HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/1980 Business Meeting •
APRIL 29, 1980 r i 1
The City Council met in session on this date at 1:00 P.M. in the Con-
ference Room of City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Council members present
were Mayor Betty L. Edmondson, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, Bruce
Crest, Shirley Doty, and In Hinman. Council manber Lynn Carmichael
Absent.
Mayor Edmondson reported that the term of Bruce Simpson, the City's
representative on the Regional Planning Commission is up at this time,
but that he would like to finish out the year, and would hand in his
resignation at that time. It was the general consensus of the Council
to leave it as is, and not make any change at this time.
Councilman Hinman stated that Herb Smith, Principal of Robertson School
has reported that the irrigation ditch near the school is a tremendous
problem with kids and asked him to contact the Council and management
with regards to building a bridge across the ditch. City Manager Zais
stated that staff will look into the matter and will report back regard-
ing construction costs, etc.
City Attorney Andrews referred to the matter of retroactive pay for
Civil Service Phase IV Reclassification. He introduced Pamela Bradburn,
General Counsel, for the Washington State Council of County and City
Employees, Local No. 1122, who reviewed her report and other documents
that had been received by Council members. She expressed her concerns
and stated that it is obvious that there is no written agreement to make
this retroactive to January 1, 1979, although she feels it is also
obvious that Union members believe this was to have been paid retro-
active and referred to several letters from Union members stating this
fact -- or that the delay in completing the overview wouldn't harm them.
She referred to the length of time that it took to complete the Phase IV
Overview, and stated that January 1, 1979, was the target date of com-
pletion of the Overview. She further stated the Union is not asking for
something the employees do not deserve. City Manager Zais explained
that there had been a change in the Personnel Office which slowed down
work on the Overview and there was no idea as to the cost of the program
until mid-1979. There were no figures put into the 1979 budget
they had no idea of how much it was going to cost. He stated he could
not find anywhere that there was a listing of costs. Councilman Hinman
stated he particularly remembered an instance of a presentation on the
blackboard regarding the reclassification and some contingency figures.
He also* stated he remembered the City's position was that it was not a
subject to bring up for collective bargaining. City Attorney Andrews
stated that reclassification was not a mandatory subject of bargaining,
but can be a. subject for collective bargaining. He referred to what the
law is regarding whether or not a contract did exist -- stating the fact_
that a contract can be shown by verbal agreement, as well as in writing.
He stated that it is his view, by looking at the exhi hits, that there
are probably good reasons Why the City could have entered into that kind
of a contract., but that in his opinion, there isn't any evidence that
the City did, in fact. athere was some implication that this plan was
to go into effect January, 1979, then it should have been indicated in
some way by the Council. He referred to a legal case mentioned in Ms.
Bradburn 's documents, the Christy Case, in which there was not a written
agreement but there was ratification by the Commissioners in the case
II/
which was proven to be legal. He again stated he found no evidence of
any such ratification by the Council. Councilman Beauchamp asked how
much the retroactive pay would be and was told approximately $35,000 for
30 positions.. He stated he remembered discussion-on this and the fact
that a lot of positions were going to be changed and that it appears to
show that there was an intent to try to implement this. Mayor Edmondson
stated that she recalls very definitely that when the reclassification
for Phase I, II and III were finished, and then came the Overview, that
her viewpoint was that once this was done, that retroactively they would
be receiving pay along with this, that therefore, those individuals-were
not going to have to wait. She further stated that no action or dir-
ection was given by the Council, but that her view was that the intent
that these individuals whose positions were being reclassified would be
paid and not be penalized. She again stated that there wasn't any
Absolute direction given by the Council. She felt that was a management
priority. Former Council Member Nadine Lee stated she had some notes on
this matter, but had not had time to go through several boxes of mat-
erial, but she does recall -- and with her notes, that it was the Coun-
cil 's intent to pay for this reclassification retroactively, and she did
not feel these people should be penalized. She further stated that the
01 2
APRIL 29, 1980
figure $30,000 appeared on her notes. She stated that it was her re-
collection that it was the intent of the Council at that time that this
be budgeted in the 1979 Budget, but that the only reason it wasn't was
that they didn't have a figure. Council members asked what is the legal
action at this time. Ms. Bradburn said Council has the power -- legal
ability to deny or proceed. City Attorney Andrews again stated that the
question is whether the Council in fact did intend to approve the pay
retroactively, either in writing or by implication; and if they didn't
really do it at that time, the problem is that the pay cannot be made
retroactive at this time. If retroactive pay is questioned, it is going
to have to be defended. He further stated that, as in the Christy Case,
they have to intend to do it, and then do it, so - as to have proof of
their intent by sane actual Council action. Council members asked what
legally can be done now in this situation, and asked the City Attorney
to examine the facts that Council gives him and come back with a legal
opinion. City Attorney Andrews asked for a little time and stated that
it would be helpful if he could get an expression of what the Council
desires to have done, and it would be helpful if they can supply him
with any notes on this subject that they might have, as he will need the II/
support of these statements. It was the general consensus of the Coun-
cil that Council members would give any notes they might have to the
City Attorney and wait for a report back fran him and Ms. Bradburn
before a final decision is made regarding the retroactive pay for the
Civil Service Reclassification.
The matter of Volunteer Firefighter Recruitment Program, having been
continued fran the meeting of April 15, 1980, for staff to bring addi-
tional information to the Council, City Manager Zais explained the
reasoning behind suggesting the Airport as a test facility, stating that
the main reason they looked at the Airport was because there is an
immediate labor pool in the immediate vicinity. Councilman Beauchamp
asked if the fire station at the Airport handles fires at residential
communities as well as fires at the Airport itself, and was told that it
does, and that was the basis as to why the Airport was suggested for the
supplemental volunteers. There was discussion regarding the initial
outlay for the training program. Councilman Hinman stated that this
could be a viable time to start, and that he would like to see the Fire
Department work on a program to get this started. Councilman Buchanan
stated that he would like to see something like this getting started.
Councilman Crest suggested that the staff be directed to continue work-
ing on a volunteer program, not necessarily at the Airport. It was
MOVED by Hinman, seconded by Beauchamp, that the staff be directed to
develop a Volunteer Firefighter Program and select suggested sites at
Which to do this, and have the City Manager report back to the Council:
carried, Beauchaup, Buchanan, Crest, Doty and Hinman voting aye by voice
Vote. Edmondson voting nay by voice vote. Carmichael absent.
At 3:00 P.M. the Council members moved into the Council Chambers for the
balance of the meeting. Mayor Edmondson presiding. Council members
Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest, Doty, Hinman, and City Manager Zais and City
Attorney Andrews present on roll call. Council member Carmichael absent
on roll call.
The Invocation was given by City Attorney Andrews.
Mayor Edmondson referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda,
questioning whether there were any additions or deletions fran either
Council members or citizens present. Councilman Beauchav requested
that Item No. 9 be added to the Consent Agenda. It was the general
consensus of the Council that the addition of It No. 9, as requested,
be made. The City Clerk then read the Consent Agenda itens, including a
resolution by title. It was MOVED by Beauchamp, second ed by Buchanan
that the Consent Agenda, as read, be passed: carried, Beauchamp, Buch-
anan, Crest, Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye on roll call. Car-
michael absent. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk (*)
indicate items on the Consent Agenda to be handled under one motion
without further discussion.)
Verna Beggs, Chairperson of the Su-Fair Community Development Committee,
referred to her letter which had been received by Council members and
reviewed the various procedures and changes requested in these proce-
dures by the Fairview-Sumac Area residents, for them to receive sewer
013
'APRIL 29, 1980
service fran the City. The requested procedures listed in the letter
are: (as quoted fran the letter)
"1. Outside Utility Application Fee
a) $10.00 Application Fee.
The Su-Fair Canmunity Development Committee would provide
volunteer assistance in processing the outside utility agree-
ments on a group basis. This is intended to encourage as many
residents as possible to sign up initially, even if they do
not connect right away. For two weeks, two days each week,
between the hours of nine to five one day and 12 to eight on
the other day. The actual dates are yet to be determined.
II/
Volunteers would be at Fire District No. 12 fire station.
This volunteer effort would measurably relieve the City staff
of routine procedures. Residents of the area would be re-
quested to pay the $10.00 fee at the time the application was
filled out. We would request that their 1980 Property Tax
Statement also be brought with then so that a copy could be
made and attached to their application.
b) Regular Fee to Apply After Initial Group Processing.
It is the choice of the residents if they do not wish to make
application for the Outside Utility Agreement during this two
week period of time. However, they would be subject to the
normal procedures for Outside Utility Agreements regarding
sewer hook-ups, in the future and the reduced cost of the
application fee would not apply.
2. Deferred Payment Plan
We do not disagree with the concept of the Deferred Payment Plan,
but we feel that the plan that is currently used by the City was
designed for LID purposes. Due to the amounts that will be asses-
. sed each property in the Su-Fair Project, it might be more appro-
priate that monthly payments be made for the CCRC to assure a
shorter payback period to the City. $25.00 per year spread over
the billing cycle would be acceptable and would avoid a lot of
paperwork.
3. Deferred Annexation
The objective of all concerned is that the area residents have an
opportunity to obtain maximum grant assistance' to upgrade the
neighborhood in both capital improvements and housing. In Novem-
ber, the Su-Fair Committee will ask the County to sponsor Compre-
hensive Block Grant application for a three year program. In order
not to jeopardize any potential funding, we are requesting that the
City agree that annexation of the area not be initiated for a
minimum of three years.
4. Plumbing
a) $9.00 fee for plumbing permit.
b) The Tee and Collar on the main line be installed by a licensed
plumber.
c) The line fran the house and the connection to the Tee and
Collar can be made by the individual.
5. Filing Fee - County Auditor
a) $9.00 Standard, state mandated. ($3/first page, $1/page
thereafter).
In summary, it is important that costs be put into perspective as they
relate to the horreowner.
q I 1,
APRIL 29, 1980
The total initial fixed cost to the hameowner:
1 - $10.00 Outside Utility Application Fee
2 - 9.00 Filing fee with the County Auditor
$19.00
The variable costs to the homeowner:
1 - $ 9.00 Plumbing Permit (good for 60 days only)
2 - 35.00 Tee and Collar (variable)
3 - ? Plumbers cost (variable)
4 - ? Capital recovery cost charge - $0.0101 per sq.ft.(variable)
5 - ? Material and labor cost - line to house (variable)"
In reference to It No. 1(a) the requested $10.00 application fee for
the group procedure for two weeks, Larry Wright, Principal Planner,
stated that since the people of the area are making a sincere effort to
get the Outside Utility Agreements processed, he is not adverse to the
proposal. City Attorney Andreas explained what would have to be amended
in the current legislating ordinance to make this action possible.
After further discussion, it was MOVED by Hinman, seconded by crest that
authorization be given for the proper legislation to be prepared to
allow for the group fee of $10.00 for each Outside Utility Agreement as
outlined: carried, Beauchamp, BuchEnan, Crest, Doty, Edmondson and
Hinman voting aye by voice vote. Carmichael absent. In reference to
Item No. 2, Deferred Payment Plan, it was explained that the City's
bookkeeping system regarding this type of payment is set up to handle
the 10 year once a year payment, but a person can pay off the complete
amount at any time and does not have to string out the payments over the
complete 10 years. Ms. Beggs agreed that this is a workable plan and no
further action was taken on this item. Also no action was necessary on
Item No. 3, Deferred Annexation, since once the explanation for how a
minimum of three years was explained, Sumac-Fairview people agreed with
the people on this deferred annexation proposal. Regarding Item No. 4,
Plumbing, Ms. Beggs explained it became apparent at the Study Session
that a great deal of confusion involved interpretation. rather than
disagreement. The majority of their committee agrees that although
there may be 'several individuals that would be capable of installing the
Tee and Collar the financial liability in the event of error far out-
weigh the cost of a licensed plumber. As to the connection of the side
sewer line to the Tee and Collar, the City Engineer stated that the City
does not require a licensed plumber. This only involves the homeowner
and would not jeopardize nor interrupt service on the main line. In
discussion it was indicated that the word "homeowner" should be added to
Item No. 4(c), so as to make it clear that just not any individual would
be allowed to do this. It was MOVED by Hinman, seconded by Crest, that
Item No. 4, Plumbing, be accepted as outlined and by adding the word
"homeowner" to 4(c): carried, Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest, Doty, Ed-
mondson and Hinman voting aye by voice vote. Carmichael absent. In
discussion of Item No. 5, Filing Fee -- County Auditor, it was suggested
that under (a), the third paragraph after "the total initial fixed cost
to the homeowner", the words "during the two week sign-up:" should be
added. It was MOVED by Hinman, seconded by Doty that Item No. 5, as
outlined, with the additional wording as outlined, be accepted: car-
ried, Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest, Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye
by voice vote. Carmichael absent.
Mr. Harry Whitehead, of Whitehead Insurance, Inc., 101 North 1st Street,
stated he is present to explain about his parking situation and requests
some assistance. He stated that he purchases three parking permits, at
a cost of approximately $47.00 each for three months which entitles him
to park in the adjoining City parking lot, that they go in and out all
day and many times there is not a space when they come back, and they
have to park in front of the business and then get a parking ticket. He
further stated that he would not conceive that the Council would have
him buy the parking permits and then not provide the parking spaces for
them. It was explained that only a certain percentage of the spots are
allocated for parking permits, but that no certain spots are reserved.
After discussion, it was the general consensus of the Council that this
matter should be referred to staff and the DARC Committee for sugges-
tions and possible reexamination of the policy on the lot in question.
APRIL 29, 1980 015
Mayor Edmondson read a proclamation regarding Voter Registration and
Education Month.
*It was MOVED by Beauchamp, seconded by Buchanan that Resolution No.
D-4240, authorizing the execution of Supplement No. 1 to an agreement
with the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
for a glide 'slope easement at the Yakima Air Terminal, be passed:
carried, Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest, Coty, Edmondson and Hinthan voting
aye on roll call. Carmichael absent.
RESOLUTION NO. D-4240, A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City
Manager and City Clerk of the City of Yakima to execute Supplement No. 1
to an Agreement with the United States of America, Department of Trans-
portation, Federal Aviation Administration, for a glide slope easement
11/ at the Yakima Air Terminal.
with th
In accordance wie recent Council re th
quest for a status report on the
city's street sweeping program, Willis White, Public WiorkS Director,
reviewed the written report prepared by Del Kary, Street and Refuse
Manager. He referred to a map, pointing out that there are 211 miles of
City streets, that the sweeping program consists of sweeping all resi-
dential streets approximately 11/2 times per year, that Yakima's sweeping
season is approximately 10 months, that more sanding material is used
due to winter conditions peculiar to this area, and that a seal coat
program is quite expensive in terms of sweeper time utilized. Given
these comparisons, Yakima is comparable with its street sweeping program
to cities of comparable size, utilizing similar equipment. Mr. White
further stated that one alternative to help alleviate public criticism
would be to reinstate the sweeper that was in 1978 and ex-
plained the additional costs to the Street Division. Council members
asked if there could be an intensified street sweeping - program using all
three cleaners -- some kind of a short term program. After further
discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to work
out a program that would get the job done using all three sweepers, a
two months program, and within the current budget. It was stated that
the cost would be approximately $2,600 a month, and they could run for
two months at $4,000 and still be within the current budget.
Art Zerbach, Director of Finance, reviewed his 1980 Quarterly Budget
Status Report, giving some basic information on the more important
funds. He discussed the basic sources of revenues such as Property
Taxes, Sales Tax, Franchise, Utility and Gambling Taxes, interest and
FRS allocation. He also discussed the various expenditures, pointing
out those that are staying within the budget and those that are sanewhat
below expectations. In summary, the report stated "With the exception
of those areas mentioned, the basic financial position of all funds is
healthy. Cash balances are adequate to cover current obligations, and
no major and expected patterns of expenditures or revenues
have occurred. Notwithstanding this, an economic- downturn could ad-
versely effect same revenues. While existing reserves are sufficient to
withstand this eventually, we will continue to experience difficulty in
maintaining a high level of service with existing resources." Council
II/
manber Beauchamp asked about the Cemetery revenues down, and Mr.
Zerbach explained that the fees are not caning in as fast as projected
and on the expenditure side that a: long time employee had retired and
his benefits were approximately $15,000 which caused expenditures to be
over the projected amount. Council members also referred to the finan-
cial status of the Airport. City Manager Zais the fact that
the Council will be spending some time with the County Commissioners on
May 8, 1980, to address the Airport problems. After further discussion,
it was -140VED-by Hinman, by Doty that the Council accept the
Quarterly Financial Report with-compliments to Art Zerbach: carried,
Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest, Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye by
voice vote. Carmichael absent.
City Manager Zais reported that ICMA has asked if the City would be
willing to participate in an Early Warning System Program on the basis
of that will be needed to meet future demands of growth and demand. He
stated that there were 100 cities that applied, and four communities in
the State of Washington have been picked to participate in this program
--Yakima, Selah, Ellensburg, and Spokane. He reported that the entire
staff would need to work on this program and that 50% of the time one
accountant would be used. He asked that the Council members would like
to see accomplishei by this program. Councilman Beauchav stated he
APRIL 29, 1980
would like to see projected revenues vs. actual, and what the average
monthly expenditures are. City Manager Zais also stated that this
project will mesh well with the 1981 budget, and beyond that will give
us a program to plan for the next three or four years.
It was MOVED by Beauchdmp, seconded by Buchanan that Change Order No.
12 to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Project be authorized:
carried, Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest, Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting
aye on roll call. Carmichael absent. '
*It was MOVED by Beauchamp seconded by Buchanan that the out-of-state
travel for Richard Hilligus, Director of Parks and Recreation, to attend
the 1980 Pacific Northwest Regional Recreation and Park Conference in
Vancouver, B.C., May 10 through 13, 1980, be authorized: carried,
Beaudhamp, Buchanan, Crest, Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye on
roll call. Carmichael absent.
On off the agenda item, an Ordinance relating to repealing a Section of
the Yakima Municipal Code pertaining to the operation of the Larson
Building Garage, was discussed: City Attorney Andrews explained that
this Ordinance merely repeals parking regulations and fees required for
the operation of the Larson Building Garage, and since the City no
longer owns the Garage, these do not apply. It was MOVED. by Budhanan,
seconded by Beauchamp that Ordinance No. 2409, repealing said section of
the Yakima Municipal Code, be passed: carried, Beauchamp, Buchanan,
Crest, Coty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye on roll call. Carmichael
Absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 2409, AN ORDINANCE relating to traffic regulations; and
repealing Section 9.50.676 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code per-
taining to the operation of the Larson Building Garage.
City Manager Zais referred to the upcoming all day goal setting meeting
April 30, 1980, and asked for a formal motion of the Council to engage
Don Swartz as previously authorized at a Study Session. It was MOVED by
Hinman, seconded by Doty, that authorization be given to engage services
of Don Swartz for the Council goal setting sessions: carried, Crest,
Doty, Edmondson, Hinman, Beauchamp, and Buchanan voting aye by voice
vote. Carmichael absent.
City Manager Zais suggested for the Council's consideration a joint
meeting of the Council and the Police and Fire Civil Service Commission
and further suggested meeting with than at their regular meeting on May
20, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. It was the general consensus of the Council to
meet with than at that time.
Items of information supplied to the Council were: news article from
the Oregonian, "Civil Service OK's Ni Rules to Aid Minority Hiring".
4/5/80; agenda for the 4/22/80 Board of Adjustment meeting; memo from
Director of Community Development re Moose Lodge Outside Utility Request
for water 1309 North 16th Avenue. 4/15/80; memo from Director of
Public Wbrks Sewer System Monitoring Report. 4/14/80; Yakima Valley
Conference of Governments Newsletter - Vol. 6, No. 4, 4/4/80; agenda for
the 4/22/80 Regional Planning Commission; memo from Director of Parks
and Recreation re Vandalism Report -- 1977, 78 and 79. 4/18/80.
It was MOVED by Beauchamp, seconded by Doty to go into Executive Session
regarding prospective litigation: carried, Beauchamp, Buchanan, Crest,
Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye by voice vote. Carmichael absent.
Upon completion of Executive Session and there being no further business
to come before the Council, it was MOVED by Beauchamp, seconded by
Buchanan that the meeting be adjourned at the hour of 5:15 P.M. to then
APRIL 29; 1980 017
meet at McClure School at 7:00 P.M.: carried, Beaudhamp, Buchanan,
Crest, Doty, Edmondson and Hinman voting aye by voice vote. Carmichael
absent.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BYfre
•UNCI
, , r DATE
•UNCI
MTEST:
-
- ,Ifi
•
CITY 0(FRK / MAYOR
•