HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/2010 00 Supplemental Information to Council f
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO COUNCIL
FOR
MARCH 2, 2010
1 Supplemental for 3/02/10 Business Meeting
• Item 10A — Update of City of Yakima Gang -free Initiative Status
• Item 11 — 2/25/20 Letter from Attorney Mark Fickes re Washington Heights
annexation (Council Only)
2 3/02/10 Study Session Packet — Council Retreat Follow -Up
3
/T2 A.' /D fI
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2010
TO. Honorable Micah Cawley, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FR. Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Sam Granato, Chief of Police
Cynthia Martinez, Assistant City Attorney
Michael Morales, Deputy Director CED
RE. Gang Free Initiative Update
Under the guidance of the Council Public Safety Committee, staff has prepared for
consideration of the City Council the attached proposal for an implementation
framework to set into motion the City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative The proposal is
rooted in the five principles of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention's (OJJDP) comprehensive gang model, and is consistent with strategies
being irutiated on a countywide basis as part of the Yakima County Comprehensive
Gang Model.
There are a number of gang related initiatives being pursued throughout Yakima
County While laudable and certainly necessary as part of a regional strategy, these
efforts are not, nor can they be, focused solely on addressing the issues being
experienced in Yakima neighborhoods The Public Safety Committee and City staff
have been monitoring these efforts and have determined that the best way in which to
address the problems in Yakima is direct City involvement focused on a City of Yakima
effort. This effort requires strong leadership and support from the City To be effective,
the overall strategies employed must be consistent and to some degree coordinated
with other efforts around the county as this is the only way to ensure that adequate
resources are provided to support the project.
STAFF ASSIGNMENTS
Understanding the need for staff support dedicated to the City anti -gang efforts, City
Manager Zais and Chief Granato recently tapped Lt. Mike Merryman to serve as the
City's primary liaison for the City's Gang Free Initiative. Lt. Merryman has developed
a broad and strong network of contacts throughout the city and the valley through his
leadership in the community - oriented policing efforts of the City His experience with a
variety of enforcement and commuruty education activities are a good fit for the tasks
that lie ahead In addition to his experience in patrol and drug or gang emphasis
efforts, he serves as the YPD Public Information Officer and has worked with the
) DARE, GREAT, and YPAL programs
NEXT STEPS
Following Council direction to formalize the structure and seek participation
commitments from community partner agencies, staff will prepare a formal budget and
resource allocation plan for Public Safety Committee review in April Provided the plan
is financially and organizationally feasible, it is anticipated that the Public Safety
Committee would request formal adoption from the City Council in May
1
DRAFT
CITY OF YAKIMA GANG FREE INITIATIVE
Proposed Framework
SUGGESTED PROJECT GOAL:
Develop coordinated strategies designed to eliminate gang activity and crime within the City of
Yakima
PREVENTION & INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVES:
1 Empower people who live and /or work in Yakima target neighborhoods to take an active
role in crime intervention efforts by involving neighborhood businesses, churches, social
service organizations, schools, and other groups as an integral part of the community
policing effort.
2 Close down or remove the sites of chronic criminal activity from the targeted
neighborhoods.
3 Empower and educate families to remove gang members from gang activities.
4 Establish programs and activities for youth and families
5 Develop and promote alternatives to gang membership
6 Develop a strategy for reducing youth offender related crimes
7 Work with media to educate community on gang graffiti related issues
SAMPLE OUTCOMES:
• Provide at least 250 referrals each year from law enforcement to various service
providers for youth and families in the high crime areas of the city
• Establish 5 target neighborhood advisory groups, comprised of neighborhood residents,
to assist with implementation and sustainability
• Reduce gang related crime by the end of Year 1 in Yakima
• Reduction in number of active gangs and known gang members in Yakima
• Reduction in number of graffiti incidents in Yakima
• Establish block watch groups in each targeted neighborhood by the end of Year 1
• Improved appearance of target neighborhoods
• Increase the number of youth involved in prevention programs
• Reduction of crimes against persons and property on an annual basis.
• Involve at least 200 target neighborhood residents, business owners and other
stakeholders in community crime prevention activities by the end of Year 3
1
TASKS:
1 Collaborate with service providers to develop a comprehensive, ongoing menu of programs,
activities, and services for youth and families in target neighborhoods.
2 Provide a variety of non -sport activities in the city to enhance the self- esteem, self -
confidence, and self- respect of "at- risk" youth in the targeted high crime areas
3 Develop and operate a referral network with children and shelter agencies
4 Publicize and distribute phone numbers, locations, and office hours of youth and adult
services offered
5 Meet with school officials on a monthly basis to identify alcohol, drug, and weapon trends or
problems and develop strategies to address them
6 Develop a system of working closely with parents /guardians of students involved with
alcohol, drugs, or weapons
7 Support the implementation of a mandatory out -of- school suspension program to offer
students structured activities for students suspended for alcohol, drugs, and /or weapons
possession or use Programs to be implemented in community centers, schools, churches, and
non - profit organizations
8 Work with Yakima School District to involve police officers in the schools instructing gang
and drug resistance programs
9 Work with service organizations /agencies, school districts, residents, businesses, and other
service providers to increase participation in youth prevention activities
10 Work with community groups, students, volunteers, and others to establish clean -up crews
to paint over graffiti, beautify neighborhoods, and to clean up high crime areas
11 Publicize and encourage participation in youth and family related services through referrals )
from law enforcement.
12 Work with schools, businesses, churches, service providers and other groups to develop
and implement prevention programs for "At- Risk" youth
2
j SUPPRESSION STRATEGIES
OBJECTIVES:
Develop effective and coordinated strategies for reducing gang related crime in Yakima
Arrest, prosecute, adjudicate, and supervise sentenced juvenile gang members
SAMPLE OUTCOME MEASURES:
Increase arrests of repeated juvenile gang members by the end of Year 1
Increase the number of subjects arrested for committing the crime of graffiti
Reduce gang related crime by the end of Year 1
Reduce number of active gangs.
Reduce number of known gang members
TASKS:
1 Convene strategy sessions and meetings with representatives of the U S Attorney's office,
Yakima Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Probation Services, law enforcement, and others
2 Coordinate and concentrate activities of Valley Law Enforcement, Federal Law Enforcement,
Juvenile Court, and Prosecutors Office, including the use of gang task force, local officers, and
confidential informants
3 Work with U S Attorney, Yakima Prosecutor, and City Prosecutor Attorneys to prosecute
those arrested for gang related crimes.
4 Use audio and video surveillance to survey sites of gang activity
5 Work with City Attorney's office to develop a standard format for contacting owners and
6 Educate neighborhood residents, property owners, and business owners about nuisance
abatement laws.
7 Develop a procedure for reporting of sites that have ongoing gang and drug activity
8 Set up monthly meetings between school districts, law enforcement, social service agencies,
business, government, residents and others to develop and implement strategies to reduce
gang related crimes
9 Hold monthly press events highlighting enforcement and programs.
10 Encourage Prosecutors to eliminate plea bargaining for gang related crimes
11 Develop a procedure for reporting of sites that have drug trafficking and gang activity
12 Establish a system to identify and apprehend habitual offenders who are responsible for a
disproportionate share of crime in Yakima
13 Work with school districts to involve police officers in the schools instructing gang and drug
resistance programs.
14 Develop anti -crime patrols to target high crime areas
15 Install hotlines and tip lines for neighborhood residents and business owners to assist in
identifying sites of criminal activity
16 Recruit citizen patrol members, block watch leaders, business owners, and volunteers to
work with law enforcement to establish Citizen's Safety Committees for high crime areas
3
City of Yakima „r;*' ∎ %�
Police Department 200 S. 3-d Street Yakima, ;��
'� r' r V
Samuel Granato, Chief of Police Washington 98901
Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007 'Vf
MEMORANDUM
February 24, 2010
TO City Manager Dick Zais
FROM Deputy Police Chief Kelly Rosenow
SUBJECT Red Light Camera Update
The utilization of Red Light and School Zone Camera technology was discussed by
council members and city staff at the February 17, 2010, Public Safety Committee
meeting Mr Kroske of American Traffic Solutions was invited to the meeting and
conducted a short presentation on this technology
The Public Safety Committee members voted to bring this topic before the full
council for discussion If the Council wishes to move forward on the implementation
of the camera technology there are numerous issues which need to be addressed by
city staff
The Red Light and School Zone Technology is in use in approximately 17 other
Washington State cities, In Eastern Washington, Moses Lake, Wenatchee, and
Spokane are currently utilizing the technology City staff need to determine the
following
• City staff needs to determine if there is any cost to the City of Yakima for
the installation, upkeep, or monitoring of the technology In the initial
discussions with Mr Kroske, he maintains there is no cost to the City
• City staff will need to determine if state or local bid laws apply to this
technology City Purchasing and Legal are researching this question
• While there was a previous identification of intersections in need of this
technology, this information is approximately two (2) years old and needs
to be updated
It is recommended the Red Light and School Zone Camera technology not be
primarily viewed as a source of revenue With the limited staffing resources of the
Police Department there are many unpatrolled intersections and school zones. The
technology is a tool to assist the Police Department in making these intersections
and school zones safe
Please find attached an article from The National Safety Commission Alerts
regarding Red Light Cameras and safety
If Council wishes for staff to explore this technology further, it is recommended City
Staff be instructed to work with the red light camera dealers to determine if there is
a need for this technology by conducting testing at selected intersections and in
school zones
Please find attached Captain Copeland's initial research concerning Red Light and
School Zone Cameras.
As per the Association of Washington Cities the two Red Light Bills recently
introduced into the 2010 Legislative Process have died
2
/0
CITY OF YAKIMA - LEGAL DEPARTMENT
200 S. 3rd St, Yakima, WA 98901-2830
Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
CML DMSION CRIMINAL DMSION
Helen A Harvey Cynthia Martinez
Lawrence Waters Bronson Faul
Jim Mitchell Jon Seitz
Phone: (509) 575 -6030 FAX. (509) 575-6160 Phone: (509) 575-6033
MEMORANDUM
TO Chief Sam Granato
Cpt. Greg Copeland
FROM Bronson Faul, Assistant City Attorney
DATE February 25, 2010
SUBJECT Traffic Safety Cameras
In 2007 the City of Yakima started gathering information on traffic safety cameras
Ultimately, Council considered the information and decided against proceeding with the
traffic safety cameras There has been renewed interest in further analyzing and
updating the information in regards to these cameras
Currently, there are two separate bills that have been introduced in the 2010 regular
legislative session The first is Senate Bill 6410 This bill clarifies the amount of fine
that can be charged for these tickets The change would authorize a fine not to exceed
the average amount for fines issued for other parking infractions The second is House
Bill 2780 2780 changes the rule that allows a registered owner to avoid the ticket by
stating under oath they were not the driver There is also an addition that requires the
yellow light at the monitored intersections to be at least four seconds long The fine
amount in this bill also clarifies the fine to not exceed $25 The latest information from
AWC is that both bills have not make it out of committee and are not being considered
at this time.
There has also been legal action taken against the jurisdictions that have installed
traffic safety cameras At least two class action lawsuits were filed in King County
Superior Court. The suits litigate the fine amount and fee structure in place as well as
the contracts between the manufacturer and cities
One bright spot in the litigation area is Grant County District Court has heard arguments
and issued a decision on the fine amount and contract. The case is not binding and
has no precedential value in our court but the judge ruled the fee structure and fine in
place was Constitutional
YAKIMA POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE February 3, 2010
TO DC Rosenow
FROM Capt. Copeland
SUBJECT Traffic Safety Cameras
OVERVIEW
Yakima Police Staff have been asked to further examine the topic of Traffic Safety
Cameras. Research has shown that the institution of a Traffic Safety Camera Program in
Yakima is legally permissible, may reduce some collisions, and would provide a source
of revenue to the City of Yakima. However, as with most new ventures, there are
positive and negative aspects to such a program.
POSITIVE ASPECTS
Studies seem to indicate that Red Light Cameras can reduce right -angle collisions at
intersections. A right -angle collision is the type often caused by vehicle operators who
run red lights. There are some indications that the cameras may increase rear -end
collisions to some degree —a good evaluation of this subject by the US Dept. of
Transportation is attached to this report.
Many agencies are also employing Speed Enforcement Cameras in school zones —the use
of these cameras can increase driver awareness and safety in the zones.
Finally, a Traffic Safety Camera program can provide a source of revenue to the City
NEGATIVE ASPECTS
There has been some negative publicity about Camera Enforcement programs. Much of
the negative publicity has focused on the high dollar amount assigned to fines generated
by the cameras (typically over $100 00) The high dollar amounts are contrasted to the
amounts mentioned during the legislative debate which allowed them (more like $20 00)
Some citizens see the cameras as money - producers for jurisdictions. Pro and Con
editorials from the Seattle area are attached to this report.
There are also currently at least two class - action lawsuits pending in Washington State,
against 20 cities. Among the cities being included in the suit are Moses Lake, Spokane,
and Wenatchee At least one city (Edmonds) is holding off on the implementation of a
camera program until the legal issues in the suit are decided. Relevant articles are
attached.
There are currently measures being debated in both the House and the Senate which
would curtail the fines and other aspects of current Camera Enforcement programs.
Bronson Faul from City Legal has more information on these issues.
CASE STUDY MOSES LAKE
Tern Oliver, Administrative Assistant at the Moses Lake Police Department, was
interviewed —much of her daily duties involve administering the Moses Lake camera
program. Moses Lake currently has two Red Light Camera - monitored intersections and
one school zone which is monitored by Speed Enforcement Cameras. Moses Lake has a
contract with Redflex, and Oliver gave Redflex high marks for their products and
customer service.
I asked Oliver to describe for me exactly how the system works in Moses Lake, and she
described the following to me The cameras record the violations, which are then
reviewed by Redflex to make sure there was an actual violation and that a readable
License plate number is on the recording. The recordings are then made available to
Moses Lake PD via the Redflex website Officers review the recordings, of which there
are usually 30 -50 a day —this takes about half an hour The reviewing officer approves
the valid violations on the website, and Reflex then sends the registered owner of the
vehicle involved a ticket. The red light violations are currently $112 00 —the school zone
speeding tickets start at $112 00 and become incrementally larger depending on the speed
of the vehicle The registered owners can either pay the ticket (in a variety of ways) or
contest it in Moses Lake's Municipal Court. If they contest it, aJudge reviews the
recording in open court and then almost always (because of the prior checking by Redflex
and by officers) finds that a violation occurred. Registered owners are also able to
indicate that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident —there is a
place on the form where they can list who the actual driver was, but owners are not
required to name the driver in order to avoid paying the ticket.
Owners are required to pay in full— Oliver said the City experimented with a time
payment system early on, but found the process to be extremely cumbersome. They
quickly abandoned it.
Ron Cone from the Moses Lake Finance Dept was also interviewed about the Moses
Lake program. He advised that the combined total number of tickets issued from the Red
Light camera recordings for 2009 was 1,551 The total number from the school zone
tickets was 2,339 In total the City received $656,539 00 and paid Redflex $324, 149 00
He stated that labor to administer the program cost the City about $50,000 00
REDFLEX/AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS
I have had conversations with Glen Post from Redflex, and Sgt. Jones has had
conversations with Bill Kroske from American Traffic solutions. These are the two main
companies that are involved with camera enforcement in the Northwest. Both are
interested in presenting information to City officials about their programs. Typically they
would come to an area such as ours and do a survey in which they would monitor high -
accident intersections for a 24 hour period. If jurisdictions are interested in school zone
enforcement, they would do a survey of recommended school zones as well. If they feel
the violation numbers are high enough to warrant a camera enforcement program, they
will begin contract negotiations with the jurisdiction.
Capt Greg Copeland
The National Safety Commission Alerts
Safety is No Accident
Friday, April 10, 2009
RED LIGHT CAMERAS — A DIFFERENT TAKE
More and more municipalities are installing red light cameras (RLCs) and as their
use grows so does the controversy surrounding their use
Recent articles report that some drivers complain that RLCs violate their right to
privacy and there have been reports of angry drivers striking back by disabling RLCs,
or buying special sprays or license plate covers to blur their license plate
Lawmakers are complaining too Some cities are voting to remove the cameras
because, with the lower incidence of red light running, they cost too much without
the ticket revenue to pay for them
To fully understand some of these issues it is helpful to first, understand what red
light running is and why the cameras were seen to be necessary in the first place
Red light running is a form of aggressive driving that has grown to epidemic
proportions over the last 20 years. An act that was rarely, if ever, seen by older
drivers is now seen on a daily basis
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) cites a study conducted at 19
intersections (without red light cameras) over four states showing that people were
running red lights at a rate of 3 2 per hour The IIHS states that more people are
likely to be injured by red light runners than by any other type of urban crash The
National Highway Traffic Administration reported that almost 900 people
were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that
involved red light running in 2007. About half of the deaths in red light running
crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light
runners. A study by Old Dominion University in Virginia (ODU) showed that 55 8
percent of Americans admit to running red lights, yet 96 percent of drivers were
afraid of being hit by a red light runner
The IIHS states that studies show that RLCs cut down on the incidence of red light
running dramatically however one study that has gained the most attention claims
that RLCs increase the number of collisions at the intersections where they have
been installed
A frank discussion of all of these issues is in order:
Red Light Cameras increase the number of collisions at intersections— The study
cited by those who want to do away with RLCs did show that, once drivers became
aware of the presence of an RLC, there was a slight increase in low velocity rear -end
collisions by drivers who assumed the car ahead wouldn't stop The data clearly
shows that the incidents of high velocity side collisions (commonly called "T -bone
3
collisions ") by red light runners are dramatically reduced at intersections where RLCs
are installed A low impact rear -end collision is far more survivable than a high
velocity T -bone collision ODU also conducted a unique study of intersections in
Virginia Beach VA where they had the opportunity to study red light runners before
an RLC was installed, during the time the RLC was in operation, and after the law
providing for the RLC expired and the cameras were removed The study showed
that the number of crashes decreased
The Supreme Court has held that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for
acts conducted in public. If you are out on a city street, you can't hide behind the
Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially
when you are breaking the law Those irate drivers who have tried to damage or
disable RLCs aren't valiant defenders of the fourth amendment but rather, vandals
who are destroying tax payer property Security cameras of all types have become
so common that we usually forget that they are there and no one seems to
complain because we know they are there to protect us RLCs only take pictures of
those drivers who are running the red light; not those who are obeying the law The
nightly news never shows the guy who went into a convenience store to buy a big
gulp, only the armed thug who came in to rob the store Those who are worried
about their privacy should obey the law The studies show that RLCs save lives.
Attitudes toward them might be different if it was your spouse or child who was
injured or killed by a red light runner during the time the RLCs were operational
but, once the lights were removed, the number of red light runners increased by
3 59 percent within one year It seemed that once aggressive divers were no longer
worried about being photographed, they ran the lights more than ever
Red Light Cameras are a drain on city revenues. — Cities that initially
experienced an increase in revenues from RLCs become dismayed when, as the
incidents of red light running decrease, they stop generating revenue and become
an unexpected revenue loser. Cities that install RLCs as a way of generating money
seem to be seeking the wrong goal The deaths and permanently disabling injuries
prevented should be the goal of RLCs We pay large sums of money each year to
hire and equip police officers in the hope that, by their mere presence, they will
prevent crime from happening in the first place and very few complain about that
cost. RLCs act as a permanent police presence working tirelessly 24/7 If we were to
compare the cost of an RLC with the cost of posting police officers at an intersection
24 hours a day it would quickly become apparent that RLCs are a bargain The IIHS
says that the cost of red light running in America is approximately 7 billion dollars
per year It is difficult to determine how much money is saved by an event that
never happens and prevention should be the goal
Red Light Cameras are a violation of privacy. - The Supreme Court has held
that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy for acts conducted in public. If
you are out on a city street, you can't hide behind the Constitution's guarantee
against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially when you are breaking the
law Those irate drivers who have tried to damage or disable RLCs aren't valiant
defenders of the fourth amendment but rather, vandals who are destroying tax
payer property Security cameras of all types have become so common that we
usually forget that they are there and no one seems to complain because we know
4
they are there to protect us. RLCs only take pictures of those drivers who are
running the red light, not those who are obeying the law The nightly news never
shows the guy who went into a convenience store to buy a big gulp, only the armed
thug who came in to rob the store Those who are worried about their privacy
should obey the law The studies show that RLCs save lives. Attitudes toward them
might be different if it was your spouse or child who was injured or killed by a red
light runner
http.// www .nationalsafetycommission.com /alerts /2009104 /red - light - cameras-
different- take.php
5
Just the
TOP 5
Facts REASONS TO SUPPORT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT
Roadway Dangers
• A red light is run every 20 minutes
• Red -light running is the leading cause of urban crashes
• 96% of people are afraid of being hit by a red -light runner'
• Speeding kills more than 1,000 Americans every month "
• The economic cost of speed- related crashes is more than $40 billion each year
The Solution. Photo Enforcement
Red -light running and speeding are a result of aggressive driving and are completely
preventable with the assistance of proven traffic safety technology
1 Intersection safety and speed cameras work because they are transparent
and assist in modifying driving behavior to deter violations.'
2. The use of intersection safety cameras results in significant injury and
crash reductions
- 25% decrease in total right -angle crashes
16% reduction in injury right -angle crashes
- 15% increase in total rear -end crashes
- 24% increase in injury rear -end crashes'
3 Intersection safety cameras save society $39,000 to $50,000 annually at
each intersection where they are installed.°
4 The Seventh Circuit, U S Court of Appeals, affirmed the constitutionality of
intersection safety programs in January 2009
5. The general public supports intersection safety cameras
- 69% of Americans support the use of intersection safety cameras at
dangerous intersections' Many national, regional and local surveys have
found overwhelming support amongst the public for photo enforcement.
- AAA's 2009 Traffic Safety index reported that 94% of those surveyed rated
red -light running as unacceptable
1 ' 2 ' 4 ' 6 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
5 A 2002 nationwide survey sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
r,° The Federal Highway Administration
9 Public Opinion Strategies 2009
City of Yakima
Police Department 200 S.. 3' Street Yakima, 1;'� =��
Samuel Granato , Chief of Police Washington 98901 �` � =
I % SHIN �.�.
Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 2010
Updated February 24, 2010
TO Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM Kelly M Rosenow, Deputy Chief of Police
SUBJECT School Resource Officer Cost
The Yakima School District has funded 100% of the cost for four School Resource
Officers (SRO's) for several years. Due to the severe budget constraints caused by a
reduction in the state levy equalization fund, the Yakima School District has
requested that the City contribute 25% of the salary and benefits of the four SRO's
The proposal will result in the following costs for the department's budget
2010 $97,050
2011 $102,600
These costs equal one FTE police officer position With the current fiscal situation of
the city, there are not many funding options to cover the school districts proposed
funding reduction The SRO program is very important to students, the City, the
department, and the Yakima School District. While the department can reduce the
number of SRO's to three, the city will still need to pay for the officer's position
Staff recommends that the City contribute the requested 25% share in order to
sustain the four police officer positions as SRO's This cost shift will be
accomplished by delaying the filling of a vacant General Fund police officer position
until the 4 quarter of 2010 Officer positions funded by the federal COPS program
will still be filled first.
Due to a retirement in the police sergeant rank, a police officer will be promoted
effective March 1, 2010, leaving a vacant police officer position The Public Safety
Committee approved leaving this position vacant until the 4 quarter of 2010 in
order to accomplish the cost sharing
Additionally, the current contract with the Yakima School District is valid through
March 31, 2010 Staff would like direction from the Council on how to proceed with
negotiating the contract and the month to month continuation of the current
contract.
City of Yakima 200 S. 3' Street
Police Department Yakima, Washington 98901
Sam Granato, Chief of Police Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007
Date February 10, 2010
To Sam Granato, Chief of Police
From Cesar Abreu
Subject. Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008 versus 2009
The following information has been prepared for your use based on your request dated 4 February
2010
In terms of monthly statistics for all Part I crimes were extracted and analyzed. All crimes continue
to show a steady downward trend.
An analysis conducted of all Part I crimes depicted an overall decline of 10 81%, when compared to
all Part I crimes for 2008 Other crime decreases were noted in the following
Part I Crimes during 2009 reached a cumulative total of 6927 thus versus 7767 recorded for 2008
Comparing 2009 to 2008, we showed a significant decrease in sex crimes or nearly 56% decrease
Equally, we showed a marked decrease in Theft Crimes for a 22% decrease compared to 2008
Additionally, Auto Thefts are down -13 75% over the previous year of 2008
Implementation of the emphasis patrol was a contributing factor for the decline in crimes observed
during the July, August and September 2009 The table below indicates a percentage change by
year for all Part 1 Crimes during calendar years 2008 and 2009
%
2008 2009 Change
Criminal
Homicide 8 12 50 0%
Forcible Rape 47 67 42 6%
Sex 102 45 -55 9%
Robbery 134 136 1 5%
Assaults (All) 1481 1523 2.8%
Burglary 1230 1351 9 8%
Larceny Theft 3937 3076 -21 9%
Vehicle Theft 800 690 -13 8%
Arson 28 27 -3 6%
7767 6927 -10 81%
Crime increases have also been noted in the following:
Homicides, up 50 %, Forcible Rape, up 42 6 % and Burglary with 9 8 %, However, the most
significant increase noted were Rape cases listing an increase of 20 cases over the previous year for
a cumulative increase of 42 6% over the previous year (2008) It should be noted that although
Homicides shows an increase of 50 %, I must indicate that caution should be exercised when
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Subject. Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008 versus 2009
interpreting low numbers as the percentage changes will be significant when interpreting small
numbers as they could skew the results, given the impression of very high or low percentage
changes As a side note, the following vehicles were recorded as being stolen with the most
frequency. Honda (Accord, followed by Civic), Chevrolet, Toyota (Camry) , Ford and Dodge
respectively
Crime decreases were also noted in the following Burglary, Larceny Theft, Auto theft, Assaults
The yearly figures for all Part I Crimes are as follows.
Part I Crimes
YTD Comparison & Percent Change
4500 — — -- — — — - - - -- 80 0%
4000 — 137 — 60 0%
50%
3500 — 43% — 40 0%
X076
3000 — x
10% — 20 0%
2500 —
1.% %
2000 — 1 4, r, .� . -
` 14% 4 %- O 0%
1500 = t 1481)523 351 ( a 22 % -20.0%
:, r 1 N ; � : .123 E
1000 $e ?e. -56 % , ' * dc x x800 Y ? f y +. — -40 0%
500 4 • � 7 60 ,42 13 6 , $ -60 0% 8:'1 . 46a� • .. 0 -;4, -- : 1 7•..i , - ' ;' 1 -'- • f . � r., 1 ,Y ' # 2 ; A '''''' _80 0%
Criminal Forcible Sex Robbery Agg Burglary Larceny Vehicle Arson
Homicide Rape Assault Theft Theft
2008 r - . i 2009 -.- % Change
Part 1 Crimes
3,, 4000
' 3076 t 3500
3000
• �. 2 500
i
' ,,. , 1.48 , 523 r . .{ t 2 000
t 1�s e3 c 1 , ; 1500
�.. , ..» ,,.... I 1000
1, ,6 :
61('': 2. :61412,162A: . '° 1 . 41 36. , X14 - t" srlfr 1 500
8. 4. � �4
`'` sue.' 'r, w ., „ltim• ,t • • , `•. ' ' 4 . :. 7 ;, . 0
� �ae 1.1- aQ e � + t0 y , �a c1 ar t e � 0*
G
al 2008 2009
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Subject: Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008 versus 2009
The chart below shows a comparison moving average Subject. Statistical Comparison - Yr 2008
versus 2009
Part I Crimes
Comparison
4500
4000 -
3500 -
3000 - — —
2500 _
a „
1500 - °a , . ,.� *........* ... " ." ., .z . 1 , ,;,. - `- --- -Lt
1000 - � .0 . ..:. '� :. ,$. -te a „ , :Y.., > 4 ," ,, iv -3-0 ; u .
... - = � � � .�. ... � , k :� .� M ;
t
. .�
,
0 �aaa ." e'... . . . ": . +,�... ,Y -... � !,w T" . ��a: ,.. .,t�+�'Y..o..�.n. . . .,..Y�' .: 5: " ck.....,. a
T H
\b � fie � y IP' � •r e m 1 Q ty o �
o `c a � Q� � e Jer
C
-4- 2008 -° " 2009
If you have any questions regarding this material please contact the undersigned at 509 -576 -6517
/s/
Cesar Abreu
Crime Analysis Supervisor
YPD
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
('- 'o r rnz -6'6t1
MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Mayor Cawley and Members of the City Council
FROM Dick Zais, City Manager
Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development
Michael Morales, Deputy Director of CED
Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
Joan Davenport, Planning Manager
DATE March 1, 2010
SUBJ Response to Yakima County Commissioners Proposal for an Annexation
Moratorium
Background
On Monday March 1, 2010, a letter from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) was
delivered to the Mayor and City Council responding to the suggestion that the BOCC
consider withdrawing their objections regarding the Washington Heights Annexation public
hearing to be conducted by the Yakima County Boundary Review Board on Friday, March 5,
2010 The letter states
"The BOCC is willing to withdraw the County's objection to the Washington Heights
Annexation if the City Council is willing to declare a City annexation moratorium for the
next 12 months"
City Management has conferred extensively today in preparing this memo outlining options
for the City Council consideration regarding the issues raised in the letter from the BOCC
In summary, staff recommendations for action by the City Council are as follows
1) Proceed with the BRB Hearing on March 5, 2010 Public notice requirements have
been met and the annexation proponent requests the hearing be held for the record to
be developed,
2) Rather than a moratorium on annexation for the City of Yakima, re- engage in a
dialogue with Yakima County and all members of the Four -Party Wastewater
Agreement, and other cities as appropriate, on annexation and related growth issues
If an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, invoke the Arbitration
Provisions of the Four -Party Wastewater Agreement.
Our rationale for this recommendation is presented in the following review and analysis
Washington Heights Annexation Hearing by the Boundary Review Board
The Washington Heights Annexation has been in process since June 2009 Following the
request of the BOCC, a public hearing has been scheduled for March 5, 2010 for the Yakima
County Boundary Review Board (BRB) to consider the County objections to the annexation
petition for the area known as the "Washington Heights Annexation" The BRB is empowered
by Yakima County Code YCC 2 90 and RCW 36 93 to conduct an open hearing regarding
orderly development, service delivery and consistency of land use regulations The BRB has
the authority to approve, disapprove or in limited cases modify a proposal Decisions of the
BRB may be appealed to Superior Court. A total of 19 counties have a BRB to monitor the
boundaries of municipalities and special purpose districts
A Decision issued by the BRB related to a single annexation (Washington Heights or any
other annexation petition) reflects the merits of a particular situation
City Council Options for Responding to BOCC Letter
1 Proceed with the BRB Hearing on March 5, 2010, as requested by the developer and
in concert with public notice requirements already provided Do not act on moratorium
suggestion
2 Proceed with the BRB Hearing on March 5, 2010 and consider whether a moratorium
on future annexations is appropriate
3 Proceed with the BRB Hearing on March 5, 2010 but rather than a moratorium on
annexation, continue dialogue with Yakima County to study annexation and related
growth issues
4 Proceed with the BRB Hearing on March 5, 2010 Begin dialogue with Yakima County
and members of the Four -Party Wastewater Agreement, and other cities as
appropriate, on growth and annexation issues If an agreement cannot be reached
between the parties, invoke the Arbitration Provisions of the Four -Party Wastewater
Agreement.
5 Cancel hearing scheduled for March 5, 2010 and proceed with annexation moratorium
6 Withdraw Annexation by Resolution of the City Council and consider moratorium or
dialogue options
Inter -local Agreement to Implement Development Policies
As identified above, one option to imposing a moratorium for the City Council would be to
enter into a broad dialogue or an Inter -local Agreement that outlines common development
interests, GMA obligations, and growth strategies This may involve an update of the Yakima
Countywide Planning Policy, last updated in 2005 An Inter -local agreement is a requirement
for GMA planning agencies and is a more public and open process than a moratorium It is
important to note that the City of Yakima is not the only municipal government in Yakima
County dealing with annexation and service area issues, to that end this discussion and
planning process should not be limited to the City of Yakima, but also involve other cities in
Yakima County
Annexation Moratorium Scenario
A separate memorandum is included to advise the City Council on the legal requirements and
procedures for declaring a moratorium for annexation or other procedures Imposing a
moratorium is a very unusual and rare event for a municipal government, generally reserved
for extreme cases of an emergency nature or other such examples In the last 30 years,
Yakima has imposed 2 short term moratoriums, both initiated to address emergent issues
The effect of declaring a moratorium on annexations would be far - reaching It would have an
immediate chilling impact on new development, potentially labeling the region as a "No
Growth Community" This effect would be felt by local developers and property owners, as
well as by development from regional, statewide and national companies
The perception that land use regulations are not predictable or may be subject to changing
rules, is a common concern expressed by developers as a factor that may drive up the cost
of development or drive development to other communities
Moratorium Impacts
The BOCC's proposed action of a moratorium by the City on annexation may have
unintended consequences Per the Yakima Municipal Code and consistent with the Four -
Party Wastewater Agreement, in order for properties outside of the City limits to access the
City's sanitary sewer system, the property must either be annexed into the City, or be
obligated through and outside utility agreement (OUA) to annex in the City To become so
obligated, a property must be eligible for annexation By definition, a moratorium would
preclude property owners from annexing their properties into the City, and render them
ineligible to execute an OUA.
For these reasons, there is no question that a moratorium on annexation is tantamount
to a de facto moratorium on provision of sanitary sewer outside city limits
Annexation Policy
While further dialogue on annexation with the County could serve to improve the process, it
should not be overlooked that at each step in the annexation process, Council maintains the
ability to say no at anytime to an annexation proposal, particularly early in the process
Nothing about the current annexation process precludes dialogue with BOCC on issues
associated with annexation in general, or a specific annexation In fact the Washington
Heights Annexation is such an example where the proposal was modified to address early
input by members of the BOCC
Annexation is not an issue limited to City of Yakima, and as such may require a larger
dialogue with other cities, perhaps through YVCOG
Vesting of Current Pending Applications for Annexation
A related issue which would require Council policy direction on is the status of at least two
annexation applications which have been received in the Planning Department in addition to
the Washington Heights Annexation The proponents of these annexations may have a right
to claim vested status for their application under current policy
Provision of Public Sewer Outside City Limits During a Moratorium
Although clearly an area that is not specifically defined, there is a grave concern that a
moratorium on annexations within the Urban Growth Area, as noted above, could have a
dramatic effect upon the City's ability to provide sewer service outside of City boundaries
Arguably, based upon the terms expressed in the Four -Party Wastewater Agreement, the
City's authority to provide wastewater service into the Urban Area is grounded in the Four -
Party Wastewater Agreement, wherein Article IV states that "property owners within the
Yakima Urban Area who seek sewer service, through the formation of LID's or otherwise,
shall be subject to the condition that any property owner seeking sewer service whose land is
located within the Urban Boundary, shall, as a condition precedent to the receipt of sewer
service by the City, be required to immediately annex to the City, if feasible to do so, or to
sign an agreement, as a covenant running with the land, to the effect that a petition to annex
to the City of Yakima will be signed if and when the landowner is asked by the City to do so "
This requirement for annexation as a condition of sewer service by the City is the quid pro
quo for the City extending sewer beyond its boundaries, and is necessary to preserve
justification for the cost expended by City residents for the provision of sewer to development
outside of the City This fundamental provision was upheld unanimously by the State
Supreme Court regarding the Grant County Fire District, Moses Lake, Yakima, Yakima
County and Yakima County Fire District 10
The concern raised by the suggested moratorium on annexation is that that action removes
the possibility of annexation from consideration by the City, at least until the City and County
resolve their concerns The unknown outcome of the moratorium leaves the City in a
precarious position of attempting to predict whether the opportunity to annex properties
requesting sewer extension will be available following the termination of the moratorium
Unless there is a certain opportunity to annex properties to which the City extends sewer
service, the Four -Party Wastewater Agreement would not support unilateral sewer extensions
beyond the City boundary by the City of Yakima with the possible exception of public health
emergencies
MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Mayor Cawley and City Council Members
Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
DATE March 1, 2010
SUBJ Background Issues Regarding County Request for Moratorium
The City has received a letter from the Yakima Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
requesting that the City Council consider imposing a one year moratorium on annexations
The basis of the County's request for a moratorium on annexation being to allow an
opportunity for the City and County, together with other interested community members, "to
develop new common annexation strategies promoting smoother transitioning of GMA
obligations and cohesive development standards "
Moratorium Initially, the concept of moratorium should be defined and the process of
enacting a moratorium described Moratoria are provided for in the land use chapters of the
RCW, specifically RCW 36 70A.390, attached for your review This statute provides that a
moratorium regulating certain development actions may be enacted by the legislative body
with jurisdiction without holding a public hearing on the issue first. This procedure is
permitted primarily to avoid the inrush of applications by developers that may be affected by
the moratorium, prior to the moratorium taking affect The immediate affect of the moratorium
ordinance would cut off those applications intended to avoid the action of the legislation This
provision is in recognition that moratoria are most typically applied in response to an
emergency situation requiring quick action on the part of the legislative body in order to
minimize impacts of the situation, e g enacting a moratorium on further connections to an
overloaded sewer lift station
If such emergency action is taken to enact a moratorium, then the statute directs that the
enacting body shall hold a public hearing within at least sixty days of adoption to permit the
public to appear and comment on the action taken If the legislative body has not adopted
findings of fact justifying It's action before a public hearing Is held, then It shall do so
immediately after the public hearing occurs
The statute further directs that a moratorium adopted in accord with the statute may be
effective for no longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan
is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period A moratorium may be
renewed for one or more six -month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held with
findings of fact made prior to each renewal
Page 5 of 6
re
Emergency Enactment: The Yakima City Charter provides for emergency action by the City
Council to enact certain ordinances that shall have immediate effect, without the usual thirty
day period following publication being required for effectiveness The City Charter provides
that an emergency ordinance is one intended "to provide for the immediate preservation of
the public peace, property, health or safety The unanimous vote of the commission shall be
necessary for the passage of an emergency ordinance " Yakima City Charter Article VI,
section 2
This Charter provision establishes that only in certain finite situations may the Council enact
legislation by ordinance under an emergency theory At this point in time, no apparent
emergency exists to justify the harsh results of a moratorium with respect to the effect such
an enactment may have on development within the Yakima Urban Growth Area, but such a
finding would be necessary to permit Council to take an immediate emergency action by
ordinance
There is also some support for the use of the resolution process to enact immediately
effective moratoria, as there is no thirty day period associated with resolutions taking effect.
In that case, the determination of an emergency would not be implicated as a means to
shorten the effective date of the action taken The use of resolution to enact a moratorium
should be given careful consideration based upon the significant potential for short and long
range effects of the action
The finding of the existence of an emergency would also be part of the findings reasonably
necessary to support the use of the statutory provision as well, unless a public hearing was
provided prior to the enactment of a moratorium through the standard City ordinance process
that allows for a thirty day period following publication prior to the ordinance becoming
effective These findings would also need to justify the basis for the moratorium over the
period for which it was enacted
One Year Moratorium The County Commissioners have requested that the City enact a
one -year moratorium on the annexation of property into the City from the Urban Growth Area
The statute authorizing moratoriums provides for a period of "not longer than six months" but
also allows for a moratorium for up to one year, "if a work plan is developed for related
studies providing such a longer period " Therefore, it is the Legal Department's
understanding that in order to accommodate the Commissioner's request, the City would
need to demonstrate a plan of action that would provide sufficient detail and time -frame for
accomplishment that illustrated a one year period would be required to accomplish the
studies and work necessary to carry out the purpose of the moratorium
Page 6 of 6
• kt 3 - - N
. -
BOARD OF YAKIMA C•UNTY tommissioNERs
*District One District Two *" District Three
Michael D Leita Kevin J Bouchey J Rand Elliott
'February 26, 2010
Honorable Mayor MiCali Cawley &Council Members,
At the February 23, 2010 City/County intergovernmental committee (CCIC) meeting, Council members Ensey,
Coffey, and Ettl requested that the Yakima County Commissioners (130CC) consider withdrawing the County's
Washington Heights annexation objections :before the Boundary ,Review Board scheduled for 'Friday March 5;
2010
As stated in our February 16' letter to. Mayor Cawley Yakima County requested the Boundary Review Board
(BRB) to take jurisdiction of the annexation, not to oppose it, but to provide time to engage the-Council into ,
broader discussion of the coordination and development of urban services. Yakittia County continues t� believe
that such annexations, .along with past annexations, complicate the transitioning of GMA obligations and
fragment our joint efforts to establish cohesive development standards. Both of these issues have created historic
'tensions between the City, County and 'Development Community
Please be advised that the BOCC is willing to withdraw the' County's objections to the WashingtOn: Heights
annexation if the 'City 'Council is willing to declare a City annexation moratorium .for the next 12. Months. This
moratorium would allow the CCIC in Cooperation with other interested community members, to develop new
Common annexation Strategies. prorinoting smoother transitioning of GMA obligations and cohesive development
standards.
We await your response prior to March 4, 2010
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
- "
-
Michael D Leita, Chairman
A' 1
)
'Kevin J Bbuchey„Commissioner
,7
/ J nd Elliott, Commissioner
Constituting the Board ofrounty Commissioners for Yakiiqtr County Washington
Cc. Dick Zais, Yakima City Manager
128 North Second Street • Yakima, Washington 96901 4 509-574-1500 • FAX. 509-574-1501