The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/23/2010 00 Agenda and Packet • Yakima City Council August 2010 Retreat Agenda Monday, August 23 2010 9:30 am- 1:OOpm Harman Senior Center • Review Yakima City Council Policy Priorities Progress Update • Discuss Council and City staff implementation efforts re: Council Policy Priorities ® ► Provide direction re: continued implementation of Council Policy Priorities • Recommend any necessary modifications to Council Policy Priorities O Discuss Upcoming Forms of Government Public Hearing O Other Business O Adjournment 41) 111111EL1 C M11VBUl1VIJ To: Council Members From: City Manager Dick Zais Assistant City Manager Dave Zabell Community Relations Manager Randy Beehler Subject: City Council August 2010 Retreat Date: August 19 2010 Council Members, • During the Council's January 23, 2010 retreat, facilitator John Cooper assisted the Council in developing a set of 13 Action Steps based on discussions that took place during the retreat. During a March 2, 2010 follow -up Council study session, the Council developed and then ranked a set of 10 Policy. Priorities (along with 2 items listed under Additional Priorities). Since the March 2, 2010 study session, the full Council, Council Committees, and City staff have been working to implement the Policy Priorities. One of the Action Steps from the January 23, 2010 retreat was for the Council to conduct a follow -up retreat in late summer or early fall in order to review progress made in implementing the Council Policy Priorities. A follow -up retreat will take place on August 23, 2010 from 9:30 am to 1:00 pm at the Harman Senior Center. To help you prepare for the retreat, please review the attached information: 1 The. August 23, 2010 retreat agenda 2) The current City of Yakima Vision Statement and Mission Statement 3) The current Yakima City Council Strategic Priorities 4) Council Policy Priorities developed during the March 2, 2010 Council study session 5) Action Steps developed during the January 23, 2010 City Council retreat . 6) Yakima City Council Policy Priorities Progress Update — August 2010 7) Minutes of the January 23, 2010 City Council retreat 8) Memo and PowerPoint presentation from Asst. City Manager Dave Zabell re: capital facilities and infrastructure investment plans 9) Memo from Streets & Traffic Operations Manager Joe Rosenlund and information re: potential Yakima streets bond presented earlier this year to the Council Transit /Transportation Committee • * Please bring this packet with you to the retreat * Any items that Council members wish to discuss during the retreat that are not specifically listed on the agenda may be brought up under Other Business. Please contact any of us if you need additional information or clarification of the material provided in this packet in order to help you prepare for a successful retreat. • • , 11 1 4;r11 ;k:-% 1 1 11 \ \ A City of Yakima Vision Statement Adopted March 2008 To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant, safe, and strong Yakima community City of Yakima Mission Statement Adopted March 2008 • 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 • • „„ ,■"•■• ' 1. 4 • • . ,.:•, ...,..,• . , . ...,, .• ., Yakima City Council Strategic Priorities i 1 i . i i -----: } Adopted March 2008 • • 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 • , • v- � p Yakima City Council Policy Priorities March 2010 * Highest Priority - The suppression, intervention, and prevention of: . Gang Crime - Gang Violence - Gun Violence • Highest Priority - Address ongoing economic /fiscal challenges affecting the sustainability of City services * High Priority - Evaluate existing City capital facilities /infrastructure investment plans and work with Council Economic Development Committee to develop a presentation for, a Council study session. * High Priority - Hold regular, less- formal meetings of the City Council to allow for discussion of pending /emerging issues * High Priority - Work with North 1st Street Association to design public infrastructure improvements for the area and to identify funding sources * • High Priority - Develop a city manager recruitment/selection /transition process prior to the retirement of the current manager - Pursue opportunities for collaboration, resource sharing, and potential consolidation with other local government entities in our region * Pri •; +,,, - Explore potential improvements to Fair Avenue corridor * ' ediiurn Pri m(°1 - Assess and adopt best practices related to communications and community, outreach, specifically focusing on evolving social media applications - Assign Council Economic Development Committee to explore potential initiation of community visioning process • Additional Priorities - Continue to monitor enforcement of Adult Business Ordinance - Identify appropriate amendments to City Council Rules of Procedure and update accordingly Yakima City :Council 2010 °,Retre'at 7 �F03F Action Steps (in no particular order) January 2010 O Schedule City Council Study Session re: Adult Business Ordinance o Assign Council Rules and Procedures Committee to review current Yakima City Council Rules of Procedure and recommend any necessary revisions to the full City Council ® North 1s Street Improvements - Determine what steps can be taken immediately - Seek input from area business owners - Continue /accelerate public safety emphasis in the area - Provide technical /organizational support to North 1st Street Association - Pursue potential funding (SEID, state, etc.) for initial streetscape design and eventual implementation - Explore potential physical presence of City government in the area ® o Explore potential improvements to Fair Avenue corridor o Schedule City Council Study Session (2 -3 hours) to review all existing City capital facilities /infrastructure plans O Seek opportunities for regional collaboration with Yakima County, other cities, and other agencies in order to maximize available resources o Explore potential improvements to City communications /outreach efforts o Develop city manager transition process o Discuss culture of City government - Consider getting input from experts (business leaders, academics, etc.) - Review roles /definitions /models A Assign each Council committee to review committee mission /purpose and make a recommendation to the full City Council re: continuation of committee O Assign Council Economic Development Committee to explore potential for initiation of community visioning process o Establish 5 -10 Council priorities that will direct policy, including: - Reduce gang crime and gang violence - Address continuing economic challenges facing the City • 6i Schedule 6 -month follow -up Council retreat . . . . . . . . • • . • . 0 . • • • . . . ....„ ... y k ,„„ •. ..•, ... • _ . A 0, '''' . , • • • Y • ,A • • • • . Vok • - • • - • . PO • ' . . • . • VV4 ,,, , , , S•A', . _ , e ,," : . • ,-,,„ „,..., ., ''''' . • ' ' - '' ' 0 , # ' . 2 1 4 , : , , rig:V 'V% • ..„ • . # ,. • ._. • \os.,3,..„„, \if • \* • - • .:;' • . . ,, : omit , . 'fv-70-4 i ',W4 • ' ' - '- A l # , . tik , L' • . '' ' . # .-- : ' • .0 i ii40. - - '', - : / - I *:. • ' • 'ATAiFIXiA '-v---4 • J .. 00 c • StOtiLliitlk' i': • .'. -.: / • .t fikt • ' '' ' ' '" '0 : - ' i e 4:49 2020 , 4hA-' : CA • ' . ' ' A I . . 0 , ,,,,. •, , . ko ,..,,,,,4, 'V . r .i':.. :', # 1 ' . -,.:-.,- : ', -... • . . • .::.'' b :: ...t,;,.. . . • • 44 1 ' - -,Rgn ' - -6' - .. ,' ""'.- ''''''''' "7...4' • . . . . • , . . . it i I i C C U # . 11 „ me , Yakim . • „It,,...,........,___„,, ____:i . . . 0 . . • , 1 • • I : • '''''' 1 6. - 1 • ,1 il e r ,,,,- 1 , „ 3 1 ' • r-. 1 , 1 . . r4--i es 1 i 1 .1 1 7 A t . * 1 ......." ---- ---- ......? i - or ....- ........ -....' ......... ,,,,,,, .1'0 i I ...J • , ... P v ess. Update r ogr:_,,,,„.....„ Up.,,,a,2,:.. ,.__, _ • • . . . , . . • , .., . 1 • " r 1 , , 2 August 01, ..: • • . • , . . • 0 • . . • • • . • . . • . • . • • , . * 'F e. fi Yakima City Council - Policy Priorities Progress Update August 2010 , '"01476`/ 4 ;''' & E'"5..+<x o `� "�" ^ - # � 44�� f 0q Ig l/P rio t i y The suppress = ent- rive n tion a e ®re = to Gang: V io �enrce G ® e m - � � : Public safety is the Yakima City Council's Number 1 Priority. The Council's central focus right now is to increase the City's efforts to combat gang crime and gang violence. The City is undertaking its own prevention, intervention, and suppression initiatives and is building cooperative partnerships with other public and private entities to attack the gang problem in the Yakima Valley. • Gang Free Initiative Approved by the City Council in May 2010, the Gang Free Initiative ( "GFI ") is designed to coordinate the gang prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts of multiple public and private entities in the community in order to maximize their effects. - Gang Awareness Campaign — Launched in April 2010, a 4 -month Gang Awareness Campaign coordinated by local business leaders featured TV, print, and radio ads, a TV • special aired on all local stations, and other media -based education efforts. The awareness campaign has resulted in hundreds of people contacting local agencies to learn how to combat gang crime and gang violence. - GFI Steering Committee — In early July 2010, the City Council appointed a Gang Free Initiative Steering Committee comprised of a cross section of community representatives. The Steering Committee's primary assignment is to develop strategies and tasks for implementation of the GFI. - GFI Coordinator — In May 2010, the City Council authorized creation of a GFI Coordinator staff position and recruiting is currently underway. The GFI Coordinator will be responsible for implementing and administering the GFI, securing ongoing funding for the GFI, and engaging local organizations and community members in cooperative gang prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts. - GFI Community Assessment Over the next several months, a community assessment will be conducted to determine specific needs and areas of focus for the GFI to address. The results of the community assessment will help to guide allocation of GFI resources • and will strengthen future efforts to secure ongoing GFI funding.. 1 Nuisance Property Ordinance An ordinance approved by the City Council in April 2010 allows properties involved in • multiple serious police calls to be declared nuisance properties. Owners of nuisance properties are given 30 days to take action to eliminate problems or face significant fines. Federal Agency Intervention Announced in June 2010, plans are underway for multiple federal agencies and Yakima Valley law enforcement agencies to form a task force specifically designed to combat gang crime and gang violence. Formation of the task force will be a prelude to the potential implementation of a federal Safe Streets program in the Yakima area. Yakima County Ganq Commission The City is a key partner in the formation of the Yakima County Gang Commission, which is designed to coordinate gang prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts throughout the county. Emphasis Patrols Coordinated emphasis patrols in targeted neighborhoods have proven successful in reducing gang crime and gang violence. In May 2010, an emphasis patrol focused on 3 target areas in Yakima resulted in a more than 11% reduction in serious crime in those areas when compared to May 2009. Another emphasis patrol in June 2010 resulted in serious crime dropping by more than 20% in the areas targeted by the patrol when compared to the same month the previous year. Additional emphasis patrols will be conducted depending on available funding. Ganq Enforcement Team & ProAct Unit The Yakima Police Department operates both a Gang Enforcement Team and a ProAct Unit, which work in unison to ensure 7- day -a -week coverage by specialized squads devoted to the suppression of gang crime and gang violence. Prevention and Intervention Programs The City devotes additional resources specifically aimed at gang intervention and prevention efforts including the Yakima Police Athletic League, the School Resource Officers program, the Gang Resistance Education and Training program, the Volunteers in Policing program, the Crime Free Rental Housing program, and the Block Watch program (with a dedicated Block Watch Coordinator). �� H �ghest Prior t Address o ngoing e /fiscal c # s® I'e g. . f k z _ _ a a , ec 'tag the sustao�na ®`t, F 2010 Budget Status A slow economy has hurt City tax revenues and has required the City Council to make many difficult budget decisions. Even after eliminating 24 staff positions in the 2010 budget, freezing salaries for most City employees, and reducing programs and services, additional steps have had to be taken this year to keep the City's budget. balanced. Furloughs have been implemented for 220 employees (which has helped the City avoid additional layoffs) and spending on public infrastructure improvements, travel, supplies, fuel, and other basics has been reduced. Approximately $1.3 million in 2010 mid -year budget reductions have been made. The net result is that fewer local government services are now being delivered by the City than in the past. 2 2011 Budget Development The dramatic drop in tax revenues experienced earlier this year has slowed, but the longer - term outlook is still very challenging. More difficult choices lie ahead in crafting a balanced 2011 budget. Early projections show a potential 2011 General Government budget shortfall of about $2.2 million. As an initial cost reduction effort, in early August the City Council decided to not include outside agency funding in the 2011 budget. The Priorities of Government budgeting model adopted by the City Council in July 2009 has been used effectively in determining how to make reductions so far and will play an important role in how the Council decides to allocate limited resources in the future. Budget Policies In August 2010, . the City Council adopted policies recommended by the Council Budget • Committee establishing specific budgeting guidelines regarding minimum balance levels for • General Fund Cash Reserves, utilization and allocation of General Fund Cash Reserves, and clearer identification within the budget of non - recurring General Government expenditures. The Council Budget Committee is continuing to work with City staff to develop additional policies to establish guidelines for determining fees and charges levels, and expects to provide a recommendation to the. full Council in the near future.. . Outside Funding The City is continually searching for outside funding to supplement revenues generated locally through taxes, fees, rates, and other sources. More than $37 million of the 2010 Citywide budget has come in the form of grants, state and federal allocations, intergovernmental revenues, private contributions, etc. That outside funding, which equates to nearly 20% of the total City budget, allows the City to make needed capital investments and to provide programs and services that otherwise would not be available to the community. • Potential Fire Apparatus Ballot Measure In June 2010, the City Council conducted a study session regarding challenges faced by the City in replacing aging fire apparatus and determined that a stable funding solution is required. As a result of that study session, work is underway to develop a potential future ballot measure ' that could address both immediate and long -term fire equipment needs. No decision has been made yet regarding when such a ballot measure might be presented to voters. Potential Street Maintenance Bond. • The Council Transit/Transportation Committee is currently considering the potential of placing a street maintenance bond on a future general election or special election ballot. A bond is one option for generating funding necessary to make critical repairs to the City's aging street system. The last time a street bond was approved by Yakima voters was more than 25 years. ago. . Jail Cost Savings Since the City began providing public defenders to inmates during the arraignment process last year, considerable jail cost savings have been realized. With a public defender present at arraignment, inmates are able to be released from jail while awaiting further legal processing. It is estimated that $700,000 in jail costs will be saved in 2010 due to the expansion of the public defender program. Grant Pays For Extended Yakima Transit Hours Yakima Transit extended the hours of service for all of its routes by one hour in March 2010 thanks to a Jobs Access and Reverse Commute ( "JARC ") grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation. The JARC grant will pay for an ® 18 -month demonstration project aimed at helping people find and keep jobs by providing transportation options. 3 Legislative Committee Formed Earlier this year, the City Council formed a Legislative Committee in order to focus the City's legislative agenda. The committee is making a concerted effort to engage key legislators regarding issues, including securing additional state and federal funding, that have been • identified by the City as priorities for consideration in Olympia and in Washington, D.C. The committee will play a central role in developing and implementing a strategy to ensure that the City's legislative efforts are successful and will work closely with other local organizations to coordinate . lobbying efforts. .4 Hugh Prrorit� Evaluate existin capital fa ties ® ® fras tore ; inv p lans a wor in = o � u c o 4 . De a op k e two o m i, to d - ? . s - f o ' a ' fudy sessio 1 s `, �. s , , - w et w , ,a ,- t , ` . , ,, �. . �. . Yakima Planning Commission Involvement In the fall of 2009, the Yakima County Commission notified the City of its intention to withdraw from an agreement under which a joint City /County Regional Planning Commission made recommendations regarding land use policy to both the City and County. In place of the Regional Planning Commission, the City Council established a City of Yakima Planning Commission in May 2010. As an element of its initial efforts, the 7- member City of Yakima Planning Commission will review and provide input regarding refinement of the City's existing inventory of capital facilities and infrastructure investment plans and /or development of new plans. • Economic Development Committee Discussion ' Earlier this year, the Economic Development Committee received an update regarding the status of the current inventory of capital facilities and infrastructure investment plans that have been developed by the City in recent years. The committee is awaiting further input from the Yakima Planning Commission. Following input from the planning commission, a more extensive presentation may be developed for the City Council. Hol : P k Heg S h riority 5!.- c dt regular less formal % e e t n f aIl =' aor dis cussion ® ® n;d ®i _ o � ; �.� i s a Standing Meeting In March 2010, the City Council unanimously voted to conduct a "Standing :Meeting" on April 20 in order to provide Council Members with an opportunity to listen to each other's views on specific subjects. Assistant Mayor Kathy Coffey proposed the Standing Meeting concept because she thought it would allow for better discussion and more free - flowing group dynamics. The April 20 Standing Meeting included discussion of issues related to gang crime and gang violence, the City's annexation policy, and the formation of an ad hoc committee. Following the April 20 Standing Meeting, the Council agreed by consensus that the meeting • had not met the Council's expectations and to hold off scheduling future such meetings for the time being. 4 • • City Council Listening Meetings In June 2010, the City Council conducted 3 separate "Listening Meetings" on consecutive evenings at different locations throughout the community. The Listening Meetings provided an • opportunity for citizens to share ideas and concerns with the City Council in a more casual setting than is normally available during formal Council business meetings. The Listening Meetings were held at the Yakima Police Athletic League Center, the Southeast Community Center, and the Harman Senior Center. Efforts are currently underway to address many of the issues raised during the Listening Meetings and to incorporate ideas suggested by citizens into the Council's policy priorities. a S i � W ork ' w�th North l Sf � , Stre k et Ass ®c ®: ® ` a n P i Pig H-11 l ` ` �tlon tl� : b ` l n fra st u e u l prove ents for r e _ c is i r IC S' tb y � ® ® * ,' • Council Ad Hoc Committee Earlier this year, the City Council formed the North 1 Street Ad Hoc Committee (Adkison, Coffey, Ensey) to direct efforts to make public infrastructure improvements throughout the North 1 Street area. The committee has begun to formulate.a strategy to recruit members,, including both business and property owners from the area, to form a North 1 Street Association. The committee is also identifying "nuisance properties" in the area in order to focus law enforcement and code enforcement efforts on them. SEID Funding for Studv of Proposed North 1 Street Corridor Revitalization Project ® Earlier this year, the Yakima County Supporting Investments in Economic Diversification ( "SIED ") board awarded the City a $25,000 grant for a study of the feasibility of the proposed North 1 Street Corridor Revitalization Project. The City also contributed matching funds toward the study in the amount of $5,000. The study, which will provide guidance regarding further development of the North 1s Street Corridor Revitalization Project, is expected to get underway later this year. Pilot Project Preliminary planning is underway for the City and Gasperetti's Restaurant to partner on a pilot project featuring potential public infrastructure improvements along the North 1 Street corridor. The pilot project could include sidewalk, lighting, landscaping and other - improvements along the frontage of Gasperetti's property. The project could serve as a demonstration of the potential improvements that could be made throughout the North 1'st Street corridor. High Priority - Dev elopx a citytmainag�er r /selection /4 transition processprlor:;to th - e remoe' � ` cu re t c •t ma a:o : ittltt \-,14424-4, 4 Transition Process ' • In July 2010, City Manager Dick Zais announced his plans to retire by early July 2011. At the July 20 City Council regular business meeting, Mayor Micah Cawley suggested that prior to formally launching recruitment efforts for the next city manager, the Council may want to 5 consider scheduling a study session to address interest expressed by some community • members regarding a potential change in the City's form of government. The Council unanimously. agreed, and a forms of government study session was conducted on August 10 At the conclusion of the study session, the Council unanimously agreed to schedule a public hearing to receive community input regarding the potential . development of a ballot measure to • change from the existing council- manager form of government to a mayor - council form of government. A date for such a public hearing has been for September 9th 1 IVIediurn Pr on 4 ursue opportunities, for c o 6aboratil o n ; rtes {ou c s a nd.pote t a con�so i t ®� A , �h ' t, F 5 '; - © ©y - r , n 'a: ifie -, `Q $ a 4 . 6 Pf , Public Safety Records Computer System The Yakima Police Department, the Yakima Fire Department, the Yakima County Sheriffs Department, and numerous other Yakima Valley Iawenforcement and emergency services agencies will cooperatively implement a regional public safety records computer system later this year. The . system will improve the ability of local law enforcement and emergency services agencies to access common data and better coordinate response efforts. Selah Transit Route Expanded In March 2010, the Yakima Transit route to Selah was expanded to include the Speyers Road /Freemont Avenue area of town. Yakima Transit's Selah route started in 2005 with a grant- funded pilot project. In 2006, Selah voters approved a sales tax increase to permanently fund Yakima Transit service to the community. III City /County Purchasing Operations Consolidation In November 2009, the City and Yakima County consolidated their respective purchasing operations. The consolidation is designed to control costs while also improving efficiencies for both the City and the County in negotiating contracts with vendors, processing bids, and maintaining all necessary purchasing records. The consolidation is the first of its kind to occur between city and county government in the U.S. in at least 30 years. The purchasing services contract between the City and the County will be renegotiated on an annual basis. Mill District Development — State LIFT Funding Utilizing up to $25 million in state funding through the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool ( "LIFT ") program, the City is developing plans to construct public infrastructure to serve the redevelopment of the former Boise Cascade mill site. The mill site's owners envision a wide range of uses for the approximately 220 acres from commercial to light industrial, recreational to retail, and believe the property is well situated to become a key economic center for the Central Washington region. Uniform Development Standards /Growth Management Act Interlocal Agreement Discussions between the City and Yakima County are continuing regarding the creation of uniform development standards that would apply throughout the Yakima Urban Growth Area. Uniform standards would provide predictability for developers and consistency in the application of rules and regulations. Uniform development standards are one element of an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Yakima County, which is currently being renegotiated, that assures development within the Urban Growth Area is consistent with the state's Growth Management Act. • 6 Airport Safety Overlay The City, Yakima County, and the City of Union Gap are working together with board members • and staff of the Yakima Air Terminal to complete revisions to the existing Airport Safety Overlay ( "ASO ") and to conduct environmental review of revisions that are developed. Once adopted, the revisions will provide predictability for property owners and developers within the ASO. West Valley Neighborhood Plan • Work is continuing on the West Valley Neighborhood Plan, a "subarea" element of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The plan will provide a common vision for the development of the western portion of the Yakima Urban Growth Area. Once completed, the plan is intended to be jointly adopted by Yakima County and the City. 4 -Party Wastewater Agreement Discussions are underway regarding potential modifications that may be necessary to the 4- Party Wastewater Agreement between the City, Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, and the Terrace Heights Sewer District. The agreement governs use of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City, and has been in effect since the mid- 1970s. oa ks a e r 4d a # . r ", * AtVP54 m Priority Explore o eten� al m ®ro , s �to 4 o it v:e e£° t corn ®or • • Kiwanis Park Improvements In June 2010, the new Downtown Yakima Rotary Club Playground and new Southwest Yakima Rotary Club Basketball Court were both opened at Kiwanis Park. The majority of the approximately $156,000 cost for the playground equipment was paid for by a grant from the Downtown Yakima Rotary Club. The playground elements, including a "Spacenet Climber," were chosen by students from Adams Elementary. The Southwest Rotary Club donated approximately $20,000 to.pay for construction of the new state -of- the -art basketball court, which features an aluminum jump circle in its center with the club's Togo on in. A new restroom facility, located near the Southwest Rotary Club Basketball Court, was also installed this spring. More improvements to Kiwanis Park are currently in ,.process and include additional parking as well as upgraded playfields. A new use for the old City incinerator building is also being explored. Public Infrastructure Improvements On Hold Consideration of additional public infrastructure improvements along the Fair Avenue corridor is on hold due to current economic conditions and funding constraints. g w"ei$ � 44 M ec f l um�Prio qty =- Assess�tandladopt,b`est p ra c ti c�e r s vela e ® : Co lYlimunlcatio $ and com It fr'o'u> - o ecl sic o l fo'C s l ® ; IMP '11013 33 Social Media Policy Adopted In June 2010, the City Council approved a Social Media Policy that incorporates elements of a dozen or more similar policies from other governmental entities, but is also tailored to meet the unique needs of the City. The policy provides basic guidelines for City divisions and departments regarding establishing social media sites as well as sets standards for the use of social media sites in order to comply with existing public records retention statutes, privacy laws, and use of publicly -owned equipment requirements. By examining the best practices of other governmental entities, the Community Relations Division has developed a social media strategy that is cautious, yet allows the City to benefit from this growing method of information exchange and community building. Twitter and Facebook Sites Launched Following the June adoption by the City Council of a Social Media Policy, the Community Relations'Division launched official City Twitter and Facebook sites to enhance its communications and outreach efforts. The Twitter site ( @CityofYakima) has been up and running since early July and is being utilized to notify "followers" of road construction updates, traffic restrictions, City meeting notices, news releases, availability of documents on the City's website, and other important information. Activated in August, the Facebook site (search • CityofYakima on Facebook) allows the City to share information similar to that provided through Twitter and includes current and historical City pictures, links to City Council member biographies, various City policies, and facts about Yakima. s NAVAtt:r 44. M ® ItJ ; P r to rity - A ss ig n ° Cou c n Ec a oo e Comm nee explore I ® .I to ® {{ a e° mu nity is ioni 9 ®r ® { - � " fi t ,. Community Visioning Process In the early 1990s, more than 300 volunteer committee members invested over a year's worth of effort to create "Vision 2010," a blueprint for what community members foresaw as the Upper Yakima Valley's future. Coordinated by the Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, the Visioning Yakima 2010 project examined 9 major issues facing the region in the coming years including economic development, education and employment training, the environment, growth planning, health care, housing, humanity and family, quality of life, and rural and agriculture. At the City Council's January 2010 retreat, a suggestion was made to explore the potential of initiating a similar community visioning process. After discussions with the current Chamber of Commerce CEO, it was determined that the availability of resources to undertake such an effort is insufficient at this time. However, the suggestion will be reconsidered in the • future. 8 • ET' Continue To Monitor Enforcement of Adult Business Ordinance The City's Codes Division and Police Department have continued to monitor the activity of establishments whose operations are regulated at least in part by the Adult Business Ordinance, and have not reported any violations for several months. Earlier this year, the Yakima County Commission imposed a 6 -month moratorium on adult businesses within the unincorporated areas of the county. The moratorium allows the County some time to draft and adopt legislation to govern such businesses. The City's Planning Division is monitoring development of the County's legislation and, based on what is ultimately adopted by the County, may make recommendations to the City Council regarding potential modifications to the City's Adult Business Ordinance. Identify Appropriate Amendments To City Council Rules of Procedure and Update A The Council Rules and Procedures Committee has not identified any necessary updates that need to be made to the Council's Rules of Procedure. The committee will continue to monitor the Council's Rules of Procedure and make recommendations to the full Council regarding any necessary updates as needed. 9 . ® YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT JANUARY 23, 2010 YAKIMA CONVENTION CENTER 8 :30 A.M — 2:30 P.M. . 1. Roll CaII Present: Council: Mayor Micah Cawley, presiding, Assistant Mayor Kathy Coffey, Council Members Maureen Adkison, Dave Edler, Rick Ensey, Dave Ettl and Bill Lover (absent after 10:28 a.m.) Staff: City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Zabell, Community Relations Manager Beehler, and City Clerk Kloster Facilitator: John Cooper, President and CEO of YVVC John Cooper gave opening statements and defined. his role as facilitator. Each Council Member introduced themselves for the benefit of the television audience. 2. Retreat guidelines and desired outcomes Council Member Lover commented that he believes in government by majority not by consensus and felt that if they were going to discuss policy issues he expects there to be debate. Mayor Cawley commented that they were not going to discuss the issue of "lingerie" baristas at this meeting, but were hoping to determine what venue will be used • for that discussion, e.g. a study session or a Council meeting. Following discussion it appeared to be the consensus to hold a study session on this issue. ACTION STEP: Schedule a study session on the Adult Business Ordinance. . Mr. Cooper described the recommended procedure for the retreat and the goal to establish action steps from the discussions. 3. Roles and responsibilities of the City Council, City administration, and City staff Discussed throughout the retreat. 4. Yakima City Council Rules of Procedure Assistant Mayor Coffey pointed out that, according to the "Standard Motions and Rules of Procedure of Yakima City Council," a motion cannot be withdrawn by the mover without majority approval. That is different than the way the Council has been handling withdrawn motions. Also discussed was "a call for the question" noting it requires a super majority vote to stop debate. It was suggested that Mayor Cawley, Assistant Mayor Coffey, Community Relations Manager Beehler and City Attorney Cutter take time to review and discuss Roberts Rules of Orders and how they apply to Council meetings. It was also noted that the City Council Rules of Procedure was last updated in March 2007. Having the Rules and Procedures Committee review the rules and procedures and make recommendations to the full Council was suggested: They will schedule a • • Work session with Randy Beehler and 'Jeff Cutter. • ACTION STEP: — Review the rules and procedures at the committee level and recommend any necessary revisions to the full council. JANUARY 23, 2010 — COUNCIL RETREAT 5. Council member priorities • The following priorities were listed when each Council member was solicited for input: (note: the issues of gang violence and budget challenges were set aside as they have already been established as high priorities for the Council) Dave EttI - To be in touch with Yakima, champion things from the people to the Council. Be a source of communication and facilitation; an ombudsman. Also clean up the garbage on the highways around the city. He asked how we can use the media to get information to the public. Maureen Adkison — More collaboration with other cities, other departments and the County so we are not replicating services or reinventing the wheel. She also sees a need to develop a plan to replace City Manager Zais when he retires in the future. • Bill Lover — Fair Avenue and N. 1 Street. We need an interconnector between • downtown and the fairgrounds. Those are in addition to the list of fifteen future challenges and opportunities all of which he considers as priorities. Micah Cawley — Aquatics program, a street bond, and privatization. Dave Edier — Sustainable funding, e.g. reformation of government; regionalizing, e.g. possibility of a park district or fire authority; infrastructure, public safety Rick Ensey — Common codes between City /County, clean up N. 1 Street, and fix • the broken culture at City Hall. Kathy Coffey — Coordinate and maximize City -owned public facilities such as the Southeast Community Center and Police Athletic League building. Revitalize N. 1st Street. Renovate historic homes in east Yakima. We need to develop a 3 -5 year plan to look at infrastructure issues. Council Member Ensey elaborated. He believes the organizational culture at City Hall is broken and that both Council and staff are responsible. There is a misunderstanding as to roles and there are respect issues that need to be improved. He clarified that, as electeds, he sees their roles are 1) policy makers setting strategy with staff carrying out the tactics, 2) representing constituents, 3) oversight. Council does not relinquish responsibility when they refer matters to staff, but continues to oversee the issue. Staffs major role is an information resource. He said he doesn't always believe the information he is given; that some is omitted and other information is biased in order to influence policy. He gave examples: • EMS levy - a sunset clause in particular. He felt we could have been more successful if there had been a sunset clause. Staff should have come to Council with a variety of alternatives and let them make the decision. Instead, they said this was the only option. • The question on ambulance response times — he didn't think Council ever got a straight answer. • Priorities of Government budget model — he had the overall feeling that staff dragged their feet because they didn't want to change the current process. 2 • JANUARY 23, 2010 — COUNCIL RETREAT • He referred to the recent article in the Herald Republic about the exchange r between Bill Lover and Police Chief Granato at the recent Public Safety Committee meeting regarding the crime analyst position. The Chief said he is the one responsible for what happens in his department. Rick did not agree: He believes Council is to oversee staff to ensure tactics used are in line with what they want. He thought the Chief and Deputy Chief have both • been out of line in dealing with the Council. Assistant Mayor Coffey commented that she believed it was not the Council's place to publicly question department heads or staff. They should direct their issues to the City Manager. Council Member Ettl expressed concern with having to go through the City Manager first. Council Member Lover explained his view of what happened in the Public Safety Committee meeting. Council Member Ensey stated that because we are going to replace the City Manager soon, the most important thing this Council can do is set the culture in City Hall. He said we need to determine how we want our government to relate to its citizens and then choose a City Manager that can do that. Council Member Lover left at 10:28 a.m. • The North First Street priority was discussed in more detail. Assistant Mayor Coffey suggested an architectural study and streetscape be prepared in case anything can be done during the legislative session. She also suggested preparing a request for funding from SIED to do the study; assisting the North First Street Association with organizational issues, and having the Community and Economic Development Department research potential funding sources for the streetscape and economic development. Mayor Cawley and Council Member. Edler noted the need to seek input from area business owners. A question was asked about whether there was something the City could do to help sell the old Lariat drive -in restaurant that is such an eyesore. Mayor Cawley and Council Member Adkison spoke about the potential of putting a physical presence of City government into the area. ACTION STEP: • Determine what steps can be taken immediately • Seek input from area business owners • . Continue /accelerate public safety emphasis in the area • Provide technical /organization support to. North First Street Association • Pursue potential funding (SIED, state, etc.) for initial streetscape design and eventual implementation • Explore potential physical presence of City government in the area Conversation then turned to street failures and the need for a street bond. It was suggested that we need to identify for the voters the top ten areas needing attention. This may be an item for the Bicycle /Pedestrian Committee or part of the Six -Year Plan. The Council then discussed infrastructure. City Manager Zais spoke of the multiple layers of public infrastructure of which . many plans have been adopted but not been reviewed together. • 3 JANUARY 23, 2010 — COUNCIL RETREAT ACTION STEP: Hold a study session to look at the various capital facilities /infrastructure plans, determine what exists, where they are in the updating process and then have Council determine their priorities. The priority of regional collaboration'was discussed and the need to eliminate duplication of services. It was suggested that we need to work towards coordinating with the County on quality of life issues for the valley. ACTION STEP: Seek opportunities for regional collaboration with Yakima County, other cities, and other agencies in order to maximize available resources. • The next priority discussed was communication between citizens and the City. We should look at some best practices to see what we can do to improve communications and impact accurate media presentation. ACTION STEP: Explore potential improvements to City communications /outreach efforts. The culture at City Hall as a priority and a transition plan for replacing the City Manager was the next discussion topic. The importance of the decision was identified. Council discussed the potential of using a professional search firm, and emphasized the need to determine what the Council expects,the "culture" to look like in order to develop a transition process. Council Member Ensey clarified what he meant by "culture" as the general feel of the environment; shared beliefs; buy -ins; acceptance of operational methods for the good of all; and respect for customers. Les Schwab and various hotels were used as examples for good customer service. • Council Member Ensey suggested the need for a philosophical conversation on corporate culture and the potential of having a college professor or some successful people in our business community provide free advice. ACTION STEPS: • Discuss culture of City government; consider getting expert input, review roles /definitions, models. • Develop city manager transition process. 6. Policy developments /consideration processes An attempt was made to define a policy issue. Examples given were: legal requirements, e.g. adopting the budget or deciding on a new strategic plan for Police. The overall direction of managing the city is an administrative issue. Assistant Mayor Coffey commented that sometimes committee meeting agendas deal with minutia that Council doesn't need.to address. If we identified and prioritized the enormous challenges, we should be able to move the city forward more quickly. Some committee items should be delegated and not allowed to take up Council time. Council Member Edler noted that all seven Council members view items differently and what is minutia to one may be seen as critical to another. Discussion ensued on whether various committees should be continued. Committee meetings may be too focused on reporting rather than recommending action. Also discussed was the need to prioritize and to determine strategic priorities from today's discussions. Assistant Mayor Coffey stated she wanted action steps that are narrowly focused, that have benchmarks and are achievable with results. 4 • JANUARY 23, 2010 — COUNCIL RETREAT • ACTION STEPS: • Assign each Council committee to review committee mission /purpose and make a recommendation to.the full City Council.regarding continuation of the committee • Establish 5 -10 Council priorities that will direct policy, including: o Reducing gang crime and gang violence o Address continuing economic challenges facing the City of Yakima Also discussed was the amount of staff time involved in committee meetings and the methods used for forwarding information to the Council. There were several suggestions to alert Council to upcoming issues that are being discussedat the committee level, but are not yet ready for full Council consideration. 1) committee chair could advise under the meeting agenda heading "Other Business "; 2) reference in the committee minutes and advise it will be coming to Council soon; 3) staff could submit a form or an email following the committee meeting advising Council members of the information; or 4) include the subject in the Weekly Issues Report prepared by the City Manager's office. . 7. Existing City Council committee structure Discussed above. *8. Action steps • Identified throughout the discussion. ACTION STEP: Schedule a six -month follow -up Council retreat to review status on the action steps identified. PARKING LOT: (a list of items that came up during the meeting to be discussed later) Council and staff relationships Visioning process • Budget related to economic challenges. Council Staff Relationships • Assistant Mayor Coffey said if she has a concern or question, it is her responsibility to inform the City Manager or Assistant City Manager and not go • directly to the employee or the department head. Mayor Cawley agreed. City Manager Zais referred to the system in place for service requests. Visioning Process — The Next 20 Years. City Manager Zais pointed out that it has been twenty years since there was a comprehensive visioning process for the community. At that time it was a major undertaking that took about eighteen months. He noted that the process was created by business leaders, citizens, and constituencies from across the valley with City participation. Perhaps it is time to encourage the community to develop a new 20 -year vision. Council Members Edler and Adkison suggested the • Economic Development Committee consider the idea. • 5 JANUARY 23, 2010 — COUNCIL RETREAT ACTION STEP: • Supply Council with a copy of the last visioning document • Assign Council Economic Development Committee to explore potential for initiation of community visioning process Budget and Economic challenges City Manager Zais reviewed the current budget situation and economic forecast noting that circumstances are very challenging and the future looks daunting in terms of how long it will take our community to recover. He referenced the drop in sales tax revenue and said if December figures continue to drop, it would signal the potential for another shortfall in the budget of $800,000 to $1 million. We would need to take steps to reduce our costs and expenditures for the balance of this year. If the forecast continues to drop, we would have more serious choices to make about the services we provide and the priorities of government model we have created. It is very troubling and overshadows our capacity to meet community needs. *9. Adjournment Council Members applauded Mr. Cooper for his efforts at leading the retreat. COFFEY MOVED AND ETTL SECONDED TO ADJOURN. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 2:28 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DATE • COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: • CITY CLERK MICAH CAWLEY, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. A CD and DVD of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 110 • 6 • • • MEMORANDUM • August 17, 2010 • TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dick Zais, City Manager FROM: Dave Zabel!, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Public Infrastructure Introduction The topic of public infrastructure was front and center at the City Council's January 23, 2010 retreat. Several projects throughout the community were identified, discussed, and a number of them incorporated into the Action Steps identified by Council at the conclusion of the retreat. There was also a broader discussion about public infrastructure and the desire to get a • better picture of the current status and a sense of what is needed for the future. For some, the concerns raised : at the retreat related to the condition of existing infrastructure, particularly City streets. To others, the topic of infrastructure brought to mind the need for new or expanded buildings or refurbishment of existing City buildings. Ultimately, direction was provided to staff to begin a capital facilities planning process that would include updating and in some cases developing the City's capital plans relating to all City -owned infrastructure such as: •; Streets, traffic signals, bridges, pathways • Parks and recreation facilities • Utilities, such as; water, irrigation, wastewater (treatment and collection systems), stormwater • Public buildings; City Hall update, West Side Police Substation, Miller Park Community Center expansion, Fire Station 94 (Airport) and other current and • future needs Need for Capital Facilities Planning Aside from the Council's directive to begin a comprehensive CFP process, there is a management rationale and regulatory requirements to undertake such an effort. The City operates over a broad area and encompasses a diverse set of services. Considerable resources are dedicated toward the maintenance, operation and • improvement of the public infrastructure necessary to accomplish adopted service delivery goals: The cumulative present worth of these City -owned assets is on the order of one billion dollars. With respect to operating government like a business, a tenet of almost any • business is to take care of the assets you rely upon to conduct your business. In the alternative, what would be the rationale for failing to plan for the upkeep and renewal of this accumulation of public investment? Equally important is that a CFP tuned to the Land Use Plan is necessary to implement the and use plan. Some additional advantages of capital facilities planning include • More efficient use of City resources through project coordination • Optimizes project prioritization • Maximizes and leverages external funding opportunities and in fact required for most loan and grant opportunities • Informs the public of planned major capital investments and the impact /benefit to them • Alerts investors of the City's plans and maximizes opportunities for private sector investment . And finally, the State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.070) requires a CFP planning effort. Capital Facilities Planning Effort The goal here is to develop a comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan encompassing all • City owned assets. The plan would present a vision over a six to twenty year horizon of capital projects necessary to support current and future demands over the same time period.. In preparing such a plan, numerous factors need to be considered for the plan to succeed: • Consistency with adopted land use plans • Regulatory mandates, current and anticipated • Financing of projects • Infrastructure life cycles and the current or near -term need for refurbishment • Opportunities for leveraging of projects - the project magnifier • Community vision and expectations The first four bulleted points above, while sometimes challenging, are very straightforward, what is needed to support the service population, how long a building, a pump, or a treatment plant component will last, how much it will cost, and available funding options in most cases can be identified readily. The strategy of magnifying our impact by leveraging projects while a bit more complex, is something this organization has mastered. Ascertaining the will and expectations of.the public, and managing expectations can be quite challenging making public input in these kinds of planning effort a critical element to a successful process. As proposed, the City of Yakima CFP will include the following for each of the City's major infrastructure categories: 410 • • Inventory and assessment of City -owned infrastructure and facilities • Location • Quantity • Capacities of the capital facilities • • Condition /deficiencies • Planned necessary action or alternatives — Future needs - rehabilitation, expansion, additional facilities • Analysis of current and projected system demands • Proposed locations and capacities - Estimated costs • Methods of financing • At least a six -year financing plan for necessary capital facility improvements • — Scenario planning • That is comprehensive and coordinated • • Leverages improvements against one another • Necessary to implement the Comp Plah - consistency • Other Land Use Elements dependent on capital facilities; e.g. West Valley Plan • Adjust land use element if concurrency not attainable • Evaluates opportunities for collaboration In addition, a similar and less detailed analysis will be accomplished for other types of infrastructure impacting the City's land use planning alternatives; e.g. Nob Hill Water, natural gas, power, cable, and Internet. Current CFP and Capital Planning Efforts Updating and coordinating of the City's numerous capital facilities planning documents will require a significant and prolonged effort. Below is a listing of current plans: Capital Facilities Plan Summary Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Facilities Space Needs Assessment Transportation Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan 2025 Yakima Six Year TIP Transit Water /Irrigation System Comprehensive Plans2005 Wastewater System Comprehensive Plan 2004 Stormwater Comprehensive planning document 1994 Solid Waste /Refuse Staff analysis and County Solid Waste Plan Parks Staff analysis and Yakima Area Plan Fire Department Need Assessment - 2006 These documents represent considerable effort on the part of professional staff, community input, and the City Council. The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan attempts to pull much of this information together, however, it too requires updating and refreshing. Some of these plans are early in the process of being updated. For some areas, like • Stormwater and Public Facilities, there is no comprehensive up to date CFP. Case in point being public facilities: part of that information is within the Park plan, part in • • Facilities Space Needs Assessment noted above, parts are included in various Police and Fire Department planning efforts. Much work will be needed to prepare a comprehensive and coordinated document. CFP Development The City Council Economic Development Committee has been briefed previously on this project. Most recently the newly formed City of Yakima Planning Commission was provided an overview of the CFP planning process, and a more detailed briefing by the Water /Irrigation and Wastewater /Stormwater division managers regarding capital planning in their respective areas. It is anticipated that the City Manager's Office, Community and Economic Development, and Public Works staff will be working closely with the Planning Commission as they work to develop the Capital Facilities Plan. As each of the elements is completed, they will ultimately presented to the City Council for consideration. • • • . .. ..., • ,,,„ ,,. ,,,, C : apit a l • .. ..., l . Pl . . ,.. . .. . , . :,_,. , , . .. , ....:.; .. .. fi' . ' '9+ .. , s ' ' k' -r . s , �y s • r f f { ,.., • * �.y 9 --atS$ = P p , : .. 4 �`a x u s�x''� � r } � e'A • _,. .. s*'a� � raj . -. +re te - & s uS � � mac- ,a .: tP ! ,� ',� 2 r i a � " . �,� s x � r ?�" -,tip. 1 � � a -� F � t'' . " � � f S x s - - , r 'v : ya k ` ,. s' - �srt�6® i^ - - r ate="'_ .sa � ° ,.� ' -� „� ��... 'a'w � ��; ..� '.�= M'� .Kai v mx< °r _ �', _ �,� , -� sx+ctx{ ? Plannin - t he difference betwee actin and ,......,y What are Capital Facilities? • Public • roads, bridges, pathways, sewer; water and stormwater, public buildings, parks and recreation facilities • Private • power, telephone, Internet, cable, natural gas, rail Plan the Public - Coordinate the Private • • • What is a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)? • A six to twenty year plan of capital projects • That supports current and future demands • Considers regulatory mandates ■ Includes • Inventory and assessment • Future needs • N;stimated costs • Methods of financing • Scenario planning • That is comprehensive and coordinated Why a Capitai Facilities Plan? 1. Council priority 2. Logical rationale • Why wouldn't we - $1,000,000,000 investment • Good business to take care of assets 3. Administrative rationale • The capital facilities plan implements the land use plan • Required by Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.070) • • • . • • Advantages of Capital Facilities Planning • Coordination —Ffficient use of City resources • Optimizes project prioritization • Maximize and leverage external funding opportunities • Required for most loan and grant opportunities • Informs the public and investors What is in a CFP? • A comprehensive inventory of existing City -owned capital facilities • Associated Technical information: • Location • Capacities of the capital facilities • Condition /deficiencies • Planned necessary action or alternatives • Future. Look -needs for new or expanded capital facilities • Analysis of current and projected system demands • Proposed locations and capacities • • • • • What is in a CFP? • Review and analysis of non -City facilities supporting the Land Use H:lement • Nob Hill Water • Natural gas utility • Power utility • Cable • Internet Any type of amenity necessary to support commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with the Land Use Element What is in a CFP? • At least a six -year financing plan that will fund needed capital facility improvements • Sources of public money • City • Enterprise funds • Grants and loans • Impact Fees? • Land Use F dement • An analysis and schedule of projects consistent and coordinated with the Land Use Element • Other Land Use Plans dependent on City facilities; e.g. West Valley Plan • Adjust land use element if concurrency•not attainable IP ® • • • • • Who Develops a CFP? • Staff • Outside Technical Professionals • Planning Commission • The People • Ultimately City Council Questions? On to Utilities • • • • August 17, 2010 • • To: Honorable Mayor Cawley and Council Dick Zais, City Manager From: Joe Rosenlund, PE, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager Subject: Street Maintenance Bond The attached documents providing information regarding a $20 million street maintenance bond were presented to the Transit /Transportation Planning Committee at their meeting of April 15 and June 17. No specific recommendations were made by the committee except to bring the topic to the full council to discuss the size and timing of a street maintenance bond should they desire to take the issue to the voters. The first attached document is a table developed by Financial Services showing the probable cost range of a $20 million bond for either a 15 or 20 -year payback. • The second document is a listing of maintenance and safety projects that could be funded with the bond. There are six intersection projects listed that would provide significant safety and capacity improvements to the transportation system. The costs shown are rough estimates and the projects have not been prioritized. More refined scopes of work and cost estimates is needed before the bond brought before the voters. The third document is the most recent annual report the city is required to provide to Washington State Department of Transportation. It lists all revenues and expenditures for street related activities for the year 2009 including expenditures for engineering, new construction, traffic policing as well as maintenance. The final document is a table identifying sources of revenue available to the city for transportation purposes. The city is currently utilizing some of the sources or has at some time in the past. Two graphs are included in the bond packet as well. The first depicts the condition of Yakima's arterial streets as of the spring of this year. Generally, the streets are in fair to good condition but we are at the verge of having a majority of the streets fall below fair condition. The consequence of worsening condition of city streets can be seen on the second graph. It shows a • standard life -curve of a paved roadway and the relative cost of maintenance depending on where a roadway's condition falls on the curve. Joe - I'm following up on your request for more detail on the preliminary costs of issuing a $20mm LTGO Bond for street maintenance: 411 As with anything, these are subject to change - As I mentioned, there are two government programs that offer a way to lower the overall cost of these bonds but they will go away or be materially changed after 12/31/10. Assumptions: City of Yakima retains it's A+ rating Voter- approved $20nun Bond Issue Paid for with assessment on Property Value. Starting COY Property Value= $5,389,219,000 Growth of COY Property Value 2011 0% 2012 -2013 1% 2014 -2030 3 %fyr COY issues a "Level Debt" Bond $20mm Bond Est Interest Ttl Interest Bond Pmt Assessment Property OwnerProperty Owiier On Bond Paid Each Year each Yr Cost per $100KCost per $150K 15yr Final Maturity4.07% $6,893M $1,792M/yr .37% to .23% $37to $23/yr $55.5 to $34.5/yr 20yr Final Maturity4.44% $10,308M $1,517M/yr .32% to .17% $32 to 17 /yr $48 to $25.5/yr • • Potential Project List $20 Million Bond Discussion • Arterial Street Repairs Additional Street From To Treatment Cost/SY Area (SY) Cost Work Items Total Cost 1st St US -12 Union Gap Grind & Overlay $9.75 192,000 $1,872,000 $280,800 $2,153,000 5th Ave Yakima Division Grind & Overlay $9.75 19,000 $185,250 $27,788 $214,000 Division 5th Ave 3rd Ave Grind & Overlay $9.75 3,000 $29,250 $4,388 $34,000 Summitview 16th Ave . Yakima Grind & Overlay $9.75 11,000 $107,250 $16,088 $124,000 16th Ave Madison Yakima Grind & Overlay $9.75 .46,000 $448,500 $67,275 $516,000 16th Ave Nob Hill Washington Grind & Overlay $9.75 114,000 $1,111,500 $166,725 $1,279,000 Nob Hill 3rd Ave 56th Ave Grind &Overlay $9.75 30,000 $292,500 $43,875 $337,000 Pierce Lincoln MLK Grind & Overlay $9.75 2,000 $19,500 $2,925 $23,000 MLK Pierce 8th St Grind & Overlay $9.75 29,000 $282,750 $42,413 $326,000 18th St Nob Hill Mead Grind & Overlay $9.75 14,000 $136,500 $20,475 $157,000 24th Ave Nob Hill Washington Grind & Overlay $9.75 26,000 $253,500 $38,025 $292,000 l St 6th Ave 1st St Grind & Overlay $9.75 8,000 $78,000 $11,700 $90,000 Lincoln 40th Ave 24th Ave Grind & Overlay $9.75 24,000 $234,000 $35,100 $270,000 Englewood 32nd Ave 16th Ave Grind & Overlay $9.75 16,000 $156,000 $23,400 $180,000 Powerhouse 34th Ave Lincoln Grind & Overlay $9.75 14,000 $136,500 $20,475 $157,000 66th Ave Scenic Englewood Grind & Overlay $9.75 4,000 $39,000 - $5,850 $45,000 64th Ave Tieton Nob Hill Reconstruct $25.00 11,000 $275,000 $41,250 $317,000 Castlevale Powerhouse Fruitvale Grind & Overlay $9.75 12,000 $117,000 $17,550 $135,000 Scenic 66th Ave Fletcher Grind & Overlay $9.75 23,000 $224,250 $33,638 $258,000 Arterial Repair Total 598,000 $5,998,250 $899,738 $6,907,000 Residential Street Repairs Concrete Streets - 3 miles, 24' Wide Repair & 2" Overlay $7.25 43,000 $311,750 $46,763 $359,000 Asphalt Streets -13 miles, 32' Wide Repair & 2" Overlay $6.75 245,000 $1,653,750 $248,063 $1,902,000 Chip Seal Catch Up - 70 Miles Chips Seal $0.90 1,315,000 $1,183,500 $177,525 $1,362,000 Residential Repair Total • $3,623,000 Street Repair Total $10,530,000 2/9/2010 • Bond Project List 100208.xls 1 of 2 Capacity Improvements Signal System Equipment & Operations • Description Unit Cost Quantity Units Cost Upgrade Traffic Signal Controllers $20,000.00 20 Each $400,000 $1,750,000.00 1 Lump Sum $1,750,000 Upgrade /Communications includes Fibre Optics, Modems, Computer /Software Upgrade, Consulting, Training Upgrade Vehicle Detection $17,500.00 12 Each $210,000 System Upgrade Total $2,360,000 Intersection Improvements Location /Description Cost Nob Hill /Fair - Turn Lanes, Corner Radii $1,300,000 1st St/Washington - Left Turn Storage $1,000,000 40th/Summitview - Double Left Turn Lanes, Longer Tum Bays $1,750000 16th/Yakima - Lengthem Turn Bays, Larger Radii $1,300,000 16th/Tieton - Lengthen Turn Bays, Widen Lanes, Improve Radii $1,250000 5th Ave/Tieton - Convert to Roundabout $500,000 Intersection Total $7,100,000 Capacity Improvement Total $9,460,000 Grand Total $19,880,000 • • 2/9/2010 Bond Project List 100208.xls 2 of 2 • • WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY/TOWN REPORT TO THE • ECONOMICS BRANCH, P &PSC - PO BOX 47400 SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION (RCW 3521.260) FOR BUDGET YEAR OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504-7400 360- 705 -7940 CITY/TOWN. PREPARED BY TELEPHONE NO. Yakima Debbie Baldoz (509) 576 - 6687 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR CITY STREETS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES (Round to the Nearest Dollar) A. REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING • BARS CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Traffic Policing 311.10 Real and Personal Property Taxes 4,313,351 313.10 Local Retail Sales and Use Tax • 316.10 Business and Occupation Taxes • 316.30 Commercial Parking Tax • • ' 316.40 B & O Taxes on Privately Owned Public Utilities • 316.50 B & 0 Taxes on Public Utilities of Other Governments _ • 316.70 Government Owned Utility Tax 317.14 Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Border Area Jurisdictions 317.30 Local Real Estate Excise Taxes 1,083,233 321.00 Business Licenses and Permits • 321.91 Franchise Fees 322.40 Street and Curb Permits 331.00 Federal Grants - Direct (EDI) 0 • 331.14.20 Federal Community Planning and Development Block Grant 331.20 Federal Department of Transportation 331.83.5X Federal Emergency Management Agency 332.00 Federal Entitlements, Impact Payments • 333.66 Federal Grants - Indirect (EPA) 0 • • 333.1420 Federal Community Planning and Development Block Grant 333.17.20 Federal Employment and Training Administration (JPTA) 333.20.2X Federal Highway Admin. Grants (Direct or Indirect): 33320.21 Federal Aid - BR 2,687,534 • 333.20.22 Federal Aid - STP 333.2023 Federal Aid - HES 333.20.60 Highway Traffic Safety Administration - 333.81 - Federal Department of Energy 333.83.50 Federal Emergency Management Agency 3,535 • 334.00 State Grants (Specify) WSDOT • .24,202 Traffic Safety • 30,000 _ Department of Fisheries 175,028 334.03.IX Department of Ecology • 334.03.80 Urban Arterial Board - Grants • 334.03.81 Transportation Improvement Board - Grants 227,248 334.04.1X Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development • 0 335.00.81 Mobile Home/Trailer /Camper Excise Tax 335.00.83 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax • 335.00.84 Capron Refunds 335.00.91 PUD Privilege Tax . • 335.91 Impact Fees" • • • • Pare 1 • A. REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING • BARS CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 336.00.81 Local Option Vehicle License Fee 336.00.85 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Equalization 336.00.87 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - City Street (Only) 1,249,776 336.00.88 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Street Improvement (Only) 584,354 336.00.90 Local Option Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 336.00.91 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Transfer Relief Account 336.06.94 Liquor Excise Tax 336.06.95 Liquor Profits 337.00 Local Grants (Specify) W.Valley School 327,216 • 338.42 Intergovernmental Services - Road Maintenance 338.95 Intergovernmental Services - Road Const. & Engineering . 0 339.22 ARRA 515,409.68 342.40 Protective Inspection Fees 0 343.83 - Storm Drainage Fees and Charges 343.85 Street Utility Charges 343.90 Other Fees Related to Physical Environment 0 344.10 Road/Street Maintenance Repair Charges 10,060 344.20 Sales of Road Materials 344.80 Planning/Development Fees 0 345.81 Zoning and Subdivision Fees 18,913 347.90 Recreation Fees and Charges 348.96 Personnel Service Fees 349.42 Road Maintenance Services 2,876 . 349.95 Road Construction and Engineering Services - 12,267 353.00 Nonparking Traffic Penalties 0 354.00 Parking Traffic Penalties 0 361.11 Investment Interest 61,001 361.50. Interest and Penalties on Special Assessments 636 361.90 Other Interest Eamings 362.00 Rentals, Leases, etc. 26,886 367.00 Contributions and Donations from Private Sources 19,214 368.00 Special Assessment Principal • 4,841 369.40 Other Judgment and Settlements 369.90 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 79 381.20 Interfund Loan Repayment Received 391.10 General Obligation Bond Proceeds 0 391.30 Special Assessment Bond Proceeds • 391.60 Proceeds of Bond Anticipation Notes/Warrants 391.80 Loan Proceeds - State to Arterial Street 600,000 395.10 Sale of Fixed Assets 6,311 • 397.00 Operating Transfers - In 932,806 345.85 Growth Mgmt Impact Fees 0 387.00 .. Residual Equity Transfer 81,574 395.20 Compensation/Loss of Gen Asset 0 395.30 Compensation/Loss of 2,332 343.16 'Weedy Lot Charges 0 TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING 13,000,681 Pana 2 • • B. STREET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES BARS CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT L CONSTRUCTION 595.10 Engineering 1,203,292 595.20 Right of Way • 1,135,175 595.30 Roadway 736,766 595.40 Storm Drainage 117,121 595.50 Structures • 995,592 595.60 Traffic and Pedestrian Services 38,120 595.61 Sidewalks 172,219 595.62 Special Purpose Paths 0 • . 595.63 Street Lighting 112,022 595.64 Traffic Control Devices 17,298 595.65 Parking Facilities 44,578 595.70 Roadside Development 34,215 595.80 Ancillary Operations 595.90 Construction Administration and Overhead TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 4,606,398 II. MAINTENANCE 542.30 Roadway 1,953,683 542.40 Storm Drainage 127,868 542.50 Structures 3,471 542.60 Traffic and Pedestrian Services 0 542.61 Sidewalks 77,346 542.62 Special Purpose Paths 542.63 Street Lighting 408,349 542.64 Traffic Control Devices 997,804 542.65 Parking Facilities 6,897 542.66 Snow and Ice Control 438,736 542.67 Street Cleaning 347,164 542.70 Roadside Development 188,220 542.80 Ancillary Operations 0 542.90 Maintenance Administration and Overhead 114,646 TOTAL MAINTENANCE 4,664,185 • M. OTHER STREET RELATED EXPENDITURES 521.70 Traffic Policing 95,888 543.00 General Administration 723,835 543.50 Maintenance of Facilities 0 545.00 Extraordinary Operations 594.00 Capitalized Expenditures 806,204 594.42 Construction of Facilities 0 . 519.70 Other Jobbing and Contract Work 103,713 TOTAL OTHER STREET RELATED EXPENDITURES 1,729,640 . IV. DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES 591.00 Redemptions - GO Bonds 79,425 • 591.00 Redemptions -LID Bonds 0 591.00 Redemptions - Other Long - Term Debt 0 592.00 Interest and Other Debt Service Costs 12,009 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES • 91,434 V, ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL 597.00 Operating Transfers - Out 282,875 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL ' 282,875 'TOTAL STREET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES I 11,374,532 • • • PAOP. • .. ._ III . . SUMMARY OF STREET/ROAD RELATED FUND ACTIVITY FOR REPORTING YEAR 2009 FUND NUMBER (STREET/ROAD RELATED) FUND NAME REVENUES EXPENDITURES 141 Streets /Traffic 5,578,638 5,415,804 142 Arterial Street 3,141,402 3,315,476 143 - Transportation Improvement 0 0 321 Central Business District 102,617 218,874 342 Public Works Trust 642,832 137,450 343 REET 2 Capital Fund 553,616 407,496 392 Cumulative Reserve for Cap. Improve. 2,773,687 1,692,110 000 General Fund 95,888 95,888 283 Bonded Debt 112,000 91,434 TOTALS 13,000,681 11,374,532 (Should equal Total Rev., page 2) (Should equal Total Exp., page 3) STATUS OF LONG -TERM DEBT ( STREET/ROAD RELATED DEBT ONLY, GO BONDS, LID/RID BONDS, LONG -TERM LOANS, ETC.) TYPE OF BOND wt AMOUNT AMOUNT NOTE OR LOAN 9 (STREET, PARKING, STREET AMOUNT ISSUED REDEEMED AMOUNT (GO,LID/RID, ,5 LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS, STORM OUTSTANDING (CURRENT (CURRENT OUTSTANDING ETC.) ° a' SEWERS, ETC.) JAN. 1, 2009 YEAR) YEAR) DEC. 31,2009 G.O. 1944 River Rd lmprovements 1,620,000 150,000 1,470,000 G.O. 2116 Downtown Revitalization 1,415,000 75,000 1,340,000 G.O. 3rd Ave /Mead Walnut Street Project 2,145,000 0 165,000 1,980,000 • G.O. 283 . Law & Justice/I - 82 416,540 79,425 337,115 TOTAL G.O. 5,596,540 0 469,425 5,127,115 PWTLOANS • 1989 Resignalization & LightingImprovmts. 42,151 0 42,151 0 1990 Tieton Drive Reconstruction 63,512 0 31,756 31,756 1991 Reconstruction of N. 1st Avenue 14 9,913 49,971 99,942 1995 Fair Avenuelmprovements 372,755 53,251 319,504 . • 2000 Downtown Yakima Street Rehab 252,095 126,047 126,048 2010 RR Grade Separation 0 600,000 600,000 Total 880,426 600,000 303,176 1,177,250 TOTALS 6,476,966 600,000 772,601 6,304,365 *Percentage of debt related to streets = 17.65% of 52,360,000. STREET INVENTORY REPORT END OF CALENDAR YEAR 2009 CEMENT • ASPHALT BITUMINOUS GRAVEL OR TYPE OF CONCRETE PLANT OR SURFACE CRUSHED DIRT AND TOTAL SURFACE PAVEMENT ROAD MIX TREATMENT • ROCK UNIMPROVED MILES MILES 10.9 349.2 22.30 30.20 0.00 412.60 III Page 4 • • • • • SUMMARY OF STREET/ROAD RELATED FUND ACTIVITY FOR REPORTING YEAR 2009 ' FUND NUMBER (STREET/ROAD RELATED) FUND NAME REVENUES EXPENDITURES ' 141 Streets (Traffic 5,578,638 5,415,804 142 Arterial Street 3,141,402 3,315,476 143 Transportation Improvement 0 0 321 Central Business District 102,617 218,874 342 Public Works Trust 642,832 I37,450 343 REET 2 Capital Fund 553,616 407,496 392 Cumulative Reserve for Cap. Improve. 2,773,687 1,692,110 000 General Fund 95,888 95,888 283 Bonded Debt 112,000 91,434 TOTALS 13,000,681 11,374,532 (Should equal Total Rev., page 2) (Should equal Total Exp., page 3) • • - STATUS OF LONG -TERM DEBT (STREET/ROAD RELATED DEBT ONLY, GO BONDS, LID/RID BONDS, LONG -TERM LOANS, ETC) TYPE OF BOND AMOUNT AMOUNT NOTE OR LOAN . (STREET, PARKING, STREET AMOUNT ISSUED REDEEMED AMOUNT • ' (GO,LID/RID, g LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS, STORM OUTSTANDING (CURRENT (CURRENT OUTSTANDING ETC.) rx SEWERS, ETC.) JAN. 1, 2009 YEAR) YEAR) DEC. 31,2009 G.O. I944 River Rd Improvements 1,620 000 150,000 1,470,000 G.O. 2116 Downtown Revitalization 1,415,000 75,000 1,340,000 G.� 3rd Ave/Mead Walnut Street Project 2,145,000 (1 165,000 1,980,000 G.O. 283 Law & Justice! I -82 416,540 79,425 337,115 TOTAL G O . 5596,540 0 469,425 5,127,115 • PINT LOANS 1989 Resignatization & Lighting Imprnvmts 42,151 0 42151 0 1990 Tieton Drive Reconstruction 63,512 0 31,756 31,756 1991 Reconstruction of N_ 1st Avenue 149,913 49,971 99,942 1995 Fair Avenue Improvements 372,755 53,251 - 319,504 2000 Downtown Yakima Street Rehab 252,095 126,047 126,048 2010 RR Grade Separation 0 600,000 600,000 Total • 880,426 600,000 303,176 1,177,250 • TOTALS 6,476,966 600,000 772,601 6,304,365 *Percentage of debt related to streets =17.65 % of 52,360,000. STREET INVENTORY REPORT END OF CALENDAR YEAR 2009 ' CEMENT ASPHALT BITUMINOUS GRAVEL OR TYPE OF CONCRETE PLANT OR SURFACE CRUSHED DIRT AND TOTAL SURFACE PAVEMENT ROAD MIX TREATMENT ROCK UNIMPROVED MILES MILES 10.9 349.2 22.30 30.20 0.00 412.60 40 Page 4 Debt Service Funds / 1 I Debt Service I Oper & Cap I PWf I LID's I Combined I i Resource Category 283• 282 I Totals Totals Totals Totals • 311.10 Prop Taxes 0 4,304,888 4,304,888 311.20 Co Rd Tax from Annex's 0 8,463 8,463 313.10 Sales &Use Tax 0 0 0 317.34/30 R.E. Taxes 0 1,083,233 1,083,233 331.00 Fed Grants • 0 0 0 333.20 20 Fed Aid 0 2,687,534 2,687,534 • 333.66 Environmental Protection Agency 0 0 0 333.83 FEMA 0 3,030 3,030 334.00 FEMA Pass thru 0 505 505 334.01 80 UAB 0 24,202 24,202 334.03.8 MVET 0 227,248 227,248 334.04 State CTED • 0 0 0 336.00.87 State Entitlements 0 1,249,776 1,249,776 336.00.88 State Entitlements 0 584,354 584,354 • 337.00 Local Gov't Grant 0 327,216 327,216 338.95 Intergov't Services 0 0 0 342.40 Street & Curb Permits 0 0 . 0 343.16 Weedy Lot Charges 0 0 0 343.90 Reimbursements 0 0 0 344.80 Planning/Development Fees 0 0 0 345.81 Zoning & Subdivision Fees 0 5,250 5,250 349.41 Chgs for Rd Const & Eng 0 0 0 349.42 Interfnd Chgs 0 2,876 2,876 34995 Chgs for Rd Const & Eng 0 12,267 12,267 353.10 Non - Parking Traf Pen 0 0 0 354.00 Parking Infraction 0 0 0 361.10 Inv.lnt. 0 61,001 61,001 361.40 Sidewalk Contr Int 0 0 0 361.30 Invest Int 0 0 0 361.50 Int & Pen on Assessments 0 636 636 36230 Parking Rents 0 26,886 26,886 367.00 Donations 0 19,214 19,214 368.00 Special Assessments 0 4,841 4,841 369.40 Judgement 0 0 0 369.90 OtherMisc 0 79 79 391.10 G. O. Proceeds 0 0 0 391.80 DCD Loan 0 600,000 600,000 395.10 Sale of Fixed Assets 0 6,311 6,311 395.20 Compensation/Loss of Gen Assn - - 0 0 0 395.30 Compensation/Loss of Assets - 0 2,332 2,332 387.00 Residual Equity Transfer 0 • 81,574 81,574 397.00 Oper Transfer 112,000 0 112,000 820,806 932,806 Var Other Revenue Non -RpL 0 0 0 0 0 Total Resources 112,000 0 0 112,000 12,144,521 0 12,256,521 Expenditures Principal 79,425 0 0 79,425 0 0 0 79,425 Interest 12,009 0 0 12,009 0 0 0 12,009 All Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 91,434 0 0 91,434 0 0 0 91,434 ' 'Of this $6.8 million issue, $1.2 milion was for street projects III III * * * *' • N D S ** * ** , Category . 1 141 1 142 1 143 1 42 1 343 1 392 1 000/560 1 Totals 1 * 311. 0 Prop Taxes 4,209,000.00 95,888.22 4,304,888.22 311.20 Co Rd Tax from Annex's 8,462.54 ' . 0.00 8,462.54 . 313.10 Sales & Use Tax 0.00 - 316.40 B &O Taxes on Privately owned Public Utilities 0.00 317.34/35 RE. Taxes 541,616.31. 541,616.31 1,083,232.62 . 331.00 Federal Grants Direct (EDI) 0.00 0.00 333.20 20 Fed Aid 1,324,846.74 1,362,687.25 2,687,533.99 • 333.66 Environmental Prot. Agency 0.00 - 0.00 333.83 FEMA • 3,029.93 3,029.93 334.00 'FEMA Pass thru 504.99 0.00 504.99 334.02 . State Dept of Fisheries • 175,027.58 175,027.58 334.03.5 WA St Traffic Safety 30,000.00. 30,000.00 . 334.03.6 WSDOT 9,290.92 24,202.30 14,911.38 334.03.8 TIB 77,247.52 0.00 ' 150,000.00 227,247.52 0.00 334.04 State CTED • 0.00 0.00 0.00 335.00 0.00. . 336.00.87 State Entitlements 1,249,776.27 0.00 . 1,249,776.27 . 336.00.88 State Entitlements • 584,353.83 • 584,353.83 • • 337.00. Local Gov't Grant 314,000.00 13,215.68 327,215.68 . 338.95 Intergov't Services 0.00 • 0.00 339.22 ARRA 515,409.68 515,409.68 342.40 Street & Curb Permits 0.00 0.00 • 343.16 Weedy Lot Charges ' 0.00 • . 0.00 343.90 Reimbursements 0.00 344.10 Road/Street Maint Charges ' 10,060.00 . 10,060.00 • ' 344.80 Planning/Development Fees 0.00 0.00 • ' 345.81 Zoning & Subdivision Fees 13,663.00 • 13,663.00 345.83 Plan Checking Fees 5,250.00 5,250.00 345.85 Growth Mgmt Impact Fees 0.00 0.00 349.41 Chgs for Rd Const & Eng 0.00 349.42 Interfnd Chgs 2,876.00 . 2,876.00 • 349.95 Chgs for Rd Const & Eng 12,267.04 12,267.04 353.10 Non - Parking Traf Pen 0.00 354.00 Parking Infraction • 0.00 361.10 Inv. Int. 20,000.00 10,492.10 0.00 13,000.00 12,000.00 1,000.00 61,000.65 4,508.55- 361.40 Sidewalk Contr Int 0.00 361.30 Invest Int 0.00 361.50 Int & Pen on Assessments 635.89 635.89 362.30 Parking Rents . 26,885.92 26,885.92 367.00 Donations 0.00 19,214.00 19,214.00 0.00 368.00 Special Assessments 4,840.60 .0.00 4,840.60 369.40 Judgement 0.00 369.90 Other Misc 79.45 0.00 79.45 391.10 G. O. Proceeds 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 391.70 LID Notes Proceeds 0.00 391.80. LT Intergovt Loan Proce 0.00 . 600,000.00 600,000.00 0.00 . 395.10 Sale of Fixed Assets . 6,310.90 6,310.90 395.20 • Compensation/Loss of Gen Asse 0.00 0.00 • 395.30 Compensation/Loss of Assets 2,332.21 ' , • 2,332.21 387.00 Residual Equity Transfer 57,199.00 24,375.00 81,574.00 397.00 OperTransfer 25,000.00 35,181.29 50,625.00 660,000.00 820,806.29 50,000.00 • Var Other Revenue Non -Rpt 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 Total Resources 5,578,638.43 3,141,402.15 0.00 642,831.99 553,616.31 2,773,687:25- 95,8 12,888,681.10 102,616.75 0.00 Expenditures 0.00 Construction 3,315,475.91 0.00 137,449.65 407,496.25 1,692,110.37 0.00 5,771,406.25 218,874.07 . Maintenance 0.00 . Other Street Exp 5,415,803.51 5,415,803.51 Additional St Related Exp 0.00 Non -Exp Affecting F/B 74,219.75 496,463.45 0.00 784,659.78 306,822.00 2,841.39 0.00 1,733,040.63 68,034.26 Total Expenditures 5,490,023.26 _ 3,811,939.36 0.00 _ 922,109.43 714,318.25 1,694,951.76 . 0.00 12,920,250.39 286,908.33 0.00 Beginning Fund Balance 1,372,651.00 1,867,598.00 0.00 1,451,330.00 1,230,128.00 374,445.00 0.00 6,912,398.00 616,246.00 . 0.00 0.00 Ending Balance 1,461,266.17 1,197,060.79 - 0.00 1,172,052.56 1,069,426.06 1,453,180.49. .0:00. 6,784,940.49 431,954.42 Balance Per G/L 1,461,266.39 • 1,197,060.74 0.00 1,172,052.39 - 1,069,425.65 1,453,180.75 • 0.00 6,784,939.86 431,953.94 Difference -0.22 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.41 -0.26 0.00 0.63 0.48 • • Sources of Revenue Available to the City of Yakima- Transportation Purposes [This chart presents some options provided by existing state law. No recommendation pro or con or prioritization is intended to be suggested by inclusion of or sequence of items in this chart.] • REVENUE AUTHORITY PURPOSES AUTHORIZED HOW ESTABLISHED POTENTIAL YIELD OPTION LIMITATIONS [2010 estimate] Non voted debt WA Const., General Government Capital < 1.5% Total Art 8 Sec 6 $53,000,000 AV RCW 39.36.020 Revenue must be identified /obligated Bond Ordinance Passed by City Council Assessed Value (AV) to pay debt service [unused debt capacity] within City Ch. 39.46 RCW • Voted Debt General WA Const., General Government Capital $52,000,000 Purposes-- Total City Art 8 Sec 6 60% Majority Election [unused debt capacity — in Debt < 2.5% Total RCW 39.36.020 Debt Service supported by excess General Obligation Bonds addition to non -voted Assessed Value Ch. 39.46 RCW property tax levy capacity listed above] within City • General Government -2 options, both Simple Majority Election $0.10 /thousand raises Property Tax RCW 84.55.050 can be multi-year p y $538,000 annually Lid Lift (up to 6 yrs) In Sept. (primary) or Nov. (general) RCW 84.52.043 Cannot exceed Statutory maximum levy election $10 /yr on $100,000 AV rate (currently $3.10 /thousand) Property Tax — Excess General Government $0.10 /thousand raises Levy (one year) RCW 84.52.052 60% Majority Election $538,000 annually Can exceed Statutory Maximum rate for the year of the excess levy $10 /yr on $100,000 AV Local Business and $3,000,000 annually Occupation Tax Ordinance passed by City Council [$1,500,000 per each .1 %1 Tax < 0.2% of gross RCW 35.21.710 General Government receipts Subject to Referendum (needs $200,000 in new admin cost for collection) Tax < 6.0% on Private $580,000 annually (affects Utilities, i.e. RCW 35.21.870 General Government Ordinance by City Council to Remove primarily larger mfg. Electricity, Telephone 5.50.050- 060 YMC $4,000 /customer /mo. lid Natural Gas businesses) Cje new revenue chart 8/17/2010 11:23 AM • ® •elof • • REVENUE . PURPOSES AUTHORIZED POTENTIAL YIELD AUTHORITY HOW ESTABLISHED OPTION LIMITATIONS [2010 estimate] Tax > 6.0% on Private Utilities , i.e. RCW 35.21.870 General Government Simple Majority Election $1,300,000 annually Electricity, Telephone 5.50.050- 060 YMC to exceed 6% per each 1% Natural Gas Tax > 6.0% on Cable Cable Rate is not restricted, but must not be Ordinance passed by City Council TV (rate currently at Communications "unduly discriminatory against cable (but would recommend only if voters $130,000 annually 6%) Policy Act of 1984 operators and subscribers." approve other utility taxes >6 %) per each 1 /° 5.50.065 YMC In Lieu Tax on Public General Government Utilities, i.e.Refuse, Ch. 7.64 YMC $325,000 annually Water, Wastewater Current rates -14% Water and Ordinances Passed by City Council (No cap in RCW) Wastewater, 9% Refuse per each 1% (Parks now receives 3.5 %) Admissions Tax $420,000 annually RCW 35.21.280 General Government Ordinance Passed by City Council (estimate based on similar Max 5% cities) Additional Sales Tax RCW 82.14.045 "Public Transportation" Purposes Transit $1,465,000 annually per Simple Majority Election up to 0.9% 3.89.010 YMC (excludes street maintenance) each additional 0.1% (addl 0.6 %) County Motor Vehicle and Special Transportation Purposes Approval of county legislative body Fuel Tax RCW 82.80.010 and a simple majority of the registered Uncertain '10% of state rate voters (2.8C /gal.) Transportation Ordinance Passed by City Council (up Benefit District-- RCW 36.73 & Transportation Purposes to $20 per vehicle) • $1,007,000 annually Vehicle License Fee 82.80.140 including streets ($20 /Vehicle) (up to $100 per qualified vehicle) Simple Majority Election -$20 -$100 Cje new revenue chart 8/17/2010 11:23 AM • Page 2of4 REVENUE PURPOSES AUTHORIZED POTENTIAL YIELD AUTHORITY HOW ESTABLISHED OPTION - LIMITATIONS [2010 estimate] Transportation Simple Majority Election $2,930,000 annually Benefit District— RCW 36.73 & Transportation Purposes ($1,465,000 per each Sales Tax (up to 82.14.0455 including streets Levied for 10 years - renewable for additional 0.1%) 0.2%) another 10 years Transportation Purposes Commercial Parking Ordinance passed by City Council Tax RCW 82.80 (RCW has no cap on tax rate, and allows Uncertain various ways to assess tax) Subject to Referendum Street Utility -(up to $2 per employee or RCW 82.80.050 Street Capital and Maintenance Ordinance passed by City Council Uncertain if available residential unit) Local improvements including streets and alleys Petition by effected Landowners, Local Improvement Ch. 35.43 "... levy and collect special assessments Can only be determined in Districts (LIDS) on property specially benefited thereby Enacted by City Council relation to specific projects to pay the whole or any part of the expense" RCW 35.43.040 Reimbursement Street projects which the owners elect to Ordinance Passed by City Council that Contracts For Street, install as a result of ordinances that requires certain projects as a Can only be determined in Road, And Highway Ch. 35.72 require the projects as a prerequisite to prerequisite to further property relation to specific projects ecific roj g Y q p J p q p q p p h'' p 1' l Projects further property development development 5.52 YMC Fees increased in 1988 for Sundome Debt Currently sliding scale Business License Fee Service. (about 30% currently obligated Ordinance Passed by City Council based on employee count- - increase RCW 35.22.280 (32) (no cap in RCW) for this purpose) 10% = $52,000 Cje new revenue chart 8/17/2010 11:23 AM •e3of4 • • • REVENUE PURPOSES AUTHORIZED POTENTIAL YIELD OPTION AUTHORITY LIMITATIONS HOW ESTABLISHED [2010 estimate] IMPACT FEES: Note: Cities are authorized to require impact fees to pay for improvements necessitated by new development- Yakima does not impose. Fire, Parks, Schools, Street Capital Projects Impact Fees 82.02.050 .090 ..cities ...that plan under RCW Imposed upon development as a Can only be determined in 36.70A.040 are authorized to impose condition of development approval relation to specific projects impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities" Mitigate off -site transportation impacts that are a direct result of proposed Generally: requires a plan adopted development under ch. 39.92 Transportation Can only be determined in Impact Fee Ch. 39.92 Provide a portion of the funding for p reasonable and necessary off site Specifically: monetary charge imposed relation to specific projects transportation improvements solve the on new development for the cumulative impacts of planned growth authorized purposes and development in the plan area • • • • • Cje new revenue chart 8/17/2010 11:23 AM • Page 4 of 4 • • • • Arterial Street Condition 40.0% - } 4 w ' 1 O 35.0% 3 7 ,a It t 30.0% i i II Failed 25.0% 23.3% ■Serious ca ; O Very Poor a 20.0% 18.6% f 0 Poor 0 • Fair 15.0% - O Satisfactory 11.0% • Good 10.0% - I 7.4% f 1 5.0% 2.2% 0.1% 0.0% i Pavement Condition Pavement Management Concepts Preventive Maintenance Approach Excellent _ _ __ 40% Drop Good — in Quality Fair _ V '44% 75% of Life $1.00 for Renovation Here Poor _ 40% Drop in Quality WW i l l cost $8.00 to $10.00 Here Very Poor _ V 12% of Life Failed I I I I I I l 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I l 1 1 1 1 = ._ 0 10 1 ears 20 • •