Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/2022 03. Council Retreat Discussion Topics: Fiscal Sustainability, Housing and Neighborhood Building, Public Safety, Public Infrastructure, & Partnership1 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEM ENT Item No. 3. For Meeting of: July 12, 2022 ITEM TITLE: Below is a list of documents that Council will be discussing during the retreat. *Fiscal Sustainability *Housing and Neighborhood Building *Public Safety *Public Infrastructure *Partnerships SUBMITTED BY: Bob Harrison, City Manager SUMMARY EXPLANATION: See attached. ITEM BUDGETED: STRATEGIC PRIORITY: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY MANAGER RECOM M ENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type ID Fiscal Sustainability %/8/2022 Corer Memo ❑ Housing & Neighborhood Building 7/8/2022 Corer Memo ID Public Safety 7/8/2022 Corer Memo ❑ Public Infrastructure 7/8/2022 Corer Memo ID Partnerships 7/8/2022 Corer Memo Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council From: Bob Harrison, City Manager Date: July 8, 2022 RE: Retreat format We are looking forward to the retreat on Tuesday next week. We will be covering the Top 5 2021 Strategic Priorities and having the meeting in a small group format. We will start as the Committee of the Whole with a presentation of the five-year financial forecast and an update on ARPA projects. Following those presentations, we will break down into two small groups with a combination of Council Members and staff. The two small group conversations will be facilitated by Rosylen Oglesby and Jenn Zeutenhorst. Your packets include a status report on the priorities and where we are to date and identifies some policy questions to generate conversation. Notes will be taken by the facilitator and we will do a report out on the afternoon groups over the dinner hour and the evening groups at the end. The agenda is as follows: 3:00 — 3:55 Opening and Fiscal Sustainability 4:00 — 4:55 Housing and Neighborhood issues Public Safety Council: Deccio; Brown; Macias Staff: Joseph Calhoun, Sara Watkins, Ritch Fowler, Glenn Denman Council: Lund; Byers; Herrera; Cousens Staff: Matt Murray, Scott Schafer, Aaron Markham 5:00 — 5:55 Public Safety Housing and Neighborhood issues Council: Deccio; Brown; Macias Staff: Matt Murray, Scott Schafer, Aaron Markham Council: Lund; Byers; Herrera; Cousens Staff: Joseph Calhoun, Sara Watkins, Ritch Fowler, Glenn Denman 6:00 — 6:30 Dinner and Report Out on afternoon sessions 6:30 — 7:25 Community Partnerships Investment in Public Infrastructure Council: Lund, Macias, Byers Council: Deccio, Cousens, Brown, Herrera Staff: Sara Watkins, Matt Murray, Joseph Calhoun, Scott Schafer, Aaron Markham Staff: Jaime Vera, Scott Schafer; Harrison 7:30 — 8:25 Investment in Public Infrastructure Community Partnerships Council: Lund, Macias, Byers Staff: Jaime Vera, Scott Schafer, Harrison Council: Deccio, Cousens, Brown, Herrera Staff: Sara Watkins, Matt Murray, Joseph Calhoun, Scott Schafer, Aaron Markham 8:30 — 9:00 Report Out on evening sessions and Adjourn 2 Fiscal Sustainability Attached are the five-year financial forecasts for the General Fund and all funds. The forecast is conservative both with revenues and expenditures, but illustrates the fundamental fiscal challenges that the City has faced for several years now. Council will receive an update on the use of ARPA funds at the meeting. Beginning Balance GENERAL FUND FORECAST Estimated Projections 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 5 10,757,521 $ 13,295,597 $ 15,273,951 $ 14,792,168 $ 12,429,001 $ 8,028,119 $ 1,422,685 $ (7,565,305) Revenues Sales Tax 22,915,342 27,149,846 27,087,000 28,170,480 29,297,299 30,469,191 31,687,959 32,955,477 Other Tax & Assents 760,317 1,273,990 1,082,000 1,103,640 1,125,713 1,148,227 1,171,192 1,194,615 Utility & Franchise Tax 18,482,716 19,070,610 20,325,209 20,731,713 21,146,347 21,569,274 22,000,660 22,440,673 Property Tax 10,289,701 8,967,221 9,335,615 9,522,327 9,712,773 9,907,029 10,105,170 10,307,273 Licenses & Permits 1,607,364 1,711,245 1,704,700 1,738,794 1,773,570 1,809,041 1,845,222 1,882,127 Intergovernmental 7,379,313 3,697,113 3,865,140 3,942,443 4,021,292 4,101,717 4,183,752 4,267,427 Charges for Services 2,872,647 3,470,078 3,449,776 3,518,772 3,589,147 3,660,930 3,734,149 3,808,832 Fines/Forf/Trans/Misc 3,172,053 448,730 . 2,619,937 2,672,336- 2,725,782 2,780 298 2,835,904 2,892,622 Total Revenues 67,479,453 65,788,833 -' 69,469,377 71,400,504 73,391,924 75,445,709 77,564,007 79,749,046 Expenditures Salaries & Wages 36,762,786 37,804,313 40,540,111 42,972,517 45,550,869 48,283,921 51,180,956 54,251,813 Personnel Benefits 12,973,817 13,070,709 14,214,195 15,067,047 15,971,070 16,929,334 17,945,094 19,021,800 Supplies, Equip & Misc 1,707,137 1,630,847 1,774,869 1,845,864 1,919,698 1,996,486 2,076,346 2,159,400 Services & Charges 10,819,260 8,747,125 9,234,890 9,604,286 9,988,457 10,387,996 10,803,515 11,235,656 Capital Outlays 267,798 261,107 104,000 109,200 114,660 120,393 126,413 132,733 Debt Service 276,641 206,540 206,390 210,518 214,728 219,023 223,403 227,871 Transfers 2,133,937 2,089,838 3,876,705 3,954,239 4,033,324 4,113,990 4,196,270 4,280,195 Total Expenditures 64,941,376 63,810,480 69,951,160 73,763,671 77,792,806 82,051,142 86,551,997 91,309,468 Est End Fund Balance 13,295,597 15,273,951 14,792,168 12,429,001 8,028,119 1,422,685 (7,565,305) (19,125,728) Policy Rsv Amt - 16.7% 10,845,210 10,656,350 11,681,844 12,318,533 12,991,399 13,702,541 14,454,183 15,248,681 Net Fund Balance $ 2,450,388 $ 4,617,601 $ 3,110,324 $ 110,468 $ (4,963,279) $ (12,279,855) $ (22,019,488) $ (34,374,409) General Fund assumptions: • Revenue projections provide for a conservative growth of 2%, except for Sales Tax, which is shown at 4 % . • Salaries and benefits are projected at 6% growth to provide for labor contract agreements and minimum wage increases. • Supplies, services and intergovernmental have a growth factor of 4%. • Capital outlay, projected at 5% growth, provides for a systematic methodology to replace and repair City buildings, vehicles and other equipment in a timely manner. Funds budgeted for the previous year and not spent are brought forward to the next year. • Debt Service is projected at 2% growth. • Transfers -out to other funds are projected at 2%. w Beginning Balance CITYWIDE FORECAST Estimated Projections 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget $ 101,056,370 $ 118,758,709 $ 126,528,658 $ 116,560,906 $ 83,138,613 $ 40,588,879 $ (11,702,355) $ (74,385,106) Revenues Sales Tax 32,006,992 37,721,932 37,334,000 38,827,360 40,380,454 41,995,673 43,675,499 45,422,519 Other Tax & Assmnts 5,380,170 7,250,080 7,176,000 7,319,520 7,465,910 7,615,229 7,767,533 7,922,884 Utility & Franchise Tax 19,228,464 20,185,211 21,872,139 22,309,582 22,755,774 23,210,889 23,675,107 24,148,609 Property Tax 21,275,210 21,723,187 22,228,250 22,672,815 23,126,271 23,588,797 24,060,573 24,541,784 Licenses & Permits 3,016,025 3,073,151 3,181,700 3,245,334 3,310,241 3,376,445 3,443,974 3,512,854 Intergovernmental 26,952,594 40,743,387 55,974,376 57,093,864 58,235,741 59,400,456 60,588,465 61,800,234 Charges for Services 53,479,258 57,238,414 58,299,465 59,465,455 60,654,764 61,867,859 63,105,216 64,367,320 Fines/Forf/Trans/Misc 66,217,537 53,379,825 82,743,484 70,000,000 70,700,000 71,407,000 72,121,070 72,842,281 Total Revenues: -' 227,556,250 241,315,185 288,809,414 - 1280,933,929 286,629,155 292,462,347 298,437,438 304,558,486 Expenditures - Salaries & Wages 59,105,338 61,175,233 68,366,881 72,468,894 76,817,027 81,426,049 86,311,612 91,490,308 Personnel Benefits 34,883,023 36,896,845 40,009,167 42,409,717 44,954,300 47,651,558 50,510,651 53,541,290 Supplies, Equip & Misc 5,997,009 7,120,799 7,167,379 7,454,074 7,752,237 8,062,327 8,384,820 8,720,212 Services & Charges 54,080,676 56,400,951 70,204,478 73,012,657 75,933,163 78,970,490 82,129,309 85,414,482 Custodial Outlays 4,911,591 5,108,055 5,312,377 5,524,872 5,745,867 5,975,702 6,214,730 Capital Outlays 25,277,940 43,091,731 70,629,061 74,160,514 77,868,540 81,761,967 85,850,065 90,142,568 Debt Service 17,012,811 9,975,865 9,079,440 10,761,029 10,976,250 11,195,775 11,419,690 11,648,084 Transfers 13,497,114 13,972,221 28,212,706 28,776,960 29,352,500 29,939,550 30,538,341 31,149,107 Total Expenditures 209,853,910 233,545,236 298,777,167 314,356,22? 329,178,888 344,753,581 361,120,190 378,320,782 Est End Fund Balance 118,758,709 126,528,658 116,560,906 83,138,613 40,588,879 (11,702,355) (74,385,106) (148,147,403) Policy Rsv Amt - 16.7% 35,045,603 39,002,054 49,895,787 52,497,489 54,972,874 57,573,848 60,307,072 63,179,571 Net Fund Balance $ 83,713,106 $ 87,526,604 $ 66,665,119 $ 30,641,124 $ (14,383,995) $ (69,276,203) $ (134,692,178) $ (211,326,974) Citywide Assumptions: • Revenue projections provide for a conservative growth of 2%, except for Sales Tax, which is shown at 4%. In 2022 the Fines/Forfeitures,/Transfers and Miscellanous revenue projection includes $15.0 million in debt proceeds, consequently, 2023 projection is a historical average of the previous 4 years, and then 1% growth for 2024-2026. • Salaries and benefits are projected at 6% growth to provide for labor contract agreements and minimum wage increases. • Supplies, services and intergovernmental have a growth factor of 4%, along with the new Custodial Outlays, created in 2021 for the new Custodial Fund. • Capital outlay, projected at 5% growth, provides for a systematic methodology to replace and repair City buildings, vehicles and other equipment in a timely manner. Funds budgeted for the previous year and not spent are brought • Debt Service is projected at an additional $1.5 million planned debt in 2023, and 2% growth from 2024 - 2026. • Transfers -out to other funds are projected at 2%. 5 Housing and Neighborhood Building In 2021 and going into 2022 the City continues with a very low vacancy rate in the housing market. In response, the City developed the Housing Action Plan in order to guide public policy as well as investment and opportunities for the development of affordable housing. The City also took the initiative to identify a number of City owned property that is no longer needed and could be used for housing in the private market. We partnered with Habitat for Humanity for the sale of City owned properties directly to Habitat for the purpose of development of affordable housing. At this time, one lot has been sold to Habitat for affordable housing. This should result in one new housing unit. There has been additional interest expressed by Habitat for Humanity for additional parcels. The City has also issued the Request for Proposals for the property on Third Street located across from the Zais Public Safety and Justice Center. The City is looking forward to evaluating those proposals in the third quarter of 2022. The City added the Grant Writer position in 2021, and he has been successful in bringing in $1.37 million in grant funds for affordable housing in the City. Lastly, we are seeing housing market impacts on the City's hotel inventory with the conversion of hotels to housing of various types. The City receives funds directly from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an Entitlement Community. In 2022, the City will receive $1,051,586 in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) which is used to fund the program for repairs to approximately 75 Single Family homes, as well as program services at the HBCC and a Code Enforcement Officer. Additionally, $611,033 of HOME funds will be received and used to support construction of new housing by our non-profit partners of Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities, Rod's;House and Yakima Housing Authority. The City renewed its lease for emergency shelter with Camp Hope. The new lease provides Camp Hope with increased flexibility to add additional shelter housing types to meet various resident needs. Yakima County provides funding for the operations provided by Camp Hope as well as Camp Hope's own fundraising efforts to provide for operating costs. Because of the needed investment in emergency shelter, it leaves less funds available to invest and partner in other next step transitional housing services. The City did market the property near Camp Hope and didn't have any interested partners in developing next step housing at that location. While the City will continue to seek a development partner for the land, having funds available for affordable housing projects within Yakima would create opportunities for additional affordable housing projects completed more quickly. The City does offer the Multi -family tax emption for projects. There is $1 million set aside in ARPA funds for Affordable Housing Projects. Before we go out for a general RFP, we have a choice of broadly looking at opportunities, or looking at creating a more directed investment in a neighborhood. The City Council has had several conversations over the years of seeking opportunities to bring alive the upper floors of our downtown buildings with housing. Additional people 6 living downtown will enhance the economic activity spent in downtown businesses and is close to transit and jobs downtown. The City could develop a program that provide direct cash grants for affordable housing in the downtown core, specifically for activation of the upper floors in our older buildings. Because of ARPA spending timelines, these projects would have to be completed in a timely manner consistent with ARPA guidelines. Services directed to support persons experiencing homeless are provided by various community partners in the City. City staff along with City Council members attend and participate in the Yakima Homeless Coalition and the Yakima Homeless Network meetings to assist in these efforts. Implementation of the Housing Action Plan, adopted June 15, 2021 have included broad reform and changes to the zoning ordinance, environmental review requirements under SEPA and other regulatory ordinances. The Planning Commission is working on additional implementation measures form the Housing Action Plan. Additionally, in 2019, the City of Yakima adopted the special revenue sharing program (SHB 1406) to dedicate a portion of existing Sales Tax for local uses related to Affordable Housing. This local sales tax authority is a credit against the state sales tax, so it does not increase the sales tax for the consumer. The City recently adopted a program to utilize this funding to off -set utility costs related to multi -family developments which provide housing for low to moderate income residents. At present, over $400,000 has been collected with this portion ofthe state sales tax for housing. The City was successful in acquiring 3 grants ($1.3 million) from the State Department of Commerce through a program called "Connecting Housing to Infrastructure Program" (CHIP) to support a total of 90 housing units for the cost of water and :sewer services. The cost of infrastructure has been identified locally and nationwide, numerous times as a significant barrier to providing affordable housing. Implementation of the Clean City program has provided much needed support for health and safety issues in the neighborhoods of Yakima. Funding for increased services, such as alley clean-ups, illegal dumping responses, extra code enforcement and compliance, graffiti response, landfill tipping fees and other clean-up activities. City Code Administration is starting a new emphasis project on enforcement of codes for vacant residential buildingsand demolishing dangerous structures. The City adopted the International Property Maintenance,Code (IPMC) in 2021 which has assisting us in streamlining notices and enforcement proceedings. Policy Conversations 1) The City's only resources currently available for use for affordable housing are the City's federal funds through the ONDS, the 2163 funds that are managed at the Yakima County, and the 1406 funds. The lack of resources makes it challenging to see continued development in affordable housing projects. Does the Council want to reconsider the potential for the 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing or keep funding at the same level? 2) Do we want to open up the $1 million in ARPA affordable housing to any and all projects, or do we want to set up a program for the funds to be invested in the downtown CBD area? 3) Any other topics or policy perspectives. 7 Public Safety Public safety continues to be a core service priority of the City of Yakima. The City continued to provide priority for funding for the Police, Fire, and Dispatch services of the City. The City also made a significant investment in the Clean City program, and is seeing progress made in the clean-up of graffiti tags as well as dangerous buildings and properties that are hazards in relation to the property maintenance code. The City is working with the principals and staff at our elementary schools to improve traffic flow and circulation around our elementary schools Lastly, traffic collisions with vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians are an ongoing concern within the City. We have focused on our worst intersections to utilize the 4 E's, as well as school safety zones but more work continues to be needed. Attached is an update from the Police Department that provides a focus on the top priority enforcement areas including violent crime in the areas of domestic violence and gang violence; property crimes, and an update on the overall crime numbers for the City. There is also the sixth month update on the Clean City program. Lastly, Engineering filled its Supervising Traffic Engineer position in Nov 2021. This position provides the liaison between the Engineering Division and the Streets and Traffic Divisions. Coordination has been greatly improved allowing consistency between the Divisions. The Divisions work together on Traffic Calming efforts, traffic control plans, signing, striping, lighting, and Yak Back responses. Utilizing the 2021 Pavement Condition Index numbers, Streets and Traffic are developing a strategic pavement asset management plan for preservation of our roadways. To provide support for this coordination, a Traffic Tech II position vacated since 2014, was approved in the 2021 Budget and is anticipated to being filled in Summer/Fall 2022. The Street & Traffic Division purchased four new Traffic Data Collectors this year in order to coordinate efforts with the Traffic Engineer on traffic -calming issues throughout the City. Data collection is key in determining next steps in the process. To improve traffic safety throughout the City, the Street & Traffic Division installed the follow infrastructure: Rapid Flashing Beacons • Three Rapid Flashing Beacons were installed in 2021 ➢ 18th Ave /Summitview ➢ 88th Ave /Summitview, ➢ 12th Ave / Tieton Dr. Another two were installed in 2022 ➢ 48th Ave at Randall Park crosswalk ➢ Fair Ave/Race St. Street Lights • Thirteen newstreetlights were installed in 2021 from the pending request list 8 ➢ 1910 Boggess Lane ➢ 708 N. 6th St. ➢ 916 S. 6th St. ➢ 809 N. Naches Ave. ➢ 1107 N. Naches ave. ➢ 1515 S. Ledwich Ave. ➢ 6th Ave. & Jerome Ave. ➢ 1612 S. 9th Ave. ➢ 1516 S. 9th Ave. ➢ 1622 S. 9th Ave. ➢ 1620 McKinley Ave. ➢ 719 N. 28th Ave. ➢ 1001 W. Madison Ave. • Ten new street lights have/will be installed in 2022 ➢ 4th St./I St. intersection ➢ 812 N. 32nd Ave. ➢ 4910 McCargar ➢ 308 N. 26th Ave. ➢ 807 N. 46th Ave. ➢ 310 N. 30th Ave. ➢ 8710 Hawthorne Dr. ➢ 401 N. 66th Ave. ➢ 1 N. 46th Ave. ➢ 3 N. 46th Ave. Traffic Signal Upgrades ■ Six traffic signals were upgraded from 8-inch incandescent signal heads to 12-inch LED in 2021 ➢ 3rd St /Lincoln ➢ 3rd St /MLK ➢ 2nd St /MLK ➢ 15t St /Sgt. Pendleton Way ➢ 2nd St /Sgt. Pendleton Way ➢ 3RD St /Sgt. Pendleton! Way • Eleven traffic signals have/will be upgraded in 2022 ➢ 2nd St/Yakima Ave. ➢ 3rd St/Yakima Ave. ➢ 4th St/Yakima Ave. ➢ Naches/Yakima Ave. ➢ 6th St/Yakima Ave. ➢ Front St/Yakima Ave. ➢ 15t Ave/Yakima Ave. ➢ 2nd Ave/Yakima Ave. ➢ 3rd Ave/Yakima Ave.: 9 ➢ 4th Ave/Yakima Ave. ➢ 6t" Ave /Yakima Ave. Battery Backup —Traffic Signals • Installation in 2021 ➢ Cabinet at 40t"/Nob Hill Blvd. ➢ External battery backup unit at 40th/Fruitvale Blvd. • Installation completed/planned for 2022 ➢ Battery backup signal cabinet at 16t" Ave/Tieton ➢ External battery backup unit at 16t"Ave/River Rd. ➢ External battery backup unit at 40t"/Lincoln. Traffic Signals • In 2021, new traffic signals were installed ➢ 64th Ave/Ahtanum ➢ 64th Ave/Occidental • In 2022, a new traffic signal was installed ➢ Washington Ave/Spring Creek 481h Ave/Washington • Due to recent safety concerns with this intersection, the following has been/will be completed later this year ➢ Purchased two digital LED radar speed signs for east/west directions which will display vehicle speeds; flashing the speed of travel when speed limit is reached, then flash red/blue when speed reaches 5 mph or more over posted speed limit. We are currently waiting for the radar speed signs to be delivered. Crews have already trenched and installed approx. 2200 feet of conduit and wire to power the signs. ➢ Converting the middle turn lane on Washington from 48" Ave to the east into an acceleration/merge lane for motorists turning left from 48' Ave. onto Washington to be able to merge into traffic more safely. This requires grinding off some existing striping, then re -striping. ➢ A dedicated right -turn lane heading west on Washington Ave. onto 48' Ave. will be constructed. This will require Street crews to install curbing along Washington Ave.; making it a dedicatinglane. ➢ S. 48" Ave. will be designated as a "No Truck Route" to prevent large trucks from pulling out onto Washington Ave. 10 Traffic Studies • 16th Ave and Tieton Dr. Intersection - to determine if the turn -lanes can be eliminated from east/west travel lanes to provide more lane width for vehicles; similar as to what was conducted for the north/south travel lanes at this intersection a few years ago. • 40th Ave./Chestnut Intersection — An RFQ is being developed to select an Engineering Firm to evaluate and determine what potentially can be installed to improve the overall safety at this intersection. Policy Conversation 1) Identify information provided in the memorandums that you would like to discuss further in your group setting? Did any policy issues arise for potential study sessions or further conversation? 2) Are there any action items that the Council would like to direct the administration to take? 11 Chief Matthew Murray's ;Office 200 S 3rd Street I Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: (509) 575-6211 Yakima City Police Strategic Crime Priorities • Reduce Violent Crime ➢ Gang Crime — through partnerships, the focused offender strategy, the US Attorney's Project Safe neighborhoods, Federal partnerships (ATF, DEA, FBI, HIS, US Attorney's Office), a proactive and restructured gang unit ➢ Domestic Violence — creation of the domestic violence coalition and ongoing strategic benchmarks to address incidents of domestic violence and hold offenders accountable. Major achievements have been the "Handle With Care Program", the computer dashboard with accurate real time data, creation of an "app" for officers to use in domestic violence incidents for data collection, three day follow ups. ➢ Major Crimes Unit;continues to maintain a much higher clearance rate than the national average • Continue to address property crimes. Focusing on addressing the most problematic offenders this tiny unit has had incredible success. • Traffic Safety — primarily due to low staffing and high call volume (with reduced non -committed time available for proactive enforcement). 2022 Traffic fatalities (5) and injuries (130) remain high. However, patrol officers have conducted 9,750 traffic stops so far,thi. year (and issued citations in 3,490 of them). YPD officers have made 174 DUA,arrests, issued 14 racing citations, 21 Reckless Driving Citations, 32 Negligent driving citations, and forwarded charges on 258 suspended licenses. As staffing increases this will be an area we can add resources and hope to achieve more adherence to traffic laws and a reduction in injuries and death. OVERALL CRIME NUMBERS 2021 vs 2020 Crime statistics tend to run about months behind (this will improve as our new analytics team improves). These are the NIBRS (the FBI's National Incident Based Reporting System) which have just been completed. The overall numbers are good! (It is also important to note that we made 5 fewer arrests in 2021 than 2020. This means "Make respect a part of every interaction." '1.1 is 12 Chief Matthew Murray's Office 200 S 3rd Street I Yakirna, WA 98901 Tefephone: (509) 575-6211 that we are arresting the RIGHT people and our overall collaborative partnerships and strategy are working). Offense Type 2020 2021 % Change Domestic Violence related NOTES Murder 9 10 11.1% 3 (33%) Rape 21 27 28.6% 15 (55%) Fondling 123 171 39.0% 62 (36%) This increase is due to the low number of cases reported by schools while out on COVID. Aggravated Assault 547 452 -17.4% 0 140 (31%) This is probably the most important measure of violent crime. Simple Assault 1,177 1,181 0.3% 800 (68%) Kidnapping 34 43 8.4% 36 (84%) Violation No Contact Order 722 820 13.6% 676 (82%) These are a result of PROACTIVE work by detectives working with the domestic violence coalition. Robbery 109 77 -29.4% 4 (5%) Larceny - theft 2,185 1,952 1 -10.7% 81 (4%) Destruction of Property 1,336 1,147 -14.1% 311 (27%) Forgery 32 16 , -50.0% 2 (12%) Fraud 529 353 -33.3% 7 (2%) Drug/Narcotic Violations 238 112 o 52.9/ This is largely due to the change in drug possession laws Drug Equipment 108 61 -43.5% This is largely due to the change in drug possession laws Weapons Law Violations 200 163 -18.5% OVERALL CRIME 8,877 8,097 -8.8% "Make respect a part of every interaction." 13 2022 Traffic Analysis Traffic Stops Traffic Warnings 9,750 6,260 Stops vs Warnings 9750 6260 0% 20% 40% 60% a Stops °Warnings 80% 100% 83% °Speeding Traffic Citations a School Zone °Moving Violations Criminal Traffic Citations: • DUI Citations 174 • Racing Citations 14 • Reckless Driving 21 • Negligent Driving 32 • Suspended Driving 258 Eluding: • Total Incidents 52 • Arrests 16 Injury vs. Non -Injury 130 666 15% Traffic Citations: 2% • Speeding 539 • School Zone 87 • Equipment* 8 • Moving Violations 3,051 *too small for visualization (0.0027%) Criminal Traffic Citations 3%_, 50% o DUI Citations °Racing Citations ■Reckless Driving o Negligent Driving °Suspended Driving °Eluding Arrests 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% °Injury °Non -Injury Collisions: • Fatalities 5 • Accident Injury 130 • Accident Non -Injury 666 • Accident Hit -Run 227 • Unknown 66 Active Collision Investigations: • Fatality Collisions 5 • Injury Collisions 13 • Hit -Run Collisions 39 B.Lynn 8551 Data as of June 29, 2022 Refuse Sunrise Outreach (Homely r.ess) Contract Amount • SEO,00a Per Year (Contract Ended) Streets&&attic Activities 2022 Clean City 6-Month Report {Jan. - Jun.) Codes Graffiti Incidents Illegal Dumps Cleaned Shopping Cart Sites Removed Homeless Sites Cleaned Cleared Vegetation Sites attitieatumoved 116 492 157 4 1 Tires Electronics Appliances Mattresses Couches Shopping Carts Removed Graffiti Incidents Others Total Tons of Garbage Removed Costs 1,105 11 22 64 61 253 116 870 87.62 Refuse Code Compliance Officer Refuse Support Staff Equipment Fuel Equipment Labor Equipment Parts Supplies Data Communication Landfill Fee Activities 550.494.97 57,035.33 52,375.99 53,9613.18 $4,277.50 $1,781.00 s $1,18$.85 54.280.28 TataiCost: $ 75,400.10 (Cortrad 1Wr111, Ibt„). fdud, 3t 242t! Individuals Contacted Individuals Referred Individuals Placed Costs 1,168 5 45 Expenses S 12,644.48 TotatCost: $ 12844:4R Graffiti Incidents Weed Abatement Debris Removal Homeless Sites Cleaned Ca5E3 145 0 0 0 Labor Equipment Materials Landfill Fee S 4,399,56 $ 195.44 $ - 5 - TotalCost1 $ 4,595.00 Parks & Roc Activities Graffiti Incidents Abandoned/Junk Vehicles Dangerous Buildings Illegal Dumping in Alleys Shopping Carts Removed Vegetation Along Sidewalk Weeds in Right of Way/Alley Weedy Lots Yard Debris Recreational Vehicle as Dwelling Unlawful Encampment Costs 1,642 17 23 201 193 2 0 1 57 13 45 Labor Equipment Supplies Vehicle Maintenance Fuel $ 69,219.37 $3385.83 $1,231.87 $0.00 5 1,969.58 Tow coltt $ 75 5 Graffiti Incidents Shopping Carts Removed Illegal Dump Cleanups Homeless Camps Cleaned Vandalism Incidents einta 336 57 82 21 8 Labor Supplies Equipment YPD Activities $ 7,795.34 $ 3,978.88 5 - Total Cost: $ 11,774.22 Trespass Letters Issued Homeless Contacts Shopping Carts Removed Abandoned Vehicles Towed Railroad Encampments Dismantled Homeless Encampments Dismantled Costs 79 2,888 300 108 6 34 YPD Enforcement Senior Assistant City Attorney Teatcosl 55,379.65 539,971.01 545,350.66 Total Quarterly Cost: $ 225,571.11 15 Public Infrastructure At last years retreat, public infrastructure was identified as a priority with focus on three primary areas. First, as a means to support economic development in Yakima. Second, to improve the livability of our community. Lastly, the city's investment in roads projects is not keeping up with maintenance needs. Economic Development The City is engaged in or exploring investments in public infrastructure to support economic development in several areas. 1) Convention Center and surrounding area. The City invested $12.5 million in expanding the Convention and Events Center. The Center itself is in a condition to compete well with other competition in the State. However, the Achilles heel in expanding the amount of bookings is the absence of quality hotels near or connected to the Convention Center. The City is seeking to redevelop the properties east of the Convention Center which is currently constructed of surface parking Tots, the Chamber, and a Dairy Queen. A new parking garage will provide support for existing events andconventions and a quality hotel located off of Yakima Avenue. That developer is also seeking t0'redevelop the Red Lion directly west of the Convention Center. Redevelopment of those parcels will make the convention center significantly more competitive in the marketplace. How do we pay for it? The City,Council has authorized a TIF (Tax Increment Financing District) that could support the capital costs of the new garage assuming it is paired with tax growth affiliated with the development of the hotels. The operational costs will need to be supported by daily parking revenue from charges in the garage and in the entire downtown area. The City is finalizing the parking studies affiliated with the both the garage (complete) and the overall downtown parking fee plan,. There will also be revenue generated from the land sale of the front parking lot. 2) Bank of America Acquisition. The City acquired the Bank of America building at the end of 2021. A request for proposal for an architect to complete a space study of several public facilities that will guide investments in public facilities that will enhance overall service and efficiency. The acquisition also allowed for the creation of a civic owned space between 3rd and 15t Avenue and MLK and Staff Sergeant Pendleton Way. Smart investments in infrastructure, along with partnerships, can create another unique civic hub connected with the Arts District. Potential activation of the upper floors in this City Hall with art uses (Yakima Arts Center) will create a location with regular visits and usage. The acquisition also provides opportunities with the addition of public parking spaces for employees during the day and use for private sources in the evening. A combination of different sources including TIF District, general debt service, REET, grants, and ARPA funds will help pay for these costs. Support for certain new operating expenses may be 16 offset by the termination of certain leases that will be able to be accommodated in the new uses. 3) Airport. The City is currently.' gathering revenue from various federal resources and completing the environmental work for a major investment into the airport. The City has currently received a $5 million earmark in 2021, and is in position to receive a second $5 million earmark in 2022 federal budget. The City is planning for a major reconstruction of the terminal building in 2027, with 90% of the funding coming from the FAA. Ongoing investment includes $2 million in the taxiway, $2.2 million for the east general aviation apron, $1.5 million for snow removal equipment, $2 million for south taxi -lane extension project, $10 million for an ARFF building, $3.5 million for runway 4/22, and $5 million for the snow removal equipment building/storage. The City needs to develop an economic development strategic plan for this economic asset. There is opportunity for growth and expansion landside at the airport as well as the surrounding neighborhood (Marquis development). The City is also currently losing commercial air service to surrounding airports or we have had routes simply eliminated due to pilot shortages at Alaska Airlines. 4) Mill Site. A portion of the public infrastructure investment for this project will be taking place over the next 3 years. Development on the site is still uncertain given the lack of a development plan from the developer and periodic noise about changes to the planned WSDOT investment, specifically the off -ramps in this.area. The planned public investments involve: design and installation of both water and sewer infrastructure, as well as, four lane road construction including curb, gutter, sidewalks, lighting, drainage, roundabouts, and bike lanes. Phase 1, south of the tracks, will be completed in the next 3 years while Phase 2, north of the tracks, does not currently have a planned construction start date. In addition, the design and installation of a sewer trunk line parallel to 1-82 just north of the railroad tracks. This will eventually connect further north to eliminate the City's Tamarak sewer lift -station. 5) First Street: The City has ingested over $8.6 million in the first two phases of this project which involved improvements from SR-12 to J St. consisting of water main upgrade, wastewater and stormwater installation, street and pedestrian lighting, sidewalk, curb, gutter, ADA ramps and grind & overlay of roadway. The third phase of investment in this project involves improvements from J St. to MLK consisting of upgrading the water mains to ensure proper fire suppression while meeting water usage demands, addition of necessary stormwater drainage system, sidewalk, curb, gutter, ADA ramps, grind & overlay of roadway, including the upgrade/addition of street and pedestrian lighting. The project will funded by Water and Stormwater Capital Funds, state and federal grants, and TBD funds at a cost of approximately $13.6 million. However, the public investment in the infrastructure alone hasn't stopped the deterioration of the commercial' enterprises in this area. A strategic economic development plan needs to be put into place''for the First Street Area. 17 Community Projects 1) The City has just completed its Parks and Recreation Master Plan which contains many opportunities for investment to enhance community assets that build stronger neighborhoods. The annual set aside from property taxes is dedicated for the next 25 years to paying debt service for the YMCA and SOZO developments. There are opportunities to ask the community if they wish to support a capital development plan. Such a voted bond would require a 60% voter support. 2) The development of an east side pool at MLK as reflected in the feasibility study has been the primary focus. The City administration has identified $3 million in local funds that can meet its capital obligations for this project. The State of Washington has funded $1 million for the design and final plans for the project. There is a preliminary earmark of $6 million in the federal budget that will hopefully be approved in 2022. The City will be making an additional $2 million request for capital construction funds in the next State capital budget. There are applications for ARPA funds into the County and the City is seeking additional opportunities for grants to help meet the expected costs for the project. The City will have to implement a revenue plan to pay for the operating costs for this and the other aquatic facilities in the City. The City currently runs aquatic programs at Lions Pool, Franklin Pool, and the YMCA Aquatics Center. The City will be paying an approximate charge of $350,000 annually to support swimming at the aquatics center. Beginning in 2030, the City is obligated per agreement with the YMCA to fund 50% of the operational cost minus $50,000. Each year thereafter, the amount to be subtracted from 50% is reduced by $10,000 until 2035. Beginning in 2035, the City is to pay for 50% of the operational cost from then on. Also beginning in 2030, the City is to pay for 50% of the capital costs of the aquatic center in addition to adding $40,000 to a Capital Reserve Fund up to $1 million. This will continue for each year thereafter. Streets The City has two primary local means of funding for streets, the General Fund and the Transportation Benefit District. The City has also been very competitive for capital grants that have been helpful in completing significantly large street projects. The City also pays a total of $599,664 in REET funding ($399,664 REET 1 and $200,000 REET2) annually in debt service for previously paid streets. There are also annual debt payments of $1,648,750 for a 2014 G.O. Debt (expires in 2024) and $399,664 for a 2018 G.O. Debt issuance. Downtown Plan Update Many of the projects described in this memo are located in the downtown core of the City. There is interest by many of the property owners and stakeholders to support a revitalization effort in the Central Business district (CBD), and as noted in this memo, there are a variety of funding decisions to be discussed. An update of the Downtown Plan, including a Capital Plan element. A community supported effort to create an updated Downtown Subarea Plan would provide a guiding document for this projects to guide investments in the area. 18 Policy Questions Economic Development Does the Council want to consider econpmic development plans for: A) the airport and/or B) First Street? Does the Council have any concerns about the public infrastructure projects identified for downtown development? Community Projects Does the City Council want to direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to explore a Parks and Recreation Bond for a future bond request of the community? Streets Does the Council want to consider additional funding options for streets? Specifically a sales tax or license plate adjustment. 19 M RSC Empowciing local governments Transportation Benefit Districts This page provides a general overview of transportation benefit districts (TBDs) in Washington State, including formation procedures, assumption of powers, revenue sources, reporting requirements, and sample documents. Overview Chapter 36.73 RCW authorizes cities (see also RCW 35.21,225) and counties to form transportation benefit districts (TBDs), quasi -municipal corporations and independent taxing districts that can raise revenue for specific transportation projects, usually through vehicle license fees or sales taxes. Transportation benefit district revenue may be used for transportation improvements included in a local, regional, or state transportation plan (RCW 36.73.015(6)). Improvements can range from roads and transit service to sidewalks and transportation demand management. Construction, maintenance, and operation costs are eligible. List of TBDs MRSC is currently aware of more than 100 TBDs throughout Washington State, and more are being created every year. For details, including an interactive map, see our List of Transportation Benefit Districts. Formation Any city or county may form a TBD by ordinance, following a public hearing, if it finds that the action is in the public interest (RCW 36.73.050). The establishing ordinance must specify the boundaries of the district - which may include all or part of the city or county establishing the TBD - and the transportation improvements that will be funded. The boundaries and functions of the TBD may not be changed without further public hearings. A transportation benefit district may include all or part of the territory in another jurisdiction (city, county, port district, county transportation authority, or Public transportation benefit area) through interlocal agreement (RCW 36,73,020(2)). Governance 20 Almost all TBDs share the same boundaries as'their establishing jurisdiction, in which case they must be governed by the members of that jurisdiction's legislative body, acting as a separate legal entity, unless the jurisdiction assumes the TBD's powers (see below). Even though they comprise the same members, the legislative body and the governing board are separate and distinct bodies and must hold separate and distinct meetings. If a TBD includes territory in multiple jurisdictions, it must be governed under an interlocal agreement pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. The governing board must consist of at least five members, including at least one elected official from each participating jurisdiction, or - if the TBD has the same boundaries as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) - it may be governed by the MPO governing body (RCW 36.73.020(3)). Assumption of Powers Effective July 2015, any city or county that forms a TBD with the same boundaries as the city or county may absorb the TBD and assume all of its "rights, powers, functions, and obligations;' with the result that the TBD would cease to exist as a separate entity (chapter 36.74 RCW). The city or county legislative authority must first hold a public hearing according to the requirements of RCW 36.74.020-.030. If, after the hearing, the legislative authority determines that "public interest or welfare would be satisfied" by the assumption of the TBD, it passes an ordinance or resolution that abolishes the TBD governing body and vests the city or county legislative authority;: with all the rights, powers, functions, and obligations that the TBD governing body possessed. As of December 2018, about three-quarters;of<the TBDs in the state have been assumed by their cities or towns. (See MRSC's List of Transportation Benefit Districts for details.) Note: A section has been added to the BARS Manual discussing the requirements for jurisdictions that assume the powers of their TBDs. In particular, a jurisdiction assuming a TBD must (1) still file an annual financial report for the year in which the TBD was assumed and (2) submit a New Entity Creation or Dissolution Notification form. For more details, see the BARS Manual, Section 3.11.1.120 (see Cash Basis Manual and CAAP Manual). For more details on accounting and reporting requirements related to TBD assumption, see our blog post: Assuming the Powers of Your Transportation Benefit District? Funding Sources Transportation benefit districts are primarily funded through vehicle license fees and/or sales taxes. There are several other funding options available such as border area fuel taxes, bonds, and impact fees, but these are seldom or never used. Vehicle License Fees The most common TBD funding source is a vehicle license fee (RCW 82.80.140, RCW 3E.73.040(3)(b)). Initiative 976, approved by voters in 2019, would have eliminated the ability to impose any TBD vehicle license fees. However, this initiative was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court in 2020 (Garfield County Transp. Auth. etal. v. State et al.) 21 TBDs may impose councilmanic vehicle license fees up to $50 without voter approval, subject to the following conditions, or may impose fees up to $100 with voter approval. A TBD may impose a nonvoted vehicle license fee up to $20 at any time, but a TBD may only impose a nonvoted vehicle license fee above $20 as follows: • Up to $40, but only if a $20 fee has been in effect for at least 24 months. • Up to $50, but only if a $40 fee has been in: effect for at least 24 months. Any nonvoted fee higher than $40 is subject to potential referendum, as provided in RCW 36.73.065(6). Any license fees over these amounts, up to a maximum of $100, must be approved by a simple majority of voters. However, most jurisdictions have opted for the councilmanic (nonvoted) fees. The only TBD to successfully pass a voted vehicle license fee is the Seattle TBD, where voters approved a $60 fee increase in 2014 after rejecting a similar increase in 2011. A handful of other jurisdictions have attempted voted TBD license fees without success, including Bremerton, Burien, and Edmonds (all in 2009) and King County (in 2014). If two or more TBDs with the authority to impose a nonvoted fee overlap, credits must be issued so that the combined nonvoted fees do not exceed $50 total. If a countywide TBD wishes to impose a vehicle license fee, it must distribute the revenues to each city in the county by interlocal agreement, which must be approved by 60% of the cities representing 75% of the city population (RCW 82.80.140(2)(a)). If this threshold cannot be met, a district that includes the unincorporated areas only may impose the nonvoted license fees discussed above (RCW 36.73.065(5)). For a list of current TBD vehicle license fees, see the Department of Licensing's page on local transportation benefit district fees. Sales and Use Taxes Another common TBD funding source is a sales and use tax of up to 0.2% (RCW 82.14.0455, RCW 36.73.040(3)(a)), which must be approved by a simple majority of voters. This taxing option is limited to 10 years, with the ability to place this same sales tax option back before the voters for one additional 10-year period. The exception to this time limitation is for the repayment of debt; if the TBD sales tax is to be used to repay debt, the ballot measure should state the intended use and duration of the debt Service. In recent years, voters have approved the vast majority of all proposed TBD sales and use taxes. At least four jurisdictions - Seattle, Tacoma, Enumclaw, and Moses Lake - have imposed a sales tax on top of an existing vehicle license fee. For individual results, see MRSC's Local Ballot Measure ❑atab.ase (select "Filter by Ballot Categories;' select the "Funding Type/Statutory Authority".drop-down menu, and look for the TBD sales tax and TBD vehicle license fee options). Other Funding Sources Other potential funding sources include: • General obligation bonds (RCW 36.73.070) — MRSC is only aware of one TBD that has attempted to pass a bond measure, and it failed with 50% of the vote (Auburn TBD, 2012). 22 • Border area fuel tax, only available to TBDs that include a Canadian border crossing (RCW 82.47.020). MRSC is aware of one TBD — Point Roberts — that uses this funding mechanism. • Impact fees on commercial and industrial development in accordance with chapter 39.92 RCW (RCW 36.73.040(3)(c) and RCW 36.73.120). • Vehicle tolls (RCW 36.73.040(3)(d)). • Excess property taxes (RCW 36.73,060). • Local improvement districts (RCW 36.73.080). Material Change Policies TBDs must adopt a material change policy that addresses significant changes to the transportation improvement finance plan that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan (RCW 36.73.160(1)). The policy must at least address material changes to cost, scope, and schedule, the level of change that will require governing body involvement, and how the governing body will address those changes. At a minimum, the policy must require the governing body to hold a public hearing if the revised cost exceeds the original estimate by more than 20%. Budgeting State law does not clearly require TBDs to adopt an appropriations budget. However, adopting a budget would be considered a best practice, and a number of TBDs have done so, setting up the budget process to coincide with the annual/biennial process used by the establishing jurisdiction. It is up to the TBD governing board to develop and adopt a budget policy. Under RCW 36.73.020(4), the treasurer of the establishing city or county must serve, in an independent and ex officio capacity, as the TBD treasurer. Required Annual Reporting Transportation benefit districts must submit annual financial reports to the State Auditor's Office using the BARS reporting templates (RCW 43-09.230). For information on the specific TBD accounting requirements, see the BARS Manual, Section 3.11.1 (see Cash Basis Manual and GAAP Manual). For assistance developing financial reports, see MRSC's page on Annual Financial Reporting. In addition to the annual financial report, RCW 36.73.160(2) requires TBDs to issue a separate annual transportation improvement report detailing the district revenues, expenditures and the status of all projects, including cost and construction schedules. The report must be distributed to the public and newspapers of record in the district. Dissolution 23 A transportation benefit district must end its day-to-day operations within 30 days after the specified transportation improvements are completed, although the district may continue to collect revenue and service any remaining debt or financing. A TBD must be completely dissolved within 30 days after the financing or debt service is paid off (RCW 36.73.170). Examples of TBD Documents Establishing Ordinances • Anacortes Ordinance No. 2926 (2014) — Establishes powers of district and board, identifies potential revenue sources • Enumclaw Ordinance No. 2524 (2013) — Identifies eligible projects as those in the six -year Transportation Improvement Program, authorizes creation of advisory committee • Issaquah Ordinance No. 2823 (2018) — Establishes TBD • Leavenworth Munici a Cod Ch. 3.92 — Mayor -council city; clearly specifies that the mayor serves as the chair and presides over the board meetings but does not have a vote • Pierce County Ordinance No. 2014-28 (2014) — Establishes TBD within unincorporated county • Snohomish County Amended Ordinance No. 10-103 (2011) — Establishes a TBD in unincorporated areas after failing to reach an interlocal agreement • Toppenish Ordinance No. 2012-2 — Establishes powers of district and board Assumption Ordinances • Grandview Qrdinance No. 2015-09 — Repeals entire chapter of municipal code • Black Diamond Ordinance No.15-1059 (2015) - Assumes the powers of a newly formed TBD with no pre-existing funds, assets, or contracts • Roy Ordinance No. 933 (2015) — Replaces ",governing board" section in municipal code • Sedro-Woolley Ordinance No.1823-15 (2015) - Short and simple ordinance • Shoreline Ordinance No. 726 (2015) — Detailed ordinance assuming the powers of a TBD formed in 2009 with existing funds and contracts Vehicle License Fee Resolutions • Covington Ordinance No.12-15 (2015) — $20 fee following assumption of TBD • Des Moines TBD Resolution No. 0003.TBD (2015) — $40 nonvoted fee • Grandview TBD Ordinance No. 2011-TBD-02 (2011) — $20 fee • Maple Valley TBD Ordinance No. Q-12-001-TB❑ (2012) — $20 fee, specifying which projects will be funded Sales Tax Initial Imposition • Bellingham TBD Resolution No. 2010-1 (2010) — Ballot proposition for a 0.2% sales tax 24 • Clarkston TBD Resolution No. TBD-2015-01 (2015) — Ballot proposition to impose a 0.2% sales tax and rescind a nonvoted $20 vehicle license fee • Moses Lake TBD Resolution No_3 (2017) — Ballot proposition to impose a 0.2% sales tax and rescind a nonvoted $20 vehicle license fee. Includes staff report and voter fact sheet • Shoreline Resolution No. 430 (2018) — Ballot proposition for 20-year, 0.2% sales tax to finance sidewalk improvements through debt • Waitsburg TBD Resolution No, 2012-593 (2012) — Ballot proposition for a 0.1% sales tax Sales Tax Renewals • Sequim Resolution No. R-2018-03 (2018) - Ballot proposition for a 10-year, 0.2% sales tax renewal following assumption by city. Includes list of specific projects and cost estimates. Bond Measures • Auburn TBD Resolution No. 2012-2 (2012) - Seeking voter approval for $59 million in general obligation bonds for transportation improvements; failed with 50% approval. Material Change Policies • Maple Valley TBD Resolution No. R-12-004-TBD (2012) — Fairly standard material change policy used by many TBDs • Prosser TBD Resolution No.11-TBD-07 (2011) — Includes a definition of "material change" TBD Budgets • Arlington TBD 2015 Budget — Includes work plans and costs for individual projects • Leavenworth TBD 2019-20 Biennial Budget— Contains narrative to guide readers • Prosser TBD 2017 Budget — Short document with a one -page budget table • Wilkeson TBD 2018 Budget — Very simple, one -page budget Annual Transportation Improvement Reports • Ferndale TBD 2015 Annual Report — Short, two -page overview • Marysville TBD 2017 Annual Report — Includes project maps and photos Dissolution Ordinances • Yakima Ordinance No. 2014-006 (2014) - Dissolving TBD after projects were funded by other means Recommended Resources • WA Department of Licensing Local Transportation Benefit Disttict Fees — List of current TBD vehicle fees imposed by local jurisdictions 25 Last Modified: March 02, 2022 Follow us: ©2022 Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC). All rights reserved. Privacy e Terms. 26 Partnerships The City Council stressed the importance of strengthening partnerships with other organizations in the community for the most effective response in building a resilient and healthy community. The City utilizes partnerships to accomplish goals across a spectrum of areas within the community. A few successful examples include DAY for the Main Street Program, the Domestic Violence Coalition, to the OIC and management and programming of the Beauchamp Community Center. A comprehensive list by Departments follows of various partnership arrangements that exist to make Yakima a better community. Legal Department: Clerks: YWCA: Domestic Violence advocacy services Comprehensive Healthcare, Probation, Yakima County and others for the Domestic Violence CCRT information sharing group People for People: Community, Diversion Program case management services ESD 105: OJJDP Gang Suppression Grant/Yakima Youth Leadership Program Yakima School District: OJJDP Gang Suppression Grant/Yakima Youth Leadership Program Dispute Resolution Services: Gang Reduction and Intervention Task Force coordinator Yakima Housing Authority: The City of Yakima partners with the YHA to provide high quality, affordable housing for all persons. Finance: YACKCORP: A consortium established with Yakima County and the participating cities, and fire protection districts within Yakima County; to provide public safety services for its' members, thereby benefiting them in terms of efficiency, economy, improved tools, improved coordination of data and/or improving the members' ability to better protect and serve the citizens of Yakima County. DAY: A private non-profit committed to the preservation, development, marketing, and promotion of d of Downtown Yakima through focused efforts to build and maintain public and private partnerships that will fqster financial and creative investments in our future while embracing and celebrating our history. PFD: The District was established to lease and operate the Yakima Convention Center. This allows for a portion of the sales taxes currently collected and sent to the state to be directed back to the PFD. These funds will be used to finance the expansion of the Convention Center. 27 Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce: Connections and communication with the Yakima business community. Yakima County Development Association: The city worked with YCDA to distribute COVID relief funds and provide supportive services for the business community along with economic retention and recruitment. Habitat for Humanity: The City partners with Habitat for the development of Low-income housing. Public Works: Public Works Admin • Henry Beauchamp Jr. Community Center — staff liaison, provides activities/programs to underserved area • Yakima Arboretum — provides an extension of the City's park system • Downtown Association of Yakima — assists with capital programs, maintenance and activities within the downtown area, Engineering • Washington State Department of Transportation — primary funding source of road projects • Yakima County — coordination with projects; funding opportunities • Department of Ecology —funding for various projects such as Tiger Oil • North Yakima Conservation District — assists with floodplain mitigation; provides maintenance • Mid -Columbia Fisheries— a,sists with floodplain mitigation Refuse • Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) — coordination of efforts; planning of Yakima County landfill • Yakima Waste Management t coordination of efforts; clean ups Transit • Central Washington University — participates and funds towards Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter service • Yakima Valley Community College— participates with Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter service • Washington State Department of Transportation— provides funding towards Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter service; other funding opportunities • City of Selah— participates and funds towards Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter service • City of Ellensburg— participates and funds towards Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter service • A&A Motorcoach — provides the Yakima/Ellensburg Commuter service • Medstar — provides Dial -A -Ride service • Yakima Valley Conference. of Governments — issues state/federal grants 28 • Federal Transportation Association - funding Streets & Traffic • Washington State Department of Transportation — coordination of efforts on projects • Yakima County— coordination of efforts on projects • Yakima Valley Trolley Association— coordination of efforts on projects • Arts Commission — provides artwork for the utility cover wraps • Yakima County Health District — provides funding for certain "safety" projects Water • Yakima County — coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities • Nob Hill Water Association— coordination of efforts on projects • Department of Ecology— coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities such as Nelson Dam • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife— coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities such as Nelson Dam • Benton County Conservation District— coordination of efforts on projects such as YBIP • North Yakima Conservation District— coordination of efforts on projects such as YBIP • Yakama Nation— coordination of efforts on projects such as Nelson Dam and YBIP • Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Workgroup— coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities such as Aquifer Storage Recovery project • Bureau of Reclamation- coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities such as Nelson Dam • New Shanno Ditch Company— coordination of efforts on projects Wastewater • Department of Ecology— coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities • Washington Department of. Fish & Wildlife — coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities • Yakima County— coordination of efforts on projects; funding opportunities • Terrace Heights Sewer District- assist with funding of capital projects; provides sewer service to a greater area • City of Union Gap — assist;with funding of capital projects; provides sewer service to a greater area • Yakima School Districts — stormwater education with elementary students Parks & Rec • Rotary Clubs of Yakima (Southwest, Sunrise, Downtown, Trust)— funding of various park projects • Lions Club — funding of various park projects • West Valley Kiwanis Club —funding of various park projects 29 • Recreation & Conservation Office — funding opportunities • Department of Commerce- funding opportunities • YMCA — extension of Parks & Rec by providing swimming opportunities • SOZO — extension of Parks & •Rec by providing soccer and other activities; manages and maintains a City -owned park ' • Seniors, Inc. — provides activities and assists with purchasing items for Harman Center • Millennium Foundation — provides funding and artwork for parks • Neighborhood Health Services — provides needed services at WFCC • Yakima National Little League — assists with the maintenance of Elks Park • ESD 105 — team swimming at Lions Pool • Yakima School District — coordination of activities • West Valley School District- coordination of activities • La Casa Hogar— provides needed services at WFCC • Yakima Valley Sports Commission - — coordination of events and activities • Yakima Arboretum — provides an extension of the City's park system • Yakima Greenway Foundation - provides an extension of the City's park system (Sarge Hubbard Park) • Yakima Valley Japanese Bochi Association — development of the Japanese Garden at Tahoma Cemetery • Henry Beauchamp Jr. Community Center — provides activities/programs to underserved area • Central Washington Soccer. /kcademy — provides youth soccer; assists with costs and maintenance at Chesterley Park. • Yakima Pickle Ball Club — funding and efforts in the development of pickleball courts. • Boy Scouts/Eagle Scouts -,efforts on various park projects • Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) — coordination of high school tournaments at Kiwanis ballfield Police: ❑ Drug Enforcement Administratio,n.(DEA) ❑ Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) ❑ Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) ❑ Homeland Security Investigations'(HSI) ❑ Walkabout Yakima (WAY) LI Department of Justice (project Safe Neighborhoods) ❑ Yakima County Prosecutors Office ❑ Yakima City Attorney's Office ❑ Yakima County Probation ❑ Washington Department of Corrections ❑ YWCA Yakima ❑ Department of Child, youth, and Family Services (DCYF) ❑ Comprehensive Healthcare ❑ ASPEN Victim Advocacy Center 30 ❑ Yakima School District ❑ ESD 105 ❑ Yakima Memorial Hospital SANE Program ❑ Yakima County Department of Corrections ❑ SUNCOMM ❑ YMCA ❑ Union Gospel Mission ❑ Camp Hope ❑ Yakima Superior Court Administration ❑ Yakima Department of Human Resources ❑ YAKAMA Tribal Nation ❑ St. Michael's Church (domestic violence treatment advocacy) ❑ Senator Patty Murray's Office ❑ Yakima Valley Chamber of Commerce ❑ Yakima Volunteer Attorney Services ❑ Veteran's Affairs ❑ Washington Traffic Safety Commission Community Development Department; Office of Neighborhood Development Services (ONDS) HUD: Housing and Urban Development programs are used to support construction/rehabilitation of housing units in the City. ONDS administers these programs. • HOME Fund partners include: Catholic Charities, Yakima Housing Authority, Rod's House Habitat for Humanity ■ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) partners with Henry Beauchamp Community Center for program support operated by OIC, Washington Fruit Center Community Center was previously funded. Direct partnership with individual property owners in housing repairs. • HUD CDBG-CV funds were awarded to the City of Yakima to address various losses due to COVID-19 pandemic. CDBG-CV funds were awarded to People for People Meals on Wheels Code Administration & Enforcement • Yakima Humane Society - provides animal sheltering services on a contract basis with Animal Control • Walmart — provides a clean city/graffiti program grant • Standard Paint — provides paint and supplies for graffiti program • Department of Commerce — provides a grant for Clean Up day program/ graffiti abatement • Trolley Board — Building Official attends their meetings Planning Division • Department of Commerce - provides various grants, including the Housing Action Plan grant 31 • Department of Ecology — Planning Manager and Director serve on Advisory boards and Task forces related to Legacy Pesticide program and Model Toxic Control Act program update Many of the coalitions involve the administration as the liaison and several include City Council liaisons as representation for the Council. Some Partnerships are required by law whereas others have been created by interlocal agreements or are coalitions. As part of our quality management, we should review how effective we are in achieving our goals through these collaborations. Are we in the right ones and is our resource allocation consistent with our priorities? How effective are we in helping secure other resources (e.g. county mental health tax revenues, affordable housing funding) with our collaboration partners in achieving the City's priority goals and projects. The list is comprehensive, so we should start with our top priorities as a focus. Council Policy Deliberations 1. Given the information, from your perspective, are there any partnerships you want to discuss and/or prioritize? Are there priority areas where you feel like the City is lacking partnerships or could use more focused work on gaining partnerships or creating coalitions? 2. Do the current partnerships, and their work, align with the City's goals? 3. Are you as a Council liaison to some of these partnerships, getting effective policy support from staff? If not, what information would be helpful and how would that information be best received (i.e. meetings or briefings in -person with staff, staff memos, staff attending meetings with council liaisons, etc.)? Arelhere some Council liaison assignments that still make sense, or should there be some reconsideration of some of these assignments? 4. How effective are we in maximizing our leadership opportunities within these coalition and community partnerships? Distributed at the Meeting 7•12•z2 _3 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and members of the Yakima City Council From: Bob Harrison, City Manager Date: July 12, 2022 RE: ARPA funds The City of Yakima received $26.2 million from the federal government under the American Rescue Plan Act. These funds were provided in two installments of $13.1 million of which the first was received in May 2021 and the second installment was received in June 2022. In developing these recommendations, the City Administration used the following guidelines: 1. ARPA rules and guidelines 2. Council Priorities a. Fiscal sustainability b. Investment in Infrastructure c. Public safety d. Housing e. Strengthening community partnerships 3. Existing City financial obligations; city assets; and planned investment 4. Economic Development 5. Leverage ARPA funds to spur additional private or public investment The ARPA funds have provided the City a unique opportunity to leap ahead in meeting basic financial obligations, meet several community needs, enhance the basic productivity of City operations, and assist in economic development. Lost Revenue Utilizing the calculators provided by U.S. Treasury and GFOA, the City determined it is eligible to claim up to $11.9 million dollars in lost revenue from the ARPA Act. The lost revenue makes up for the estimated loss in revenue to the City during the defined time period in the ARPA Act. Once the revenue is booked by the City into the general fund, the City is free to utilize those revenues on a variety of expenses. Thus far through 2022, the City has committed $9,400,000 of this lost revenue to: • $4.6 million for the acquisition of 57 police patrol vehicles (Ordered and delivery starting) • $2.8 million for the acquisition of 3 fire engines and vehicles (Ordered w/delivery in Nov. 2022) • $2 million for the acquisition of the former Bank of America next to City Hall (Purchased 12/21) The City Administration recommends the following uses for the balance of lost revenue: • $1 million on the investment in new technology and software for City operations (2021/2022) • $1.5 million for the East Side Pool Capital Project (This was originally $300,000 for the space study and $1.2 million undesignated funds). The $300,000 for the space study is being charged to the original allocation for City Hall improvements. This then allocates the balance of the funds to the East Side Pool. ARPA Eligible projects In addition to lost revenue, ARPA designated several opportunities for specific eligible investments as outlined in the ARPA legislation. The City is proposing the following expenditures based on those guidelines for the remaining $14.3 million in ARPA funds. Project Amount Year Status Mill Site Water & Sewer $6,000,000 2022/23 Currently in design/engineering Water/Sewer Investments $1,000,000 2022 Currently in design/engineering Mental Health/Homeless $1,500,000 2021/22/23 Working with Comprehensive MH on developing the MCAT program Women and Family Shelter $2,000,000 2022 Purchase and sale agreement done; waiting on final contract to be approved within next couple of months. DV Advocate — City $250,000 2022/23/24 Position has been filled Yakima Convention Center $800,00A (500,000) 2021/22 There was an initial allocation of $500,000 with $300,000 left to see how this element of the business recovers from the pandemic. Community Partnerships $500,000 2022 RFP is in process of issuance. Maximum grant of $100,000 per agency. Affordable Housing $1,000,000 2022 - 2024 For Discussion at Council Retreat Yakima Arts Center $1,250,000 2022 - 2024 Serious interest from YAMA. Plan on tasking the Arts Commission to find additional partners The in-depth descriptions of the project can be found below. $6 million for Mill Site Water and sewer improvements (2022/23): This project funds the necessary water and sewer improvements needed for the project. The City is able to maximize the state LIFT program which will provide an additional $6 million in matching funds. The balance of the project costs will need to be funded through a bond issuance and the balance of the LIFT funds. $1 million for water/sewer investments (2022): There are fully developed residential areas in the City limits that still do not have sewer and are relying on septic systems. This allocation will provide funding for sewers in certain neighborhoods. $1.5 million for homeless/mental health related programs (2021/2022/2023): The City has been working with Comprehensive Health to partner in reducing homelessness and the impact of behavioral health and addition on homelessness. We are finalizing the development of a pilot program in this area. The City is also exploring a partnership to provide a capital investment in a day shelter for homeless individuals. $2 million for YWCA woman's shelter (2022): The City has one of the worst domestic violence rates in the State of Washington. The City has revamped its approach with police and legal and partnering with the YWCA on its approach to domestic violence. This capital grant would be for the investment in woman and family shelter for transitional housing as families try to rebuild their lives. $250,000 for funding for three years of an additional domestic violence advocate (2022): The City currently has one domestic violence advocate and the program has been very successful. The City administration plans to add a second advocate the salary and portion of benefits of which can be offset by ARPA costs for 22, 23, and 24. Based on the outcomes of the program, and existing financial needs at that time the City will evaluate the position further in the 2025 budget as the full costs of the position will be borne by the City at that time. $800,000 for Yakima Convention Center support (2021/2022): The City has provided $500,000 in support to date for the Yakima Convention Center for lost earned revenue (revenue earned by the facility itself through rentals, etc.). Given the continuing pandemic impact, it is difficult to know when the tourism market will stabilize. Setting aside an additional $300,000 will provide some financial buffer if needed based on how the local tourism economy continues to rebound from the pandemic. If by the end of 2022, the extra set aside is not needed, it could be released for other projects. $500,000 for community partnerships (2022): The Administration is proposing setting aside $500,000 for 5 one-time community partnership grants of $100,000 apiece. We would anticipate issuing an RFP in 2022 that allow non-profit partners to put forth grant proposals that meet varying community needs and that are consistent with the ARPA requirements. $1 million for Affordable Housing (2022/2023): Similar to the community partnerships concept, the City could open an RFP for community partners that can complete an affordable housing project in Yakima within the next three year. $1.25 million for Yakima Community Arts Center (2022/2023): With the acquisition of the BOA building, the City will free up the second floor, and is currently not using the third or fourth floor of the facility. Remodeling and putting this additional facility space into productive use for educational opportunities for communities that were negatively impacted by COVID will also provide economic development benefits. The City is currently studying an Arts District and the Arts Center could be an anchor for that development. The facility will also provide opportunities throughout the day and evening to offer courses in painting, drawing, dance, and the visual and performing arts. Lastly, moving the Capital Theater offices to the Yakima Arts Center will also save approximately annually which is currently being used for lease costs. While this concept needs additional study, setting aside funds for the remodeling of the existing City Hall will also provide matching funds for potential additional grants that are available for these purposes. (Note: a portion of the space at City Hall will likely still be needed for City Hall internal service offices). Serves as the Collaborative Workgroup/ Task force required for federal grants Strategic Plan to end gang and gun violence Maintains list of services online Oversees GRIT Village GRIT STRUCTURE GRIT Coordinator Community Partners Distributed at the Meeting Ia ; , Stakeholders (police, prosecutors, service providers directly working with gang involved youth, e.g.) Interested and concerned individual community members