL THEATRE CONSTRUCTION
$3,150,000 is budgeted for the completion of phase II of the Capitol Theatre expansion
project, funded primarily by bond proceeds.
SUMMARY
Overall, Capital Fund expenditures in the 2010 Budget Forecast are $45,527,472, which
is $16,726,877 or 26.9% less than the 2009 amended levels of $62,254,349. Many areas are
in the midst of capital programs such as the utilities and streets (including the railroad
grade separation, which is in the planning stages in 2009). In some instances, the "next"
phase as included in the 2010 budget is more than 2009, such as automated meter reading
and grant funded transit bus purchases. In other instances, the ongoing budgets are less
than 2009, such as the Nob Hill overpass repairs, the Capitol Theatre expansion and Final
SCADA.
Ongoing pressures on revenues available for General Government Capital funds has
pushed spending down in Parks, Fire and Law & Justice. The Fire Department has
prepared a policy issue to request an ongoing source of funding for apparatus replacement.
Ongoing resources for capital needs have been diminishing, and this topic will likely
remain in the forefront of future budget discussions.
All of these changes net to an overall decrease in the capital fund expenditures for this
budget cycle.
GRANTS
The City has been successful in obtaining grants for many different purposes. The
following table identifies all of the grants / interlocal revenues budgeted to be received in
2010. Citywide, grants add to over $37 million, which is more than 20% of total revenues.
This grant summary is included in the Capital Improvement section because Capital grants
make up almost 60% of the total grants awarded. Coincidentally, grants make up about
60% of revenue in the Capital Improvement funds.
Capital Improvement Funds • Section VI - 5
2010 GRANTS
(Federal, State & Interlocal Subsidies)
AMOUNT
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF GRANT
Federal / State Capital Grants
Law & Justice Capital BYRNE Disp Agencies Grant $500,000
Law & Justice Capital JAG Grant 21,478
Arterial Streets Fair Avenue/Nob Hill Intersection Rebuild 40,000
Arterial Streets W.O. Douglas Trail 6th Ave & Naches Bridge 92,047
Arterial Streets Nob Hill Bridge Repair 564,000
Cum Res for Capital Improvement Railroad Grade Separation - Fed Highway Admin 13,256,000
Cum Res for Capital Improvement Railroad Grade Separation - Trans imp Board 3,000,000
Arterial Streets Dept of Transportation RR Crossing Wa Ave 261,650
A rteria I Streets 16th & Washington Reconstruction 996,000
Arterial Streets W.O. Douglas Trail Enhancement 100,000
Transit Capital Reserve VVSDOT Grant 140,000
Cum Res for Capital Improvement Utility System/Stormwater DOE Grant 53,040
CBD Capital Improvement Downtown Revitalization Phase 4 988,00()
Stormwater Capital Fund Low Impact Development Demonstration 84,781
Transit Capital Reserve ARRA Direct DOT Grant - Busses 2,001,005
Total Federal / State Capital Grants $22,098,001
Federal / State Operating Grants - General Government
Police Police BYRNE Earmark Grant $110,000
Police State Criminal Alien Assist Program Grant 20,000
Police Traffic Safety Commission 40,000
Fire State Patrol Fire Training 3,000
Police OPD Public Defense Grant 150,000
Parks and Recreation ALTC Reimbursement SCSA State Res 30,900
Parks and Recreation Senior Center - Footcare 30,200
Parks and Recreation State Senior Citizen Day Care/ Transportation 10,000
Parks and Recreation State Transportation 500
Parks and Recreation Americorp Grant Thru Employment Security 40,000
General Fund Property Taxes 6,330
Police ARRA COPS Grant 530,000
Municipal Court Judicial Salary Contribution 50,000
Total Federal / State Operating Grants - General Government $1,020,930
Federal / State Operating Grants - Other Funds
Community Development Community Development Block Grant $1,185,386
Community Development HUD HOME Program 682,410
Transit FTA Current Year Operating Grant 1,765,000
Transit JARC Pass Thru DOT Grant 65,000
Community Services Healthy Families - Yakima 303,334
Emergency Services Dept of Health - Prehospital Grant 1,726
Stormwater Operating Ecology Mapping Grant 100,000
Transit ADA Grant - Department of Transportation 92,500
Ref use Dept of Ecology Alternative to Burning Grant 25,000
Environmental Richardson Airway Dirt Removal Grant 100,000
Environmental Yakima Airport Tank Cleanup Grant 200,000
R&M Energy ARRA Dept of Energy Recovery Program 814,000
Total Federal / State Operating Grants - Other Funds $5,334,356
6 - Section VI • Capital Improvement Funds
AMOUNT
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION OF GRANT
Federal Entitlements
Police Federal Forfeited Property $25,000
PFD Capital Theatre Capitol Theatre - Build Amer Bond Subsidy 108,896
TOtal Federal Entitlements $133,896
State Shared Revenue
Police Criminal Justice - High Crime $490,000
Police Criminal Justice - Violent 80,000
Police Criminal Justice - Special Programs 46,000
Police MVET DUI Payment 16,000
General Fund Liquor Excise Tax 405,000
General Fund Liquor Board Profits 695,000
Economic Development City Assistance 35,000
Parks & Recreation Criminal Justice - Special Programs 21,100
Streets Gas Tax 1,200,000
Arterial Streets Arterial Street Gas Tax 550,000
Firemen Relief & Pension Fire Insurance Premium Tax 72,800
Total State Shared Revenue $3,610,900
Intergovernmental Contract / Services
Police Police - Fairgrounds $7,000
Police Resource Officers 370,440
Police Personnel Services - Training 25,000
Fire Fire - EMS District #10 30,000
Fire Fire Investigator Services 600
Fire Fire Training Programs 9,000
Fire Fire Training Services 74,038
Purchasing Purchasing Services - County 205,000
Parks and Recreation School District #7 - Swim Programs 15,000
Emergency Services EMS Levy 1,061,394
Public Safety Communications Fire District #10 21,000
Public Safety Communications 911 Services Contracts 1,372,350
Public Safety Communications Fire Dispatch Services 190,568
Public Safety Communications Information Technical Services 46,520
Public Safety Communications Police Dispatching Service 121,168
Public Safety Communications ET Maintenance - Contract 4,950
Police Drug Enforcement Agency 25,000
Public Facilities District Public Facilities District Revenue 680,000
PFD - Capitol Theatre Public Facilities District Capitol Theatre 503,000
Fire Capital Fire Protection Charge /State Fac 2,000
Cum Res For Capital Imp Consolidated Financial System Software 125,000
Transit Selah Transit Bus 125,000
Transit Selah Transit Dial A Ride 45,000
Environmental Richardson Airway Dirt Removal 20,000
Environmental Yakima Airport Tank Cleanup 108,000
Total Intergovernmental Contract / Services $5,187,028
TOTAL 2010 GRANTS $37,385,111
Capital Improvement Funds • Section VI - 7
8 — Section VI • Capital Improvement FUlltiS
THREE YE ' BUDGET COMP ' SON - 2010 BUDGET BY CITY F CTIONAL GROUPING
2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
ACTUAL AMENDED YEAR -END PRELIMINARY VS 2009 BEGINNING PROJECTED EST. ENDING
EXPENDITURES BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET AMENDED FUND BALANCE REVENUE FUND BALANCE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
City Council $204,586 $213,540 $212,731 $212,265 (0.6 %)
City Manager 483,312 521,307 511,296 518,563 (0.5°,4))
State Examiner 96,297 103,000 98,000 103,000 0.0%
Records 409,921 449,013 386,917 440,128 (2.0%)
Financial Services 1,440,634 1,540,878 1,521,295 1,502,860 (2.5 %)
Human Resources 430,133 494,040 471,345 467,978 (5.3 %)
Legal 1,299,647 1,459,796 1,208,525 1,142,950 (21.7 %)
Municipal Court 1,202,128 1,321,304 1,314,396 1,262,770 (4.4 %)
Purchasing 258,089 329,881 340,899 432,432 311%
Hearing Examiner 65,193 56,000 56,000 41,000 (26.8 %)
Environmental Planning 705,338 901,557 823,598 774,229 (14.1 %)
Code Administration 1, 546 ,638 1,783,856 1,607,492 1,462,372 (18.0 %)
Indigent Defense 360,000 425,000 425,000 480,000 12.9%
y Police 20,902 975 23,378,366 22,866,079 23,108,949 (1.2%)
Fire 8,436,383 8 909 315 8,892,905 8 979,699 0.8`%,
Police Pension 1,279,173 1,403,957 1,352,146 1,373,040 (2.2%)
Probation Center 24,176 25,000 25,000 0 (100.0°4)
CXJ
Engineering 1,034,701 1,199,716 1,050,385 1,003,528 (16.4 %)
City Hall Maintenance 403,570 426,178 404,368 406,690 (4.6 %)
ro
n Information Systems 2,541,846 2,823,0(13 2,743,951 2,306,255 (18.3 %)
o Utility Services 1,034,015 1,225,469 1,182,138 1,253,118 2.3%
Intergovernmental 286,102 370,076 472,076 331,397 (10.5 %)
zs' •• Sun Dome 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0.0%
District Court 3,216 1,800 1,800 1,800 0.0%
M Transfers 2,317,970 2,232,275 2,230,275 2,252,275 0.9%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $46,916,043 $51,744,327 $50,348,617 $50,007,298 (3A%) $4,207,894 $48,655,738 $2,856,334
Parks & Recreation 4,274,493 4,377,543 4,249,796 4,232,014 (3.3 %) 279,477 4,248,985 296,448
": Street & Traffic Operations 5,821,695 6,074,833 5,686,692 5,379,043 (1t5%) 1,260,353 5,233,810 1,115,120
I TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS $57,012,231 $62,196,703 $60,285,105 $59,618,355 (4.1°4) $5,747,724 $58,138,533 $4,267,902
N 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
bi ACTUAL AMENDED YEAR -END PRELIMINARY VS 2009 BEGINNING PROJECTED EST. ENDING
EXPENDITURES BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET AMENDED FUND BALANCE REVENUE FUND BALANCE
�' OTHER OPERATING/ENTERPRISE
'`h
'-+ Economic Development $167,126 $146,173 $98,970 $99,306 (32A%) $187,985 $43,000 $131,679
H Community Development 2,555,694 4,525,424 4,261,559 2,529,187 (44.1 %) 604,401 2,373,446 448,660
-o
Community Relations 496,341 577,802 543,824 561,448 (2.8%) 799,951 481,200 719,703
`0 Community Services 377,598 487,712 349,712 303,334 (37.8 %) 46,168 338,334 81,168
a Growth Mgmt /Commute Trip Red Fund 0 49,745 49,745 0 (100.0 %) 93 0 93
izzi Cemetery 251,637 260,420 256,912 256,155 (1.6 %) 52,557 246,750 43,152
Emergency Services 1,084,313 1,167,430 1,141,339 1,110,329 (4.9 %) 99,558 1,063,870 53,099
Public Safety Communications 2,703,602 3,028,165 2,900,907 2,994,394 (L1%) 260,437 2,936,310 202,353
Police Grants 0 0 0 683,019 n/a 224,000 590,000 130,981
Downtown Yakima Improvement District 111,893 204,592 202,399 209,989 2.6% 9,267 210,170 9,448
Trolley (Yakima Interurban Lines) 231,261 248,207 221,621 7,848 (96.8 %) 3,931 8,986 5,069
Front Street Business Improvement Area 2,800 3,000 3,000 5,000 66.7% 8,002 3,535 6,537
Tourist Promotion 1,394,116 1,474,205 1,303,209 1,469,180 (0.3%) 185,694 1,404,500 121,014
Capitol Theatre 304,734 318, 513 318, 513 319,749 0.4% 128,654 310,427 119,332
PFD Revenue - Convention Center 697,926 696,000 666,775 689,000 (1.0%) 150,733 681,000 142,733
Tourist Promotion Area 378,205 405,088 374,834 378,205 (6.6 %) 414 378,205 414
PFD Revenue - Capitol Theatre 389,110 498,000 480,000 502,000 0.8% 18,000 503,000 19,000
Recovery Program Grants 0 0 0 814,000 n/a 0 814,000 0
Stormwater Operating 772,857 1,801,039 1,799,628 2,103,128 16.8% 346,023 2,100,000 342,895
Transit 7,315,761 7,460,107 6,903,596 7,200,452 (3.5%) 612,155 7,116,100 527,803
Refuse 4,458,657 4,652,022 4,592,614 4,649,892 (0.0 %) 252,423 4,687,150 289,681
Wastewater Operating 16,646,483 16,875,924 16,717,073 17,570,394 4.1% 1,908,696 17,259,214 1,597,516
Water Operating 6,831,165 7,303,953 7,257,874 7, 774, 807 6.4% 1,741,284 7,394,837 1,361,314
Irrigation Operating 2,631,451 2,784,200 2,756,837 2,758,394 (0.9 %) 171,648 2,771,600 184,854
Equipment Rental 5,486,749 5,998,773 5,182,028 5,198,027 (13.3%) 4,111,768 4,990,304 3,904,045
Environmental Fund 199,788 1,381,220 855,000 828,450 (40.0 %) 494,244 563,000 228,794
Public Works Administration 1,150,816 1,199,463 1,177,556 1,191,886 (0.6%) 187,367 1,185,331 180,812
TOTAL OTHER OPERATING /ENTERPRISE $56,640,083 $63,547,177 $60,415,525 $62,207,573 (2.1 %) $12,605,453 $60,454,269 $10,852,149
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
Arterial Street $3,154, 455 $8,139,749 $6,343,719 $3,746,806 (54.0%) $952,740 $2,976,767 $182,701
C.B.D. Capital Improvement 2,103,687 469,235 342,596 1,135,252 141.9% 374,361 1,023,800 262,909
Capitol Theatre Construction 519,198 9,811,426 3,833,066 3,150,00() (67.9%) 3,834,417 55,000 739,417
Parks & Recreation Capital 622,737 1,475,000 824,989 560,000 (62.0 %) 95,390 555,000 90,390
Fire Capital 308,660 1,618,100 1,218,100 555,500 (65.7 %) 625,825 209,588 279,913
Law & Justice Capital 545,876 1,572,633 1,525,193 1,071,000 (31.9 %) 216,660 966,478 112,138
Public Works Trust Construction 1,467,319 1,235,570 1,135,920 845,851 (3L5 %) 930,410 620,000 704,559
REET 2 Capital Construction 838,865 1,661,822 1,316,822 811,822 (5L1%) 453,306 530,000 171,484
L.LD. Construction Control 44,662 802,000 802,000 0 (100.0 %) 0 0 0
Storm Water Capital 72,756 325,000 322,500 368,040 13.2% 244,744 434,781 311,485
Transit Capital Reserve 2,365,639 1,103,013 959,250 2,693,750 144.2% 1,082,598 2,348,005 736,853
Convention Center Capital Improvement 104,714 270,770 241,200 191,000 (29.5 %) 252,481 175,500 236,981
Cum. Reserve for Capital Improvement 954,159 19,611,173 1,930,723 18,946,251 (3A%) 1,393,822 21,097,875 3,545,446
Wastewater Facilities Capital Reserve 378,887 363,186 313,186 50,000 (86.2 %) 496,662 152,000 598,662
Sewer Construction 227,657 2,491,332 1,021,585 3,520,00() 41.3% 3,072,322 1,473,000 1,025,322
Domestic Water Improvement 505,640 2,380,100 1,920,200 2,997,200 25.9% 2,416,786 2,049,460 1,469,046
Wastewater Facilities 3,757,287 5,937,540 5,370,657 2,285,000 (61.5 %) 1,745,862 1,540,000 1,000,862
y Irrigation System Improvement 2, 382 ,786 2,986,700 1,398,500 2,600,000 (12.9 %) 2,561,036 906,000 867,036
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $20,354,984 $62,254,349 $30,820,206 $45,527,472 (26.9 %) $20,749,422 $37,113,254 $12,335,204
CONTINGENCY/OPERATING RESERVES
CXi Contingency Fund $82,151 $300,000 $200,000 $225,000 (25.0 %) $176,919 $50,000 $1,919
r
FRS /Capitol Theatre Reserve 71,927 571,927 371,927 71,927 (87.4 %) 458,441 3,000 389,514
`0 Risk Management 2,336,050 2,939,598 2,786,357 2,759,337 (6.1 %) 1,063,775 2,589,500 893,938
Q TOTAL CONTINGENCY /OPERATING RESERVES $2,490,128 $3,811,525 $3,358,284 $3,056,264 (19.8%) $1,699,135 $2,642,500 $1,285,371
E MPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVES
Unemployment Compensation $147,941 $152,202 $151,811 $236,861 55.6% $359,841 $142,000 $264,980
. Employees Health Benefit 9,477,129 9,999,738 9,992,127 10,553,586 5.5% 2,642,769 10,066,000 2,155,183
Workers' Compensation 1, 435 ,889 1,694,397 1,447,024 1,466,695 (13.4 %) 1,162,290 1,412,300 1,107,895
Wellness /EAP Fund 111,453 130,296 108,521 89,849 (3L0 %) 144,475 60,000 114,626
ry; Firemen's Relief & Pension 1,444,775 1,619,380 1,601,355 1,624,792 0.3°0 835,841 1,578,565 789,614
1--. T OTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESERVES $12,617,187 $13,596,013 $13,300,838 $13,971,783 2.8% $5,145,216 $13,258,865 $4,432,298
w
ga 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
bi ACTUAL AMENDED YEAR -END PRELIMINARY VS 2009 BEGINNING PROJECTED EST. ENDING
EXPENDITURES BUDGET ESTIMATE BUDGET AMENDED FUND BALANCE REVENUE FUND BALANCE
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
e-h
''-+ Cemetery Trust $19,126 $25,000 $12,000 $15,000 (40.0%) $574,865 $23,000 $582,865
•
H
DEBT SERVICE
`O L.I.D. Guaranty $0 $0 $0 $0 n/a $80,020 $300 $80,320
PFD Debt Service 459,075 734,550 734,550 1,014,286 38.1% 150,994 1028 896 165,604
General Obligation Bonds 2,126,885 2,257,369 2,257,369 2,275,916 0.8% 372,201 2,278,063 374,348
L.I.D. Debt Service 84,618 207,000 207,000 207,000 0.0` %, 37,144 212,000 42,144
Water- Irrigation /Sewer Bonds 3,710,550 2,860,417 2,860,417 2,863,042 0.1% 2,365,696 2,867,068 2,369,722
o TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $6,381,128 $6,059,336 $6,059,336 $6,360,244 5.0% $3,006,055 $6,386,327 $3,032,138
TOTAL CITY BUDGET $155,514,867 $211,490,103 $174,251,294 $190,756,691 (9.8 %) $49,527,870 $178,016,748 $36,787,927
POLICY ISSUE S.!,''"1!„...1 Al A
2010 BUDGET P I: PA RATION
POLICYISSUE S
OUTSIDE AGENCIES -- As Rico % E'"1, i ED BY THE CouivaL B GET Coin LE
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Yakima County Development Association General Fund 2009 Budget $30,000
(YCDA) De Feted 15,000
$15,000 Budgeted
Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce General Fund 2009 Budget $5,900
Deleted 2,950
S2,950 Budgeted
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (HCC) Genera F Fund 2009 Budget $5,90()
Deleted 2 ,950
$2,950 Budgeted
Yakima Fourth of July Committee Genera I Fund/Fire 2009 Budget $5,500
De Feted 2 ,750
$2,750 Budgeted
Yakima Sunfair Festival Association General Fund 2009 Budget $1,000
Deleted 500
S500 Budgeted
Yakima Basin Storage Alliance (YBSA) Water Reserves (60%) 2009 Budget 520,000
General Fund (40°/0) Deleted 20,000
SO Budgeted
Yakima-Morelia Sister City Association Economic Development 2009 Budget $2,000
Fund (123) Deleted 667
51,333 Budgeted
Committee for Downtown Yakima (CDY) CBD Capital 2009 Budget $50,000
Improvement Fund (321) Deleted 10,000
540,00)) Budgeted
Allied Arts of Yakima Valley - ArtsVan General Fund 2009 Budget 55,333
Deleted 2
$2,667 Budgeted
Retired Senior Volunteer _Program (RSVP) General Fund 2009 Budget 53,000
1 000
$2,000 Budgeted
Seasons Music Festival Parks & Recreation Fund 2009 Budget S8,000
Deleted 4
54,000 Budgeted
Citizens for Safe Yakima Valley Courturtunitios (CSC) General F und 2009 Budget 520,000
Community Programs Deleted 10,000
Total Request 510,000 Budgeted
Yakima Symphony Orchestra General Fund 2009 Budget $10,000
Deleted 5,000
55,000 Budgeted
589,150 Budgeted 'Total
Policy Issue Summary • Exhibit II - 1
OUTSIDE AGENCIES -- New Requests
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
New Request: 2010 Request $75,000 Unbudgeted
Fair Board
INTERGOVE i''?'""'Q'MENTAL AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) General Fund 2009 Assessment S22,394
- Assessment Increase 11,326
2010 Total S33,720 Budgeted
Yakima Valley Office of Emergency General Fund 2009 Assessment $59,937
Management (OEM) - A ssessment Increase 2 ,563
2010 Estimate $62,500 Budgeted
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments General Fund 2009 Assessment S41,125
(YVCOG) - Assessment' Decrease 2,502
2010 Total $38,623 Budgeted
CITY AGEMENT
STORMWATER
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Stormwater Utility Rate Stormwater Revenue Unknown at this Reren ue $205,000 Budgeted
Adjustment for 2010 and 2011 time
STORMWATER / WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Upgrade a vacant position to 50% Wastewater / Net Budgeted
Hydrologist 50' Stormwater Change $64,000
2 — Exhibit 11 • _Policy Issue Summary
WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT 1 DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
SCADA hip Out & Power Wastewater Capital $500,000 Budgeted
Distribution
Nutrient Removal Project Wastewater Capital 2010 $600,000 Budgeted
Annually
$300 K-S500K
Mandated NPDES & TkIDL Issues Wastewater Capital $500,000 Budgeted
Wastewater Collection System Wastewater Revenue $200,000 Budgeted
Evaluation
MUNICIPAL COURT
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
None
FIN A CE
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
None
CO ITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Increase in Humane Society Contract General Fund 2009 Budget Sh8,6011 Budgeted
Increase 5,3S6 Unbudgeted
2010 Request S73,9S6
POLICE
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY 1 BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
None
Policy Issue Summary • Exhibit II — 3
FI
OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Replacement of Fire Apparatus Fire Capital S500,000 Unbudgeted
(Fire Engine / Pumper)
PUBLIC WO S
TRANSIT
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Purchase 5 heavy duty low floor American Recovery $2,000,000 Budgeted
Transit buses and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA)
REFUSE
DEPARTMENT / DIVISION PERSONNEL
POLICY ISSUE REQUEST / JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE SALARY / BENEFITS NON-PERSONNEL COMMENTS
Refuse Rate Increase - 3% Refuse Operating Actual $ amounts
Rercir tic $119,000
Fund unknown -
Landfill contingent on
landfill rate to be set
Charges S100,000
by Yakima County
Solid Waste
4 — Exhibit II • Policy Issue Summary
E IBIT 111 - SUPPLEMENTAL INFO' TION
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 ILISTICE
COSTS VS. OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
2010 BUDGET
Street/Trattic
$5,379,043
10%
Parks & Recreation
$4,232,014
7%
Criminal Justice
$28,504,392
48%
Other
$19,836,631
35%
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
Tom
f 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 LTI • Supplemental Information
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS 0)
|999 THROUGH IO|O
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010
AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED AMENDED PRELIMINARY VS 10 YEAR
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2009 INCREASE
General Fund
Criminal Justice 517,157,737 517477,709 518 519,702 $20 S20 522,857,422 $25 $26 S28 $28 0.1% 66]%
Other 14,860 14,914,045 15 16 17,476 17862 19,557,208 18 19,782 $20,240 519,836 (2.0%) 33.5%
Parks & Recreation 3,361 3,456,199 3,504,423 3,620 3,8I2,816 3,905,396 4,074,592 4,199,143 4,42\906 $4,249,796 $4 ().4Y) 25/9%
Street/Traffic 4 4,216 4,826,542 5,192 4,883,030 5,273,574 5,522 5907,865 6 $5,686,692 55,379,043 (5.03,) 32.91/4
Total $39,426,330 540,066 542 $45,429,034 546 547,835 552 553 557353 558 557,952 (1.2t,) 470t,
]"w, JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE JUNE
1999 2000 3001 2002 2003 I004 I005 2006 I007 I008 2009
Consumer Price Index 166o 174.5 181.7 184] 1857 190.4 194.8 203.6 210.6 223.6 2199 30.9%
-
(U Excludes double budgeted transfers between general governrnent funds.
•
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SALES TAX -.3Y6 EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES
2009 2010
2006 2007 2008 YEAR-END PROPOSED
GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET
Police
Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 6455,878 5551 5601 6630,880 $704,468
hl)o,,Uaurou,(uu)/"cm/hn]/tcn",1) 111 146,601 216 84,060 119,060
Liability Insurance 5,750 6,3 6,641 6,973 7,322
Professional Services/R & M Contractors 90,574 6,322 14,969 5,000 5
Ya kima County jai Cost 415,852 423,000 385,818 463,500 432
Total Police Depai'tment $1 S1 S1 $1 $1
The .3% Ci'iminal ustice funds support six full time ratrol Officers includin4: a [1 wa4es, overtinie, uniforins, supplies,
insurance and tminiog,expenses. Additionally, these funds are used for repairs, niaintenance, coii and
fuel used for nddi/k,on| patrols. A portion of tFe increased JaiF costs are also paid out of this fund.
Municipal Court
Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 564,150 549,669 5116,485 5176 5173,692
Professional Services 70 72 49,518 48 48
Miscellaneous (office supplies/ti'avel/dues) V 248 6,740 18 lKVVV
Other Expenses (Crime Victims Comp) 6,872 o 0 0
Total Municipal Court $141,453 8121,971 $172,743 $242]01 5239,69Z
The Ci'iminal justice funds support two &|unidpn| Court Clerk positions and nl/2'hmc Court Commissioner
inclucling all wages, overtime, sitpplies and training. Additionally, this fund supports builcling security, interpreter
services and witness and juror fees associated with processing the court's case load.
Legal Prosecution
Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) $99,941 899,667 $127,097 $157017 $162
Professional Services 0 0 12,443 �UUo 5,000
Miscellaneous (offic supplies/travel/dues) �2l� 2,869 2,63.5 I500 I350
Total Legal Department 5102 8102,535 $142,175 5165,517 5171
Ibc3%[cimiun]jus/kcSnleo3a^)shc)ugus,d/"aupp]cm,utoim)un]iu*ic,h/co/i"uo/bc"ugbou/Ynkimn[ouuty.
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) 528,711 827,849 537,895 829,937 834,356
Small Tools & Equipment 41 40 56 V V
Miscellaneous V 0 10 12,000 lKVVU
Professional 5cr,kc, K& M Contractors 0 0 903 1,000 0
Data Processing 8quipo`co, 0 25,471 15,704 0 V
Total Information System 869,877 593,420 5121 542,937 $44,356
The 'portion of the .3% Criminal Justice Sales Ta x allocated to Information Systems is used to enhance the effectiveness
of the laix enforcement and other Criminal Justice personnel through the expanded use of technology. Currently, the
emphasis isw` mobile technology for the patrol officers. A portioll of these funds are budgeted foi' 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 Info
2009 2010
2006 2007 2008 YEAR-END PROPOSED
GENERAL FUND (CONT...) ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET
Aoimo|["otmi/[ndes
Salaries & Benefits (includes ovei'tirne) $59,397 562,988 557,211 S70,762 S71
Misc. (uuiio,mo/o'/pp]),s/hn]/ccUu1acphone) 2 3,965 3 3 3,013
Total Animal Control/Codes 56l $66,953 560,682 574,162 574,553
The J'&. Criminal justice Funds support one full-time Anima | Control Officer including nU wages, overtime, supplies
and communication necessary for this position.
Human Resources
Professional Services (employee recruitment) 810936 611 57100 57,500 87,500
.3% Crirnirial Jitstice funds are itsed to provide fc'r contract services, testing ancl other necessary recruitment costs for
positions fundecl hy the ci'irninal justice sales tax.
GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES 51 S1 $1 $1 S1
OTHER FUNDS
Public Safety Communication
Salaries & Benefits (includes overtime) 53,006 $56 5129,522 $119,985 5127,539
General Operations Support 67,817 0 0 0
Misc. (uoifu,m*/*upp|ics/Fuc|/cdiulnrphone) 4,978 0 0 0
Shia U Tools &61oipo`u`r 0 0 3,581) 6 0
Total Public Safety Communication $75803 $56869 5133,102 $126,745 $127,539
Criininal Justice funds allocated to this departrnent are used for additional positions necessary to accoinmodate the
increased workload g,,ucmt,dby law enforcement activities. These fimds provide for two full-tiine Dispatchers and
temporary support for Police electronic maintenance including n|| wages, overtime and supplies.
Law &t Justice Capital
Small Tools & Equipment 8134,282 55,459 $\@l S55,000 825,000
Operating, Equipment 0 0 7,931 42 0
Vehicles 25 81 0 0
Capital Outlay 16 168,369 (1 0
Total Law &justice 5175,898 6255 614 $97,250 $25,000
The .3% Criminal Justice funds support Capital expenses related to the new positions, technology and services created
with this tax.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 51 $1'842]78 61 $1,946625 61,957,817
Revenue $1 81 $1,901 $1 81
REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (526'174} (544,985) $14 (596'325) ($107,517)
CUMULATIVE BALANCE $385.587 $340.602 $355.411 $259.086 $151.569
Supplemental Info ti • Exhibit 111 5
SAL ' Y D 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, $148 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
2010
2010 SALARIES & LABOR
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET BENEFITS PERCENTAGE
Police $23,108,949 $18,263,911 79.0%
Fire 8,979,699 8,392,337 93.5%
Information Systems 2,306255 1,718,706 74.5%
Code Administration 1,462,372 1,235,074 84.5%
Financial Services 1,502,860 1,365,409 90.9%
Legal 1,142,950 986,494 86.3%
Engineering 1,003,528 939,545 93.6%
Municipal Court 1,262,770 1,014,911 80.4%
Utility Services 1,253,118 962,758 76.8%
Environmental Planning 774,229 698,018 90.2%
City Manager 518,563 482,444 93.0%
Human Resources 467,978 423,218 90.4%
Records 440,128 261,502 59.4%
Purchasing 432,432 389,942 90.2%
City Hall Maintenance 406,690 185,765 457%
City Council 21? '
_,_., 102,842 48.4%
Other General Fund Expenditures 4,732,512 0 0.(r
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $50,007,298 $37,422,876 74.8%
Parks & Recreation 4,232,014 2,163,828 51.1%
Street & Traffic Operations 5,379,043 2,791,706 51.9%
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $59,618,355 $42,378,410 71.1%
Economic Development 99,306 51,973 52.3%
Community Development 2,529,187 764,862 30.2`
Community Relations 561,448 390,803 69.6%
Cemetery 256,155 164,851 64.4%
Emergency Services 1,110,329 837,264 75A%
Public Safety Communications 2,994,394 2,539,854 84.8%
Police Grants 683,019 632,959 927%
Stormwater 2,103,128 724,453 34.4%
Transit 7,200,452 3,534,284 49.1%
Refuse 4,649,892 1,332286 28.7%
Sewer Operating 17,570,394 4,955,520 28.2%
Water Operating 7,774,807 2,408,687 3L0%
Irrigation Operating 2,758,394 664,973 24.1%
Unemployment Comp Reserve 236,861 29,032 12.3%
Employment Health Benefit Reserve 10,553,586 126,928 L2%
Workers Compensation Reserve 1,466,695 108,353 7.4%
Risk Management Reserve 2,759,337 603,753 2L9%
Equipment Rental 5,198,027 862,226 16.6%
Public Works Administration 1,191,886 616,071 5L7%
Other Funds (Capital/Debt Serv. etc) 59,441,039 0 0.0%
TOTAL CITY-WIDE BUDGET $190,756,691 $63,727,542 33.4%
Supplemental Information • Exhibit III - 7
RESOURCE D E ENDITURE BRE DO
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 2010 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 2010 this includes a
Councilmanic Bond issue for Capitol Theatre and other General Government projects;
Public Works Trust Fund loans for utility capital needs; and potential Local Improvement
District (LID) debt issuance.
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! , i
TOTAL RESOU
BY CATEGO
2010 BUDGET
TOTAL RESOURCES = $180,406,542
(Excludes Internal Service Funds and other double budgeted resources of $47,138,076)
Other
Capital Reserves $9,038,743
$23,115,118 5% Taxes
13% $53,903,270 . 1411 Operating Reserves �. 30%
$16,246,223 ;....
9%
Borrowings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$5,205,460
3%
Charges for Services hltergov't
$36,443,617 $36,454,111
20% 20%
Sulplplerzrental Information 0 Exhibit III — 9
I
CITY OF / 1
TOTAL RESOURCES
BY CATEGORY D SOURCE
2010 BUDGET
Police & Fire 1 I
Gen Government I
Parks & Recreation
Street Operations
Street Construction
Gen Govt Const I
G.O. Debt Service 1
Special Revenue 1 1
Transit I
Utilities
$0.0 $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0
❑ Taxes ❑ Intergovernmental ❑ Charges for Services ❑ Borrowings
❑ Operating Reserves ❑ Capital Reserves ❑ Other
(Dollars in Millions)
10 — Exhibit III • Supplemental Information
CITY / . ,
T„RES
BUDGET
2010
g 0,387,492
TOTAL
(Excludes double budge expenditures o $ ,369,
Debt Service
$7,776,721
5% Salaries
Capital 7
66
$41,904,938 $49, 33% ,194
28%
...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intergov't
E---- .....ak
4
Benefits
$4,017,146 Supplies $15,419,986
3°/0 Other Services $6,594,704
$25,006,803 10%
17%
supplemental Izzfoz °matioii • Exhibit 111 -11
12 — Exhibit III • Supplemental Information