HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/2010 00 Agenda and Packet CLERKS (KA)
=--- 0 v -e<1 i ___ . !‘l ,
0
• 14, .. , .
ii
, i I t CO RpORA'1'F1) • 1
CITY OF YAKIMA
WASHINGTON
•
NOVEMBER 30, 2010
CITY COUNCIL
BUDGET REVIEW
AND
INFORMATION
PACKET
•
Micah Cawley, Mayor
Kathy Coffey, Assistant Mayor
Yakima Maureen Adkison
r Dave Edler
•/' ■ 1," k J City ) Council Rick Ense
Y
1 '''.t ` �RFO ATED `yam' Agenda Dave Ettl
129 N. 2nd Street,Yakima,WA.9890I Bill Lover
Phone: (509) 575 -6000 • Fax (509) 576 -6614 City Manager
Email ccouncil @ci.yakima.wa.us • www.ci.yakima.wa.us Richard A. Zais, Jr.
Anyone wishing to address the Council, please fill out the form found on the tables and give it to the City Clerk
YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED MEETING — BUDGET REVIEW
NOVEMBER 30, 2010 – 9 A.M –12 00 NOON
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – CITY HALL
900- 930A.M
1 Roll Call
2 Executive Session (up to 30 minutes)
• Collective Bargaining
• Review performance of a public employee
• 930A.M –1200
Noon
3 2011 Budget Review
A. Alternative Budget Reductions
• Police
• Fire
B Additional Budget Reductions
• Parks
C Use of Reserves
D Supplemental Information
• Parking Permits
• "Building Fees" tied to CPI
• Parks District Information
• Regional Fire Authority
• List of Projected State Park Closures
4 Adjournment to December 7, 2010 at 9 00 a m in the Council Chambers for the
City Council Budget Wrap -up meeting
•
Yakima
Latd
u -a�,an
City of Yakima Vision Statement: To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant, safe, and strong Yakima. community ! I I I I
Adopted March 2008 1994
Yakima City Council
Council Chambers - City Hall
November 28, 2010
9:00 - 12:00 p.m.
2011 Budget Review
AGENDA
I. Executive Session - Labor Negotiations
II. Budget Review.
A. Alternative Budget Reductions
• Police (a) Memo & Policy Issue Summary Update
• Fire (b) Policy Issue Summary Update
B. Additional Budget Reductions
• Parks
S C. Use of Reserves
D Supplemental Information.
1. Parking Permits
2 "Building Fees" tied to CPI
3 Parks District Information
4 Regional Fire Authority
5 List of Projected State Park Closures
•
City of Yakima
2011 BUDGET PROCESS
1111 COUNCIL BUDGET REVIEW SCHEDULE - SUMMARY *
(as of 11/21/10)
Date / Time Budget Priority / Dept / Svc Unit
Date Tuesday, November 30, 2010 Executive Session - Labor Negotiations
Meeting Council Budget Review
Time 9 00 - Noon Budget Review - 2011 Budget Review (cont.)
Date Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Meeting Council Budget Review Budget Wrap -Up -- Budget Wrap -Up Document
Time 9 00 a.m - noon
Date Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Meeting Regular (Adjourned) Bus. Mtg. Budget Adoption -- Council Agenda Item
Time 2 00 p.m.
• * All meetings will be held at City Hall In Council Chambers
•
Page 1 of 1
•
2011 Budget Review
(November 30, 2010)
A. Alternate Budget Reduction Options
• Memorandum from Police Department
• Updated Summary of Police reduction options (changes
from the original are highlighted)
• • Updated Summary of Fire reduction options (changes are
highlighted) Note The Memorandum detailing the Fire
Department's updated proposal was distributed to Council
at their November 9 meeting
•
City of Yakima 200 S. 3 Street ao
Po Department Yakima, Washington 98901
• Sam Granato, Chief of Police Telephone (509)575 -6200 Fax (509)575 -6007 �t
Memorandum
November 30, 2010
TO Yakima City Council
FROM. City Manager Dick Zais, Chief Sam Granato, Captain Greg Copeland
SUBJECT Council Budget Request -for November 30 Meeting
At the Council budget meeting on November 9 the Council identified several goals to
determine if the Police Department could find a way within the 2011 proposed funding levels
to make the following three goals a reality
1 Retain both the Crime and Intel Analyst Supervisor and the Forensic Manager
positions.
• 2 Maintain current staffing for the Gang, Pro Act and Traffic Units rather than
permanently integrate some positions from these units into the patrol division as
proposed.
3 Maintain the four police officer positions designated in the 2011 budget.
Department staff met and discussed these issues and developed recommendations that we
believe will fulfill most of the Council's goals.
Goal # 1, reinstate the Crime and Intel Analyst Supervisor and Forensic Managers
positions.
The proposed 2011 position reductions require about $62,845 00 to fully restore Chief
Granato' has authorized the use of drug forfeiture money to restore these positions for 2011
and possibly for 2012. There are sufficient funds to cover the 2011 budget shortfall in this
area, however this source of funds can not be predicted or relied on for future budget years.
Not discussed, but still of critical importance, is the position of Assistant Evidence
Technician. This position is slated to be eliminated in the proposed 2011 budget. Chief
Granato has authorized the use of additional drug forfeiture money to fund this position for
2011 as well, at a cost of $57,970 00
The $120,810 00 proposed above will fund the amount needed to retain the three positions
for 2011 The $120,810 will be funded through a one -time distribution of drug forfeiture
assets in the amount of about $190,000 00 paid from Yakima County, which the department
1
will receive in January, 2011 However, these are one time monies that cannot be relied on
as an ongoing source of funding the positions remain at risk for 2012. Accordingly, the
positions may need to be revisited in 2012.
If approved within the adopted 2011 budget staff will reach out to other agencies in our
region to see if we can partner with them in a way that helps pay for the Crime Analyst
Supervisor, the Forensic Manager, and the assistant Evidence Tech positions. The services
provided by these employees are of value and in demand by other agencies. Partnering with
other agencies will create revenue
Goal # 2, fully staff the Gang, Pro Act and Traffic units
For 2011 the Gang Unit is proposed to be reduced by three officers, the Pro Act unit is
proposed to be reduced by two officers, and the Traffic Unit reduced by one officer; for a
total of six officer reductions in these units. These units were reduced in size and the officers
will be reassigned back to the patrol division. This was necessary for two reasons. First we
needed to allow for the overall elimination of four officer positions (see goal # 3) and second,
due to front loading of SRO and Housing officer agreements, patrol was operating at
critically short staffing levels. As you recall we entered into agreements with both the School
District and Housing Authority for officers (supported by grants) to be assigned to both
agencies. In return these agencies agreed to fund the positions for a period of one year after
the expiration of the grant. Both agencies received experienced officers immediately, while
the Department went through the hiring and training process to refill their vacancies.
This goal is quite a bit more complicated as staffing levels throughout the commissioned
ranks must be examined. It is uncontested that adequately (but not fully) staffing the patrol
function is the Department's first priority The patrol function is the Department emergency
first responders and must be staffed so that there are sufficient numbers of officers on duty
24/7 to provide not only routine call response, but also allow for safe tactical responses that
occur each and every day
In examining our staffing we found that we currently have seven officers either waiting to
enter the police academy, in the academy, or in post academy field training. These seven
officers will be fully trained and released to operate independently from about March through
August of 2011 It is the staffs recommendation that as these officers are released from
training they be assigned to patrol, and experienced officers be moved back to refill the
reduced units (Gangs, Pro Act, Traffic) This recommendation does not cost anything and
will allow us to refill the most important units by priority, refilling all units by about August
of 2011 Under this scenario the Council goal is fulfilled over time
We should note there is one critical condition to this recommendation. That condition is that
as officers retire or resign in 2011 those positions must be refilled. If we delay hiring, freeze,
or eliminate additional officer positions in 2011 we will jeopardize the Department's ability
to meet this Council goal.
It is not possible to refill the specialty units in January, but our goal will be to refill them by
late summer If we are able to fill two or more of the four officer positions currently
proposed to remain vacant for 2011, we may be able to accomplish this sooner Our goal
would be to have two of the positions refilled by April of 2011 The positions could possibly
II/
be refilled by then if the added positions are "lateral" hires.
2
Goal # 3, restore the four police officer positions eliminated in the 2011 budget.
After much discussion it was agreed that there is no realignment, repnorrtization or reduction
411 available in any area of the Department that would approach anywhere near the $323,369
needed to fully restore this cut. That said, through a combination of some reduction in
overtime, additional jail savings, and allocation of a portion of the increase in property taxes,
two of the four positions could be funded.
There was some discussion of moving SRO out of the schools and to the patrol function,
however the schools fund 75% of four SRO positions and should those positions be removed
they would simply cease to exist. Likewise, moving the two grant supported SRO's or
Housing officer would place the Department in the position of having to fully fund these
positions when the grant funds terminate, which is not possible. It would also violate
contracts we have with both agencies.
There was additional discussion of the elimination of some types of patrol calls. While this
does have value, should this occur it simply makes the patrol division more efficient and
increases their ability to be more proactive, it does not reduce minimum patrol staffing
requirements or associated costs. In addition we have no ability to shift crime reporting to the
Services Section of the Department as that area has already been reduced to a level that can
barely manage its existing duties. This is a policy issue request from Councilwoman Coffey
that will need to be part of a larger discussion.
Finally there was discussion of reducing Department overtime to gain the required funding.
The fact is that we have years ago reduced most non - essential overtime and what overtime
currently exists is mission - essential. Overtime for minimum patrol shift coverage due to
training, vacations, injury and sick time can not really be reduced to any significant degree
Likewise, due to the unpredictable nature of police work, arrests will continue to be made at
the end of shifts, officers will still be required to attend court on their time off, and major
criminal incidents will continue to occur at all times of the day and night that requires
resources over and above what we have on duty The only way to even begin to reduce these
overtime costs would be to substantially and dramatically increase Department staffing levels
or reduce or eliminate the services funded through overtime as described below
To reach the desired level of overtime savings the Department would be looking at
eliminating all minimum patrol staffing requirements and if a shift had a number of officers
sick or injured the shift would work with only a couple (or even no) officers on duty Officers
would be discouraged from making arrests near the end of their shift, no matter what the
crime was, and major crime scenes would just be held and not investigated until the
following business day Clearly, this is not possible and any thought that the Department can
substantially reduce overtime and even provide for the barest level of emergency service is
simply not practical if we are to maintain a minimum level of emergency response
capabilities. In order to reach the goal of a $45,000 00 reduction in overtime for 2011 as
described below, YPD supervisors will more closely monitor end -of –shift calls and work to
maximize scheduling given current staffing levels.
There is often some discussion of eliminating or reducing police response to property
crimes —this is an option that is possible but that would run counter to our mission of
• providing top quality police coverage to the City We already try to take many property
crime reports over the phone in order to keep officers clear for calls of a higher priority —
however the victims of these property crimes often feel that their case is a high priority and
3
should have an officer response. Graffiti is a property crime we could stop responding to—
there are hundreds of these occurrences a year and they are very troublesome to the public
and to business owners. Burglary is another example —there were 1313 burglaries in the
City in 2009, in both residences and businesses. Our region has the unfortunate distinction of
being in the "top ten" hotspots for Auto Theft —if we stopped making officer responses to
these we could be in the "top ten" for some time to come. There were 3090 theft cases in the
City in 2009 —at least half of these were car prowls. Thefts are the crime category most
likely to be taken over the phone; however the more serious cases get an officer response In
short a further reduction in police responses to these crimes would be bad for the City and
could essentially "decnmmalize" some types of crime.
We believe we have identified sufficient funding sources to fill two of the four officer
positions currently proposed to be held vacant for 2011 We have been advised by the
County jail and by the Wapato jail that they will not be increasing their jail rates for 2011 —
the rates will stay as they have been for 2010 These two jails are the ones most often used
by YPD —the Toppenish jail and the Sunnyside jail are used only rarely We had allowed an
extra amount in the 2011 jail budget to allow for any potential increases —in the absence of
the increases, we believe we can reduce our 2011 jail cost estimate by $90,000 00 Also, the
recent approval of the 1% property tax increase means (according to the POG model) an
additional $120,000 00 that can be used for public safety Additionally, we propose to
reduce our 2011 overtime budget by $45,000 00 In sum, these amounts total $255,000 00
This amount would allow us to hire two of the four "vacant" officer positions (about
$90,000 00 each) and the final corrections officer position (about $70,000)
Cost Funding
Two (2) Police Officer $180,000
Positions
One (1) Corrections Officer $70,000
Reduce 2011 Jail Budget $90,000
Property Tax Revenue $120,000
Reduce 2011 Overtime $45,000
Total $250,000 $255,000
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
4
CITY OF /ALIfIG
2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS
0 POLICE
PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS — ALTERNATE
INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION — 112
P PERSONNEL CHANGES - CAPITAL OUTLAY / MAINT / OP COSTS -
ITEM 0 $ COST $ COST
# G DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION
$: : ;,..-' N `I. ° ; y a . ; N, '� o
^� ;t:i"f r C' 'i'i ::iv!i }yu; i1 � zi :i .� !r l � : ., lr.` *` i11�`'?r +i;g`4:gA + ,:ine ..4g:
1 PS :Moue r " $ 84 000 ,T r tea{ " =. `: s f e . 1 p oit ,_ he i t , ,. . .,�,, .
; ,,, 1 , P, 4,, e ,, em " ora'rllV , z,0n '4 fer o f # he. g
' VS' i"= ^t' �: p -xv, x -" Y, Y �4 � F-v � P ,,, ^. ,. a - t ���3i`'�i'
' ensit Superursgn ands forensic duties t6 B e b funde dtu ' ` '� :'
,_ As Evidence ,, v, t �v° � ''',AV � ' 7 '' 4 ` f'� Ai, :- r " -'5 , ` ' ` '" ' i'' 1, ' _
s, f es , ";:_ ct .
c an t"o: , . a 'a' n., . ,
r e
. 'Tchrii i at :�fs�°� �.t5'� "����. x'41. t�_'d „���.::
"ii?. -.`. n i, _ ", l . ,' ; a:> " 5 q , 4 t,> a i7: , ` - +"r. .., y`xij : Uy;. c., --t.:' ; ;,.._x ,• ,, : p : :t •;
1'S264 a t, ,c, ,, . ,a sti :.: ;-* : ,. : t . r ? 6,0 - :1�;, .. .; ,it `d ' :_r ;., -' '"_ " t
4 `h i '''';ci ZS+n.,,
,,; -�yy ' .ni - :1 a 'V s '' s ' .^ .2' ,. „, r 4 : t
F r+ '�v 5c '� ,.6'�:PN "aa” -rte. i "'�.l^„�?fidf3�.�, 1 �t.�s i. �� ���S,C,��`• �`'�m."+��`,..
PREVENTATIVE PATROL DIVISION — 113
,
: ,x p! ..,, ° <2�`,',.ti, , _ i I . ,. .'v':r °Lry :'u i,e.t, ; -, :n.r . ;r:.L ;.. :1 •i%a;.='; 3. .,. a- T,i.gr "'�„
2 PS 2 P = 16150. r = "ta
1 � , N ,,,$ 0 z , 2 (vacant) , y y , i ,,.� a � T,- ; :
Patrol - Of ae .t0 cer m - , t� ; v ki u w 4 4 C� a }�}r5 f; 'ro' '7
4 V=4 , .+ , ", ii t^ = w ' ' S is d z s tr'fiJ,
x t�zas,; *t;,L _ _ _ .5.: ,�, %` °k.:: �vw �,a,s.':�t: ° +..;..:d _,;;•. nr,.,,, 4`.`. c r . F:,� . • 'ti�rc;J:ems` { .. a :.
+.y n..�.Yk! :: { ..t t. h.i.. \? �Q;:E .t `.1 �4t � _ r %£ "' S,.,'>:�Y='; r; _ � > .
i5:.i , .p. - .;y 5!�.�:¢ i �.'i+ * , ,, � , p r j� : r. ,- <<rY�'�? , . r.1; ic ut'': f'f'i,' %" "'. &`� !,
` '3.; , PS ' '.Reduce`Overfime 51, _$4 5'000 ,,.;_ ..r•, - _ 1.'r<;n' , 1 : 1 ,4,. „,, Ut R ,'
.• _ „. . < a : '; k» . <;,, 't ;;, ,; esto ,2';of ': r ed uc e :overt rme';b V ..:,,
`r7� ", t F . M { ., ' ':x. , j;. r '7� ��' n" '• .Rxiv
' . � =X. 5 1, „ ,'f,,��;.::' . '1: j »15 <: ' s�iS: - -. , _ = �._ _e''','`.5" - .,-- - 6W - '
�'. ,, .1' ;1 -� tr` .,�. , w� a:;� ,. .� ",��ax '�+� •: '�2.54 :;nl�' "'���;'�wi.'ic� ,� ^�:�o- . "'�.� ..�
3 V ,, _ ' r,;,. , ' hk z ,, . : ' g u ; :_ ,; 4 Total artme �
,r • •" �. ;.�. a
?a � �' 'f,,, . '� ,cn , �?�, yy , :�� 'L .�" , A� , } a ,� . i �> • p budgefifrom :k
3Y,' ‘ e - v 1 �. i ,'a `s SS 'i*.: ro, : T , i ' ' f & =-. y
'. 5�,' ,' 7, i u 1 -"in._ �1 T 4 Y000 f+'S ` `j n".!. R,.r h
_ i .� �• � ,... , _. � ... � ,_ g. ,, $ 91 = $,872 �. �, � ,;�, � .�, �'
:.
_ .a a.a' „ ..ne,.:`ta.,,.. .. _ ., .. .. , _ ...... „x:,.. . ' t_ , ,. vas-;• a >, .'- ., � > 3 L° y - e+`.,l sr
.... .. ,.u11 . .. . -. ._ 3.d' -1+n ... -. _.. ,. _.Z..'YiS.ca_ -..e � • , �� : r..n .. 13:..
III 4 PS Downgrade 1 Captain $20,673
Position to Sergeant
5 PS Eliminate 29 vehicles $11,470 Includes Vehicles from Service Units 104
taken home and 112. Needs to be negotiated (on hold)
DETENTION DIVISION — 115
6 PS 1 Position , . . }= ''s`� '' - 0
'.; , .;'; $ ,
`' Restore Corrections officer to full staffing
Corrections Officer ,_ " . ;, . , for 24/7 operation,
• r._ •Y r� � .�.' yam'!.. a�__ ��t.��c�,yq?'�9'•%'kox�,
7 PS Jail cost reductions $190 $90 000'i o ` `�. -''''Q *° ^�•- -''
rriore- reducti n.. ^ rs #A.,,
ADMINISTRATION — 119
8 PS 1 Position $134,542 1 position total (vacant)
Deputy Chief
I
pq,." •T }. _ . - - .;;i :4T_':+'4�: ae f :'c",. ..�.`!"-1F ii. .i-::� n --- , -, . j ., i l:.;iFS,,;'=... , ..,
9 PS ;Transfer: portion of,;;w_ 3 6,815 por arily .1trarisfer,a;prtiori,of_tlie= a " =
$ .Te �
Cr nie Analyst /Inter , c a nalysis dut be b y s
Sup .i ' t o l; un 5 :1 ^. -�. .z!yat a a +1, o fcti;,mt., S z , a. , w 1 t,,:, i
, d=152 ;.4 d"r u orfe s fi tur e ,. r �.,. , ;,: ;
10 PS 1 Position $42,093 Vacancy due to retirement. Calculated 6
Building Maintenance months
11 PS Reallocate City Hall ($20,585)
Building Maintenance
Supervisor
12 PS - Reduce,o t'Sof: state. #' >5 $16,000 Not to include 0 Travel bud get
c ude extraditi n. Trave
Ill travelT n' K y 4 T ` ,.. from $56,000 to $40,000 •
SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS- ALTERNATIVE
PREVENTATIVE PATROL DIVISION — 1 13
p -- PERSONNEL CHANGES -.•.— CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS -
ITEM 0 $ COST $ COST
# G DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION
12 PS 2 Expected vacancies $80,000
due to retirement /
resignation
13 PS Deactivate SWAT '.:1,:i•'.:.!.,1,;,,s, i.,. ,. ,, --,4-i. ..,:-,..„, , -so , .,,,,w•-lic, $0 „,i-,:e..3 , z... -',-; ••:--,-, . -F, i ' 1; '''' .). ”
y,'YY1..trIqTaW,11,1:!' -. NA ; :;•t` *iv g':P, l' •'. 1: ;:-,,,,•, , 1,-, ': P?it
, 14',;•:0:•' - i• fi .C1-4 4 -.45`•,-.,1 ',•*.,: A4-4,; "al ' o,\Pvg-6 - -g v 4 VA
Team : #,-,.'', .'„,-. :':•:`,:,„ ',1 "i, :Fck... ';'". 'N'f' ' al': .'1'; E ..',.',0: A.a".k-, ' . '4,
ADMINISTRATION — 119
,,,,,
14 PS 1 Position ;'•'',$117 Elii• (filt
,,.;, iv-,•• ,,,,: -..-,• ..-•,,,, ,,,,,.. ,,,,,,,,, ,
Crime Analyst / Intel 4 , --,;4,:;,::;;Pi, ', •PartiOly-transferred:',th, Funch152:iii
.4,. 4 1, 4 - 4,4411V3V7,4::::;:17 0;431 4
Supervisor - ;-*y 4", '=•. ,4 • - ' , :i1,,,,„: ,,,! ,,,-, ,.,;,„ ,
' ;:`■: „ '_:1:: ,- -::-.A,,,'U` 4..-4. ,:,--- . ,,- ':;i .:.'t...-.:LS 4W' .
POLICE TOTALS
- POG REDUCTIONS — —. SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS
PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL NON-PERSONNEL PERSONNEL NON-PERSONNEL
Public Health & Safety PS '• - $504,038,';',3' •,=. '; $217470r4 .;$31-7,000-- $23,000
Resource Management RM -0- -0- -0- -0-
4 11)
Economic Development ED -0- -0- -0- -0-
Quality of Life QL -0- -0- -0- -0-
Customer Service/Communications CS -0- -0- -0- -0-
Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- -0- -0-
TOTAL $504,038' - a.$217,470 - , --: $23,000
, . ,
POG TOTAL :w:, $72,1r;508( SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL :i$340;00t i,
.
GRAND TOTAL $1,061 508'
(1) Represents a reduction from the Preliminary Budget of $817,608. This difference of $96,000 is the allocation of the ad-
ditional property tax identified in the levy calculation to Police operations.
III
CITY OF YaLitet
2011 BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS
•
FIRE
PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT REDUCTIONS — ALTERNATIVE
SUPPRESSION — 122
P PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS —
ITEM 0 $ COST $ COST
# G DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION
'i#r`' ; - iin %rx;?.'%., ... ▪ *.ir`g;�!'a: _ - :, :� ?t,^; .: :-.a ft.':r;:,`. y . M " ' -: .., ! .. q +' , .
1 PS 3 ;`Positions ' ,y :'
z ' ` , o f a y ` 'i
$264 000 =Place Ladder Truck on stand /reserve
Firefighter 04 t fi � � � '; , � ''`� st a t usk ;7 Fi for - kk
{ '{ �;,"a:,. v , .g., 15, T. . ; 4 4 ,11-::..t..1.., , ,. . - ', : . ` , 4 "Z':,::.'.'', -wL. 0.4 -it ,,3 r ' t;? f:5tri: ts- .
; kv .. : " & , r..pr• ';; :: ,i � , ` : "` • " ' tithe. %;
2 PS Overtime Savings �$170;000: :Re b fro $340,000.to $170
TRAINING — 125
P PERSONNEL CHANGES — CAPITAL OUTLAY I MAINT I OP COSTS —
ITEM 0 $ COST $ COST
# G DESCRIPTION REDUCTION DESCRIPTION REDUCTION ITEM DESCRIPTION
:3 ' ''PS ; r � - r�� � 47000' : �t.r �'... :�r .,, � _
, r „' _'f '. ;$, ;= ,,; -,+,. :5- , ' » ,4. ; ositiori'tota•1.. fi'l'led -t o re fire iriidwa `, +,•
'p ° �;' n :; ,• {n1.vy' . ” „a�P„ . !•; � + � . 4xd 't�+,'.F ra�. , „s,' , i i . ,y,� - . ..I� r ; ( .,,•, : ,.) - - -� yhti
.,,] �V # �� ' ' �l4!re �� ^' .u �S L, � ... 1 : d< :tf:. .lk'{` }xe' £V, .fi a ;.' i , R .,4,M,.�{.. �.°c _a n„ .�• { T. 'i =x'..Lx,: � {yii' , n4 ° - ,t,
' ut ' �Flr l , a; . >` `�i . , ,:tl:b,'S ` �r :r ,f . ' •;ir , S E ;« j ' z li- " "� °i' ; r" „ ` =1'.,,.,r.:v:..,r''•.:r., F "m',^�;�t};F,'.`
s4 ~ .�. R eMa ;l: ci,, 0 N a ;a N 0 . 4 a, a, �z 1 20ll $124''000' �i �. ,,:
c P.. .,'xC Na !S ;+r`.. .h; � �. a.�' '' ro� ,r'• ,'a w.d ,i���r ,.�' `°t:';xe'au;'�i
• s� ' ��,�.' vt� -. ,•�F. •tf; -r!a�' - ':�:`i > ,." .. .�- ,r... ,ax:' � • ,. 1 ,.,,, .,,, r t
„ ,,,. r . e,,h"fl: "£e , ' .3 Y y..?.. <.?< ..e - tra , n i n f. ' L eu t e na .. .:. _
4 : PS 'Delete'YV'I'ech ro`ppYYam :$ 34;00 0;' ; -;' �. ,.I Vlove trairu L i eut enan f'te i w Deputy. F i re :” •
'� i „.., d s..„ ,,i ” „,,,,,, - .;,, P, e.0, �;,„. ,y, f....1.47-1,174,-,PP.:"('.' qw " +' {, t - , : r ` x a; ; t, yK - • -2�,{.,.. --,0., ... b _ , . :,+:
, !�rw. ; n:,i .y.,; _ �...a.; � S;u_ " �� -:•„ t : r, �ti`:ti�. x - -, ,x,:.- - :fir k ..,. :c,�..
, *., 'after:r 'etiremen noted,. , inf.51} ; ,, 1 `'`r ' .'.' ; . e- , ,,, ,, �7 i„ , - ^;ti- : - , " : i x._ i
N ': ; , • f , :; c , 5, 5' ,, �, 4: : , . r .,:;. „, . , . s 'IVIa'rshal' .: E x' ense•o : revenue,of
. �, ._ ,, s $ q ., ;, 'I.` ,'; :zK, ': �,,., ', ; {+A .y,.y.,, . v `.f �? ^..:x. _�`i'iF ay��n ,�txerY -_ " v ^ y ;,.. ,
. �i' .. 7 ° :�:�, • , :' t t' ' , ,�'. -, ",M,a,? t� ��„ = ,r; ". i• t�,,,.i 1 �. . .,;,� 'r. ' 7 { o �
t s'ir, `3 x .i -,.; 1-'' . +':;,' s'' ;, , a...,;.t 4 ,, ,. r .. .. „i.:t2 ' . •.x r y ' •. +, w d M;c:, 1 . ,
t . abOVe.- 'net=sa
.. ;- rr ,° • .,2; ,, r,,• .. ' _;' "� '4- ' 'h _
• ,... -
. . .. ... ._ { { .l. _ d , _T ; ' . y u ` r ai. _ . ...'7 .. ...,: ' ; , ,. .:?,,,
' . ...4. -m . . , .,.. ... � 44,
u � r a 9 ,. - . •
ADMINISTRATION — 129
5 PS 1 Position $68,000 1 position total (filled)
secretary II
i "` Ax4';t' :4 ice: 0. :4.
- r... ^ � - - ;ri:r;� .a_'., 1";t'; '� '�•,,,+_, ., n ,�..,,� tk . i. � ^fr t ,_.•,r •� - �- ,�'_
` ' . ,1:. , •>.': <5 ' .-:. ; t . 5 ,," ,,,,.- r < :,. 4 aFn ' - ' 4 ' . �:. ,; .y , ,5tA4 .:., ro
6 6 BPS. >Post``orie.Fiirin �cif�Fire. 60 000 " �i k4' - � �,-.� + ,._z >;�` '..& '..A., .r,. -' ;�� ti� w.
,u ,�, °s. ,s', Y ,r. `•'.P„ + J ,,;r'. , } 2 ? ' ^r' ! > '� ' I.rS _ °
r a f., y;,3� -..' :�cF., ?�, r " # :,,• ,,�': , ar ,�, ° : .�Iq, b y na � j „ �S ,
' x ., _ ) � '� '.�1,:.', j , : ,, ,'n; ^ `,''� , `, ` ^ +i, } t t ., + . r �,, e,. ' \. , .L°t. , r _ • p�SY�
, : Ch ef'f . , , , rionths' w' •)„ w _. s :� '�.. r 1: .,� A „r'; • :., -.4 r ,. A t : I R. :2 , % : .".. , ,, s :
.t� � �a,;..,, ...___,... x r +� . ▪ :C ,,. „� ,- `, -.;h 3. f �- h �N z.. - x. '7s�l' r �' A :
, _.,., ..... _.« ...Y: - . .. ....... .. .. .. . . . •d '. . , ,. . 4 'M3 . ..G+l _`. ., ... .. ;r',. � • ; € a"s % % .. .;'+,. ti "i '; . «. . .;' y. ., _.. :: �''�` .. ,. . : . : M: -^s :
SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET REDUCTIONS
SUPPRESSION — 122
4 PS
',MI.' � o . 'sitio n s; (fi lled); , ,.. :' :' =.' M 3aof retained :w'• :. i o . : - ' - 'Er.7'.:4+;•.',../ r , ,;
; 8 ' p fir
, Firefi hter " y "7i: "` •-� .,F„ I_,':-,, _ „r .... -r')'; ';,„ v ., ''! -•., ',) 4., -N .,' .
. _ e li m n a te dx'= ; ~' '` ` ". ;r„ ,,, ;.•.
>'� . g, :Pi', .: ; to-.4.% ' -..c., z r_.�s': . '`'.� . 4" :'s:':x� : i' �. r�r�: r fi � i` ;. k�� �' pp s ii � c �
asy r?" :: r w <t:
� F1 ;:, � ' w ; fi:',,.i. {:_ ` ' :;. .'515 t „;U'. '04"1.7.: 3 ”' �r� : ,;- . c.al`6e g,Va.. '4 =? `.. •
5 PS ' ut:'
o Overrt «s, $0 Qv ; 1-•'', `
y a bo�e:7•;
,rr: r.r x ,. Y "AAe r ✓`� r S, + - i : - w . n A f ' t§ $Y s,ir" tg'z ' 1 " �F g
4110
FIRE TOTALS - ALTERNATIVE
® POG REDUCTIONS •.... SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS -
PRIORITY OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL NON - PERSONNEL PERSONNEL NON - PERSONNEL
Public Health & Safety PS $643,000 $ -0- r, ' $264;000;. : $ -0-
u
Resource Management RM -0- -0- -0- -0-
Economic Development ED -0- -0- -0- -0-
Quality of Life QL -0- -0- -0- -0-
Customer Service /Communications CS -0- -0- -0- -0-
Strategic Partnerships SP -0- -0- -0- -0-
TOTAL $643,000 $ -0- _ {:x ''$264000; `.; $-0-
POG TOTAL $643,000 SUPPLEMENTARY TOTAL : '•$264,000 r
GRAND TOTAL ".' 000; i
•
110
0
2011 Budget Review
(November 30, 2010)
B. Additional Budget Reduction Options
•
•
Memorandum
November 23, 2010
•
To Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Manager Dick Zais
From. Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Ken Wilkinson, Parks and Recreation Manager
Subject: Parks and Recreation Division Outside of the POG 2011 Budget. Reductions
As directed by City Council, staff is providing additional information regarding
supplemental budget reductions in the "Quality of Life" category of the POG from the
Parks and Recreation Division. These reductions equal a net of $495,000 and are quite
severe.
• Close Lions Pool — Projected Net Savings = $215,000
[propose giving the facility and all of the Lion's pool assets to the YSD]
o 2011 Projected Costs = $413,366
[Administrative Costs for Franklin Pool are included in Lions Pool Budget]
o 2011 Projected Revenue = $142,450
• Staff Reduction = 3.5 FTE [Mainly Temporary Lifeguards]
• * "Mothball "* Fisher Park Golf Course — Projected Net Savings = $35,000
o Irrigation Costs for Grass and Trees for 2010 = $16,831
o Minimal Mowing Costs for 2011 = $15,000
• Staff Reduction = 75 FTE
• "Mothball" Randall Park — Projected Net Savings = $20,000
• Staff Reduction = .25 FTE
• "Mothball" West Valley Community Park - Projected Net Savings = $20,000
• Staff Reduction = .25 FTE
• Shift Park Water Costs to City of Yakima Water Utility Rate Payers - $125,000
[Total Parks /Cemetery water costs equal $200,000 in 2010 These costs would
be much higher but for usage of irrigation shares at Chesterley, Kissel, Elks
Parks and Tahoma Cemetery ]
• Eliminate Subsidy to Tahoma Cemetery = $50,000
[Cemetery Fees would need to be increased in addition to the proposed 7%
or commensurate reduction in available service hours]
• Reduction in payment of Public Works Administration Charges = $30,000
• [Utilize P W Administration reserves for one year ]
* Def - "Mothball" — Utilize temporary fencing to close park entrances. In order to realize cost
savings, the restrooms in each facility must remain locked, the grass is not mowed or irrigated.
Trees will also not be irrigated. Cost will be incurred to rent temporary fencing.
•
2011 Budget Review
(November 30, 2010)
C. Use of Reserves
•
•
Memorandum
November 24, 2010
• To Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Manager Dick Zais
From. Rita DeBord, Finance Director
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director of Accounting & Budgeting
Subject: 2011 General Government Budget -Use of Reserves
This memo is in response to City Council's request for additional information
regarding.
• The use of reserves to maintain a minimum level of either 7.5% (City Manager
recommendation) or 7% (Policy limit) Council member Coffey's proposal on the
use of reserves is attached.
® The additional funding required to eliminate all lay -offs of currently employed
personnel.
Reserve Calculation.
The Preliminary Budget was developed with no use of reserves. In fact, the proposed
budget was actually under projected revenues by about $75,000 The budget as
presented resulted m an ending reserve balance of about $4,825,000, which is 8.5% of
the proposed expenditure budget of $56.8 million.
The expenditure budget if increased by approximately 1% or $568,000, would result in
an ending reserve of $4,257,000 or 7.5 %, while an increase of $800,000 will leave a
reserve level of $4,025,000 or 7 0%
Each year, staff updates revenue and expenditure projections just prior to Council's
final budget deliberations, and the changes being projected for both 2010 and 2011
revenues are positive. Revenue for 2010 netted to an increase of about $75,000, with the
major factor being a slight upturn in sales tax for the last few months of the year 2011
revenue includes the estimated increase discussed m the property tax levy agenda of
$170,000 and a similar increase m sales tax, for a net additional revenue of $205,000 It
should be noted that about $96,000 of the $205,000 is proposed to be used for the Police
Depart rent's alternate budget reduction option. Election costs of about $55,000 also
need to be added into the budget, leaving about $54,000 available for other uses
Summary of additional available reserves.
Additional beginning reserves -2010 revenues $75,000
Use of reserves to 7.5% $568,000
S 2011 projected revenue increase (net) $54,000
Total Additional Available Resources (7.5% Reserve Balance) $697,000
1 of2
Should Council desire to go to the 7 0% minimum reserve balance, then an additional
$232,000 would be available for distribution.
These additional funds could be allocated.
• Proportionately, based on the Priorities of Government (POG) model,
• All to Public Safety; or
• In a different way, as authorized by Council.
Eliminate Lay -offs:
This discussion can be tied to the use of reserves detailed above. Council expressed an
interest in eliminating lay -offs of existing personnel. At the time that the Budget
Forecast was presented, a total of 16 filled positions were eliminated in the budgeted
proposal, with an additional 6 in the supplemental reductions.
Since then, Police and Fire have presented alternative proposals which reduced the
number of filled positions subject to lay -off, and other positions have been vacated, so
there are 10 filled positions still targeted for lay -off at this time. Of these 10, 4 are tied to
the reorgaruzation/budget reduction in the Information Systems Division, and it is
likely that some of these employees will be able to find other positions within the City
prior to or as a part of the implementation of the reorganization. Thus, we've estimated
8 tilled positions will remain at risk of lay -off, with a total cost of $646,000 The
summary of adjustments in General Government permanent positions has been
updated, and is attached for your review (Changes from the original listing found on
Page 21 of Section I in the 2011 Budget Forecast document have been highlighted )
The reserves identified above are adequate to retain the filled positions Should this
option be chosen, the leave accrual cashouts for these employees of about $155,000
would be removed from the 2010 year -end estimate, thus freeing -up additional
resources for consideration in the use of reserve discussion.
The filled positions that could be retained through the use of reserves are in the POG
categories of Public Safety ($399,000) and Resource Management ($247,000), which are
Council's 2 highest priorities.
Conclusion.
This memorandum is intended to assist Council in their final budget deliberations, by
quantifying some of the options being discussed. The Budget Wrap -up document that
will be distributed for the meeting on December 7th will contain more detail on the
changes m revenue projections noted above, along with other changes and /or
information on non - General Government budgets.
Note: Since the initiatives calling for changes in liquor sales and distribution were both
defeated in the November election, the immediate need to use the supplemental
proposals has been somewhat diminished. However, pension costs and the underlying
economic conditions could still require additional budget reductions in 2011
2 of 2
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESERVES
CHANGING FROM 8.5% TO 7.5% WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL $568,000 HOWEVER, IF
REDUCED TO 7% (OUR LOWEST PERCENT PER OUR POLICY) THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE
WOULD BE $800,000.
THIS WOULD TAKE OUR RESERVES TO APPROXIMATELY $4.2 OR $4 MILLION
2009 ACTUAL 2010 Y/E PROJ 2011BUDGET PROJECTION
$6 4 MILLION= 10.8% $4.8= 8.1% $4.8 =8.5% OR approx. $4 =7%
FIRST TIER ONLY
REDUCING OUR NEED FOR BUDGETED REDUCTIONS FROM $2,321,111 TO $1,753,111 OR TO
$1,521,111 RESPECTIVELY DEPENDING ON WHAT PERCENTAGE WAS ADOPTED
WHETHER WE CALCULATE THE FURTHER USE OF RESERVES ON A 1% OR 1.5% THAT CAN
BE DISCUSSED LATER..BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF RESERVES IS TO HELP WORK
THROUGH EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO COVER REVENUE SHORTFALLS.
I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WE ARE IN EMERGENCY /CRISIS CIRCUMSTANCES
PARTICULARILY IF THE TWO INITIATIVES PASS AND WE LOOSE THE LIQUOR TAX, AS
WELL AS THE FURTHER POTENTIAL FOR THE CHANGE IN PUBLIC PENSIONS THAT WILL BE
® IN FRONT OF OUR LEGISLATOR'S THIS SESSION EQUAL TO $400,000 ANNUALIZED OR THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ARBITRATION AWARD FOR ONE OR ALL OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
UNIONS.
BY UTILIZING THE RESERVES TO THIS LEVEL WE WILL REMAIN WITHIN OUR POLICIES
YET GIVE ALL OF US (INCLUDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY UNIONS) SOME BREATHING ROOM
SO THAT WE ALL MAY TRY & COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON HOW BEST TO KEEP THE
IMPACT TO OUR CITIZENS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL POSSIBLE, PROVIDE RESPONSIVE
CRITICAL SERVICES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
•
2011 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IN PERSONNEL
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PERMANENT POSITIONS
UPDATED I I /24 - INCLUDES POLICE & FIRE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
POG REDUCTIONS - SUPPLEMENTARY REDUCTIONS -
DEPARTMENT I POSITION # STATUS # STATUS TOTAL POG
POLICE
Assistant Evidence Technician* 1 Transfer4o F zn{ l 152_ - 1 PS
Patrol Officer i4 Vacant 2 Future vacancies 4 PS
Corrections Officer _T._ _ Vacant - ''.:411;„,,: PS
Deputy Chief 1 Vacant 0 1 PS
Building Maintenance 1 Retirement - 1 PS
Crime Analyst /Intel Sup* - Portion_ to Fund152 1 Filled 1 PS
Total Police 5 = " ` y 3 4, :8' '
FIRE
Firefighter 4 . Filled r,,,_, Filled 6 PS
Secretary 1 Filled - 1 PS
Deputy Fire Marshall 1, ;,. Retirement " - 1 PS
Total Fire 5 3 < 8
FINANCE/INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Position Eliminations 5 4 Filled, 1 Vacant - 5 RM
Position Additions (5) New positions - (5) RM
IS Manager 1 Vacant (consolidation) - 1 RM
Total Finance /Info Systems (Net) 1 0 1
LEGAL
Legal Assistant - 1 Filled 1 RM
PLANNING
Assistant Planner 1 Retirement - 1 ED
ENGINEERING
Development Engineer 1 Filled - 1 RM
Construction Inspector - 1 Filled 1 RM
Total Engineering 1 1 2
CODE ADMINISTRATION
Code Compliance Officer 1 Filled - 1 PS
Animal Control 1 Vacanf ; . . ; ' - _ 1 PS
Total Code Administration 2 0 2
STREETS
Street Maintenance Specialist 1 Vaunt: : Tk i ,;, - 1 ED
Traffic Sign Specialist 1 Filled 1 PS
Total Streets 1 1 2
Total General Government 16- 9.4. '25,
GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT I POSITION # STATUS # STATUS TOTAL
Eliminated x':10` ; Filled f ;7' Filled 17
Eliminated 7.,. Vacant ,:; - Vacant - 9"'''
Added (5) New 0 New (5)
Transfer / Retirement '4 =,'' 0 4,
•
2011 Budget Review
(November 30, 2010)
D. Supplemental Information
(as requested)
•
•
Page 1 of 1
DeBord, Rita
o om Hobbs, Pete
nt: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10 53 AM
To DeBord, Rita, Epperson, Cindy
Subject: Parking availability
Lot 1 Full with a waiting list However, some permits have not been picked up If these aren't
picked up by the end of the year, we will clear the waiting list and be at about 25 -28% Limit
is currently 30%
Lot 2 Full with no waiting list However, some permits have not been picked up If these aren't
picked up by the end of the year, we will be at about 20 -22%
Lot 4 Full with a waiting list Expected to be full with a waiting list after the next permits
are issued
Lot 5 0% Since this lot is not enforced, there is no incentive to get a permit for this lot
Lot 6 (Barrelhouse) 0% We have had inquiries, but no applications
Total 26% currently This is expected to drop to 18% -20% if the pending permits aren't picked
up
Lots had been near 50% when the limit was 50% and the cost was $60 per quarter However, when the cost went from $60 a
quarter to $120 a quarter, many people discontinued their permits. We are seeing that trend continue
Ate F66s
lk Services Manager
f Yakima
129 N 2nd St
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 575 -6080
11/17/2010
November 24, 2010
MEMO
TO All Council Members
FROM Joe Caruso, Acting Codes Manager
SUBJECT Permits Affiliated with the Seattle CPI -W & Valuation Tables
At the informational request of council on all permits that are affected by the
annual CPI adjustment, the following permits Building, Plumbing, Mechanical
and Sign were approved for an annual adjustment.
Ordinance 2005 -06 was approved by council on February 15, 2005 providing for
an annual adjustment of the Schedule of Fees and the Building Valuation based
on the Seattle CPI -W to be adjusted on January 1 of each subsequent year
Memorandum
November 24, 2010
To Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Manager Dick Zais
From. Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Ken Wilkinson, Parks and Recreation Manager
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director of Accounting /Budget
Subject: 2011 Budget Preparation — City Council Metropolitan Park District Inquiry
In the face of difficult economic challenges, the City of Yakima's General Fund
expenditures continue to be reduced in the 2011 Budget. City Council requested a brief
description of what a voter approved Metropolitan Park District (MPD) would look like,
with specific attention to the viability of inserting an additional tax increment within the
Statutory Limit of $5 90 /thousand. Please see attached information from the Yakima
County's Assessors Office regarding the $5 90 limit and the "aggregate limit" chart in
ascending order of priority (City /County highest priority)
Attached are excerpts from presentations made to City Council in 2007 and most recently
• July of 2009 The establishment of an MPD requires only a simple majority vote of the
citizens within the district. The governing board has the granted authority to set levy
rates within the limits of the statute (RCW 35 61) The governing board could be the City
Council if the service boundary and city limits were the same For this discussion, that is
the example modeled. The MPD governing board can assess up to $0 75/$1,000 The
MPD rate does not require a return to a vote of the citizens.
Financial Quick Look
City of Yakima
2010 Taxable Value $5,300,000,000
2010 Tax Rate Limit $5 90000 /k
(Minus) - 2.9349 City of Yakima
- 0 4595 Library
- 14940 County
- 0.0872 County Flood Control Zone
Rate Remaining 0 9244
MPD Rate Limit $0 75/k
• Total Potential
Revenue $3,989,000
The current proposed Parks Budget for 2011 is $4,007,000 It is made up from property
tax, in lieu tax, fees and miscellaneous revenues. The City Council would have the
options of redirecting the property tax ($1,546,000 for 2011) to the General Fund or
reducing the City's overall levy amount thus returning it to the citizens of Yakima. The
City Council would also have the option of redirecting the in lieu tax ($1,179,000 for
2011 from W /S /R enterprise funds) to the General Fund. The fees and charges for
Parks activities would likely remain ($963,000 for 2011) The level of the MPD levy rate
would be at the discretion of the Governing Board and could generate up to nearly
$4,000,000 if the maximum levy was implemented ($0 75/1,000)
rrhtmimain 11/22/10 2 23 PM
Here's the answer from the County Assessors office on the $5.90 limit.
Cindy
rom: Jacob Tate [ maitto :jacob.tate @co.yakima.wa.us] . ,.a - ._ ..
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:16 PM
To: Epperson, Cindy
Subject: RE: $5.90 limit
Hello Cindy
The limit order below is from DOR's Levy Manual. It comes from hnp: / /apps.leg.wa.cov /RCW /defaulcaspx ?cite = 84.52.010.
The 5.90 limit rate in Yakima City for last year was 4.975691052985/51,000. This is the combined total of the County City Flood Control and the Library districts regular levy rates.
There is plenty of room in that for now barring rate increases for taxing districts which I do not foresee being an issue for quite some time if at all.
$5.90 AGGREGATE LIMIT
PRORATION ORDER
(AFTER MAKING THE LEVY LIMIT CALCULATION)
RCW First:
84.52.010(2)(a) Park & Recreation District 36.69 145
Park & Recreation Service Area 36.68.525
Cultural Arts Stadium & Convention Dist. 67.38.130 '
City Transportation Authority 35.95A.100
84.52.010(2)(b) Second:
Flood Control Zone 86.15.160
84.52.010(2)(c) Third:
Hospital 70 44 060(6) ($.25)
Metropolitan Park 35 61.210 ($.25)*
Cemetery 68.52.310
All other junior taxing districts not otherwise mentioned
*Metropolitan Park District may protect by a vote '
84.52.010(2)(d) Fourth:
Metropolitan Park (Created on /after 1/1/02) 35.61.210 ($.50)
84.52.010(2)(e) Fifth:
Fire District 52,16.140 ($.50) **
Fire District (1 paid FTE) 52.16.160 ($.50) **
Fire Protection Service Authority 52.26.140(1)(b) ($.50)
Fire Protection Service Authority (1 paid FTE) 52.26.140(1)(c) ($.50)
411
* *Fire Protection Districts may protect up to $0.25 from prorationing
84.52.010(2)(0 Sixth.
Fire District 52.16 130 ($.50)
Fire Protection Service Authority 52.26.140(1)(a) ($.50)
Library 27 12.050
& 27 12.150 ($.50)
Hospital 70 44.060(6) ($.50)
Metropolitan Park (Created before 1/1/02) 35.61,210 ($.50)
84.52.010 Seventh:
County Current Expense 84.52.043(1)(b)
County Road 84.52.043(1)(c)
.
City 84.52.043(1)(d)
Levies not subject to the $5.90 Aggregate Limit:
State, Ports, Public Utility Districts, Emergency Medical Services, Affordable Housing, Conservation Futures, County Ferry Districts, Criminal Justice, and County Transit.
Jacob Tate
Property Database Coordinator
Yakima County Assessor
http://yes.co.vaki ma. wa. us /assessor/
( 1.800.572.7354 1.509.574.1112 1
From: Epperson, Cindy [ mailto:cepperso @d.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Jacob Tate
Subject: $5.90 limit
Hi Jacob,
Our City Council is asking about the formation of a metropolitan Parks District, and I know there is a $5.90 limit, but I don't remember what needs to be added together to look at that comparison. If you
have a summary of the hierarchy prepared that you could forward to me, or a reference to a good web -site, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you!
Cindy Epperson
Deputy Director of Accounting and Budgeting
City of Yakima
576-6644
Comparing Metropolitan Park Districts with Park and ' 1
Recreation Service Areas and Districts
Almost completely across the boards, metropolitan park districts offer
more fiscal capacity and flexibility This is particularly true for its property
tax levy First, the MPD levy is less subject to prorationing Although
MPDs formed on or after January 1, 2002 are further down the ladder
than one formed before that date, anything is better than being
absolutely the first districts to have their levy cut if prorationing is
necessary That is the situation for park and recreation districts and
service areas MPDs also have a higher maximum levy - 75 cents per
thousand dollars AV versus 60 cents In addition, the MPD levy is voted
on by the legislative body and is permanent Park and recreation districts
and service area levies are subject to a vote of the people at least every
six years and setting the levy requires a 60 percent majority with a 40
percent voter turnout.
Park and recreation service areas have slightly more generous debt limits
than MPDs, having the ability to levy nonvoted debt in an amount equal
to 3/8 percent of assessed valuation compared to 1 /4 percent for MPDs
The total amount - voted and nonvoted - is the same 2 1 /2 percent of
assessed valuation Park and recreation districts may incur nonvoted debt
in an amount equal to 1 /4 percent of assessed valuation and the total limit
is 1 1 /4 percent of AV
• • • Five commissioners - elected at time of formation
o Five commissioners of the district may be selected at the
same election at which the proposition is submitted to the
voters as to whether a metropolitan park district is to be
formed
• The election of park commissioners is null and void if the
metropolitan park district is not created
• Candidates must run for specific commission positions.
• No primary is held to nominate candidates.
• The person receiving the greatest number of votes for
each position is elected as a commissioner.
o The staggering of the terms of office occurs as follows.
• The two persons elected receiving the two greatest
numbers of votes are elected to six -year terms of office
if the election is held in an odd - numbered year or five -
year terms of office if the election is held in an even -
numbered year,
• The two persons elected receiving the next two greatest
numbers of votes are elected to four -year terms of office
if the election is held in an odd - numbered year or three-
® year terms of office if the election is held in an even -
numbered year, and
• The other person elected is elected to a two -year term
of office if the election is held in an odd - numbered year
or a one -year term of office if the election is held in an
even - numbered year.
o The initial commissioners take office immediately when
elected and qualified, and, for purposes of computing their
terms of office, the terms are assumed to commence on the
first day of January in the year after they are elected
o Thereafter, all commissioners will be elected to six -year terms
of office
o All commissioners serve until their respective successors are
elected, qualified, and assume office in accordance with RCW
29A 2•04•
o Vacancies are to be filled as provided in chapter 42 12 RCW
• District wholly in city or in county
o The governing body of such city or legislative authority of
such county may be designated to serve in an ex officio
capacity as the board of metropolitan park commissioners,
• provided that when creation of the district is proposed by
citizen petition, the city or county approves by resolution such I.
designation
• District within more than one city, more than one county, or any
combination of cities and counties
o Each city governing body and county legislative authority may
be designated to collectively serve ex officio as the board of
metropolitan park commissioners through selection of one or
more members from each to serve as the board, provided
that
o When creation of the district is proposed by citizen petition,
each city governing body and county legislative authority
approves by resolution such designation
o Within six months of the date of certification of election
results approving creation of the district, the size and
membership of the board is determined through interlocal
agreement of each city and county
• The interlocal agreement specifies the method for filling vacancies
on the board.
Park Districts: A Brief Comparison
Park & Recreation District Park & Recreation Service Area Metropolitan Park District
Descriptions
To provide recreation activities and For the purpose of establishing park All cities and counties can form
® facilities as a public service to and recreation service areas in metropolitan park districts that
residents in its geographic area. unincorporated areas within a include territory in portions of one
Most formed to provide general county including financing, or more cities and counties to
recreation services or solely to acquiring, constructing, improving, manage, control, improve, maintain
finance a new swimming pool or to maintaining and operating and acquire parks and facilities
finance an existing one recreational facilities.
Government Type
Municipal corporation Quasi - municipal corporation and Municipal corporation
independent taxing authority
Formation
By petition signed by not less that By petition of 10% of registered By petition of at least 15% of
15% of registered voters within area voters in the area or registered voters in the area or
Requires resolution of city or town By resolution adopted by county Can be initiated by a resolution of
approving inclusion of the area legislative body and requires the governing body(ies) of each city
within the corporate limits of the resolution of city or town and /or county which includes a
city or town approving inclusion of the area portion or all of the area in the
within the corporate limits of the district
city or town
Petition to designate the boundaries Petition or resolution to describe Petition or resolution to indicate the
or describe the land to be included, boundaries, purpose and estimated names and describe the
the objective and the benefit initial costs of capital improvements composition of the initial board of
or services to be authorized commissioners and list a name for
the district
County hearing County hearing No hearing required
® Election
Next general state election Next general election or special Next general election or special
election election
Commissioners elected at the same Commissioners elected at same
time time
Proposition for initial capital or Proposition for initial capital or
operational costs can be included at operational costs can be included at
same time same time
Boundary review board review may
be required
Require majority vote Requires majority vote Requires majority vote
Governing Body
Board of 5 commissioners Members of county legislative Board of 5 commissioners unless
authority plus interlocal agreements district is located entirely within on
if city or another county is involved city or incorporated area of county
Then City Council or County
Commissioners can serve.
Revenue Authority
Regular property tax (60/$1,000) Regular property tax (60/$1,000) 2 regular property tax levies
for 6 -year period when 60% of 40% for 6 -year period when 60% of 40% available: 50e/ $1,000 and
of voters vote yes of voters vote yes 25c/$1,00 Permanent and voted on
by the legislative body
Subject to $5 90 limit Subject to $5 90 limit Subject to $5 90 limit
First tier of 6 for prorationing First tier of 6 for prorationing Third tier (250 and fourth tier (500)
of 6 for prorationing
Fees and charges Fees and charges Fees and charges
Metropolitan Park District (MPD) Taxing Authority 07/13/2009 11.15 AM
RoS Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington
Working Together for Excellence in Local Government 1 1 1
Updated 06/09
Metropolitan Park District (MPD) Taxing Authority
Contents
▪ Levy Rate Limits on Property Tax
• One - Percent Constitutional Property Tax Limit
• Prorationing
• Levy Growth Limits
• Excess Levies for General Government Purposes
• Levy Lid Lift. RCW 84.55.050
• One -Year Levy. RCW 84.52.052
Levy Rate Limits on Property Tax
A metropolitan park district (MPD) is a junior taxing district that has two regular property tax levies
available - one of 50 cents per thousand dollars assessed valuation (AV) and one of 25 cents They are
considered as one levy for the purposes of the levy limits in chapter 84 55 RCW, which sets limits on
the amount by which a levy can be increased RCW 35 61 210 (Note that the levy is the total dollar
amount, not the tax rate) However, they have different rankings in the prorationing statute, which will
be discussed below
The aggregate regular levy rates of senior taxing districts (counties and cities) and junior taxing districts
(fire districts, metropolitan park districts, cemetery districts, library districts, park and recreation
district, etc) may not exceed $5 90 per thousand dollars AV If this limit is exceeded, the levy of at
least one junior taxing district must be prorationed (See discussion below) Some property tax levies
not subject to this limit include state levies, levies for public utility districts, excess property tax levies,
special levies for local school districts, levies for acquiring conservation futures, emergency medical
service levies, low income housing levies, ferry district levies, the county criminal justice levy, and,
under certain restrictive conditions, the 25 cent metropolitan park district levy and 25 cents of the fire
district levy under RCW 52 16 140 or 160 Some of these are, however, subject to the one percent
constitutional limit (RCW 84 52 043)
One Percent Constitutional Property Tax Limit
In addition to the other levy rate limits, both statutory law and the state constitution limit regular
property tax levies (including the state levy) to one percent of the true and fair value of the property
This limit does not apply to port or public utility districts The limit may be exceeded when 60 percent of
the voters approve excess or special levies for operations and maintenance (school levies fall in this
category) or for the payment of debt service on general obligation bonds Both kinds of levies have
voter turnout requirements (Washington State Constitution, Art. 7, Sec. 2, RCW 84 52 050, RCW
84 52 052, RCW 84 52 056)
Prorationing
If either the $5 90 statutory limit or the one percent constitutional limit is exceeded, one or more of th
levies involved are reduced according to a statutory formula This reduction process is known as
prorationing
http: / /www.mrsc.org /Subjects /Parks /SPD- MPDtax.aspx Page 1 of "4'
Metropolitan Park District (MPD) Taxing Authority 07/13/2009 11.15 AM
The county current expense levy, the county road fund levy, city general fund levies, and the state
school levy are all protected from prorationing Which levies are lowered in prorationing, by how much,
4110 in what order depends upon whether the $5 90 limit or the one percent limit has been exceeded
If -the_ $5 90 limit has_been exceeded, levies are reduced or eliminated in the following order until the
total tax rate is ,at Y
t $5 90 Note that within each grouping, the levy rates of the districts are reduced on
a pro rata basis (RCW 8 010(2))
1_ Parks &Recreation Districts_ - RCW 36.68.525 (up to $0 60)
Parks &,Recreation Service Areas - RCW 36.69 145 (up to$0 60)„
Cultural Arts, Stadiums & Convention Distncts - RCW 67.38 130 (up to $0.25)
2. Flood Control Zone Districts - RCW 86 15 160 (up to $0.50)
3 Hospital Districts - RCW 70 44 060 (up to $0.25)
Metropolitan Parks Districts - RCW 35 61.210 (up to $0.25),
All other districts not otherwise mentioned
4 Metropolitan Park Districts formed on January 1, 2002 or after - RCW 35 61.210 (up to $0.50)
5 Fire Districts - RCW 52.16 140 (up to $0.25)
Fire Districts - RCW 52.16 160 (up to $0.25)
(Note The other 25 cents of each of these levies may be placed outside the $5 90 limit, but they are
subject to the one percent constitutional limit. See item 1 below)
Regional Fire Protection Service Authorities - RCW 52.26.140(1)(b) (up to $0 50)
Regional Fire Protection Service Authorities - RCW 52.26 140(1)(c) (up to $0.50)
0 6 Fire Districts - RCW 52.16 130 (remaining $0.50)
Regional Fire Protection Service Authorities - RCW 52.26 140(1)(a) (up to $0.50)
Library Districts - RCW 27 12.150 (up to $0.50)
Hospital Districts - RCW 70 44 060 (up to $0.50)
Metropolitan Parks Districts formed before January- 1, 2002 - RCW 35 61.210 (up to $0.50)
(Note that the levies of metropolitan park districts formed after January 1, 2002, are two steps lower
of the prorationing ladder than that of Tacoma's, formed before that date )
If levies are reduced to conform to the $5 90 limit, and the total tax levy still exceeds one percent of
fair market value, then reductions in other levies, which fall outside the $5 90 limit, are made in the
following order, up to the amounts in parentheses
1 County Transit Levy (King County) - RCW 84.52 ? (Ch. 551 Laws of 2009 (SB 5433)) (up to $0 75)
2. Fire Districts - RCW 52.16 140 and RCW 84.52.125 (up to $0.25)
Fire Districts - RCW 52.16 160 and RCW 84 52 125 (up to $0.25)
3 County Cnminal Justice - RCW 84.52.135 (up to $0.50)
4 Ferry Districts - RCW 36.54 130 (up to $0 75)
5 Metropolitan Parks Districts with a population of 150,000 or more, which have voted to levy their
$0.25 levies outside the $5 90 limit- RCW 35 61.210 and RCW 84.52.120 (up to $0.25)
6 Conservation Futures - RCW 84 34.230 (up to $0 0625)
• Affordable Housing - RCW 84.52.105 (up to $0.50)
Emergency Medical Services - RCW 84.52 069 (up to $0.20)
7 Emergency Medical Services - RCW 84.52 069 (up to $0 30)
http: / /www.mrsc.org /Subjects /Parks /SPD- MPDtax.aspx Page 2 of 4
Metropolitan Park District (MPD) Taxing Authority 07/13/2009 11.15 AM
The $0 25 MPD levy listed directly above as item 1 is the same levy as that listed at level 3 in the
discussion of the $5 90 prorationing scheme There are not two separate $0 25 levies that a single
district may make RCW 84 52 120 allows a district with a population of 150,000 or more to ask the
voters for permission to make the levy outside the $5 90 limit, making it, of course, much less
vulnerable to prorationing If the voters approve, the legislative body may do so for a period of six
years
A group thinking of forming a metropolitan park district needs to check with its county assessor to find
out what its maximum initial levy can be to see whether it makes financial sense and to try to estimate
what the levy might be in the future if the levy is prorationed or is on the margin for prorationing The
state constitution requires that taxes be uniform throughout a district. If the proposed park district
boundaries contain overlapping tax districts it is possible that a levy of, say, 50 cents may be possible
the first few years But, in a future year, if a fire district raises its levy by some amount, say 35 cents,
the park district's levy will fall to 15 cents even if only a small portion of the fire district is in the park
district and even though the assessed valuation of the fire district piece is just a small portion of the
park district.
Levy Growth Limits
In November 1997, voters in the state passed Referendum 47 This law limited the property tax levy for
the coming year to be the highest regular property tax levy for the last three years multiplied by a
"limit factor," plus any additional taxes attributable to new construction and changes in the value of
state - assessed utilities (RCW 84 55 010)
With the passage of Initiative 747 in November 2001, for taxing jurisdictions with a population under
10,000, the limit factor is now 101 percent. For jurisdictions with a population of 10,000 and over, the
limit factor is one hundred percent plus the lesser of one percent or inflation (Before the passage of
Initiative 747, the statutes read - 106 percent" rather than - 101 percent. ") "Inflation" is defined as th�
percentage change in the implicit price deflator (IPD) for personal consumption expenditures for the
twelve -month period ending in July as published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the September
issue of the Survey of Current Business (RCW 84 55 005)
Jurisdictions with a population of 10,000 or more may levy an amount up to 101 percent of the previous
levy, if the legislative authority of a taxing district makes a finding of - substantial need" by a
supermajority vote in a separate resolution or ordinance RCW 84 55 0101 Obviously, it is less likely
that the percentage increase in the IPD will be less than one percent than the former six percent, so
this option may be meaningless
Excess Levies for General Government Purposes - Levy Lid Lift. RCW 84.55.050
Any taxing jurisdiction, including a metropolitan park district, that is levying property taxes at a rate
lower than the statutory maximum can ask the voters to lift the levy lid by more than one percent A
simple majority vote is required If a district's levy is subject to prorationing, it may not be able to take
advantage of this statute
For cities and counties, it is pretty easy to determine the maximum amount of lid lift possible because
they are senior taxing districts and just need to look at the difference between their maximum rate and
their current rate Other taxing districts, such as MPDs, need to consult with their assessor to see what
is possible Even though an MPD has a maximum rate of $0 75, some of the difference between that
amount and its current tax rate may not be available for a levy lid lift because of prorationing
For more information on levy lid lifts, see MRSC's article on Levy Lid Lifts (TI 25 KB)
Excess Levies for General Government Purposes One Year Levy. RCW 84.52.052
http: / /www.mrsc.org /Subjects /Parks /SPD- MPDtax.aspx Page 3 of 4
Metropolitan Park District (MPD) Taxing Authority. 07/13/2009 11.15 AM
Subject to other rate limits, even jurisdictions that are currently levying their statutory maximum rate
can ask the voters to raise the rate for one year Many cities and counties refer to this levy as an "0 &
(operations and maintenance) levy There are two different scenarios for voter approval If at least
percent of the voters vote "yes" with a voter turnout of more than 40 percent of the number of
people voting in the last general election, the measure is passed However, if the voter turnout is 40
percent or less of the number voting in the last general election, all is not lost. In that case, as long as
the number of "yes" votes is equal to at least 60 percent times 40 percent of the number of people
voting in the last general election, the measure will pass If, for example, 1,000 people voted in the last
general election, as long as at least 240 (1,000 x 4 = 400, 400 x 6 = 240) people vote "yes" on the 0
& M levy, it will pass, even if the number voting is less than 400 (40 percent of those voting in the last
general election) (RCW 84 52 052 Art.7, Sec. 2(a))
As with the levy lid lift, the purpose for which the money will be used does not need to be specified
However, it is not fiscally prudent to build an annual budget that assumes that the voters will renew the
levy authority each year A good use of these funds would be for a one -time expenditure
Note that the language in the second paragraph of RCW 35 61 210, authorizing the board - to call a
special election for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the park district a proposition to
levy a tax in excess of the seventy -five cents" is the same 'authority for an 0& M levy as is found in
RCW 84 52 052 RCW 35 61 210 does not make any reference to the fact that it is a one -year levy, but
the constitution does (Washington State Constitution, Art. 7, Sec, 2(a) )
Return to Metropolitan Park District Contents
Return to Metropolitan Park District Finance
•
•
http: / /www.mrsc.org /Subjects /Parks /SPD— MPDtax.aspx Page 4 of 4
Administration 0111414
O re res ��
re Supp Investigation sion
& Education 'I\ 401 North Front Street, Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575 -6060
Training
Communications Fax (509) 576 -6356
4 9RE DEQ www yakimafire.com
November 23, 2010
To Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council
Dick Zais, City Manager
From Dave Willson, Fire Chief
Subject: Regional Fire Authority
The following document is a cursory explanation of what a Fire Authority may do for
the City of Yakima and the Yakima Fire Department. This page is very elementary and
is meant to open the subject for discussion More information will be provided on your
request. The process of forming a Fire Authority is very involved, labor intensive, and
requires some funding For this reason, we must have a commitment from the Council
to move into the stage of research and feasibility studies
410
• REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
WHAT IS IT?
A county fire district or more correctly stated, a fire taxing district is just like any other taxing
district in the county The fire district can collect taxes up to an amount governed by RCW Title
52 and use those monies for fire and medical services. Fire Districts may "merge" to gain
advantages of a greater scale of economy, improved planning, depth of service etc.
In 2004 the State Legislature adopted RCW 52 26 which allows two or more fire protection
jurisdictions of different types (cities and districts) to form a taxing district called a Fire
Authority
WHY IS IT?
• A Fire Authority consisting of the current Yakima Fire Department and one or more
surrounding fire districts and cities would have the advantage of efficiency and a more stable
funding source that is governed by elected officials and approved by voters. The Yakima Fire
Department would cease to exist and would no longer be part of the City of Yakima General
Government. The new fire service would operate in and around Yakima with a new name and
its own budgetary system The City of Yakima would no longer deal with labor agreements,
medical insurance or any other employee compensation issues. Facility and equipment
replacement would be borne by the Fire Authority
HOW IS IT DONE?
The process of forming a fire authority would take about two years if the process proceeded
smoothly The RCW spells out how a fire authority is formed and must be approved by the
combined voters of all participating agencies. There are professional consultants that can guide
the parties through the process. To get voter approval, cities usually reduce property taxes
collected in the same amount that the fire authority would collect. This would make it a "wash"
to the tax payers.
•
11 -23 -10 Fire Dept. Page 1 of 2
WHO WILL LEAD THE CHANGE?
This process will take absolute co- operation between the Yakima city council, County
Commissioners, All Fire Chiefs, Fire Commissioners and all labor groups affected The Yakima
City council will need to give clear direction if this proposal is to be pursued
WHAT IS BEING DONE?
Currently West Valley Fire District is using a consultant to study the feasibility of a fire
authority between West Valley and Highland Fire District and possibly Union Gap Efforts will
be made to open these talks between West Valley and Yakima A thorough feasibility study is a
must to make sure a fire authority is in the best interest of the citizens.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF WORKING WITH UNION GAP?
An opportunity has risen to further our co- operation and collaboration with the City of Union
Gap Union Gap currently provides fire and medical services to Yakima County Fire District 11
(Broadway) District 11 has requested RFP's for service due to the current contract with Union
Gap sun setting. A meeting has been scheduled with the Chief of Union Gap to propose a joint
contract for service with District 11 that would add depth of service to all the citizens of Union
Gap, District 11 and Yakima This may seem like a rather small order of business but it is a step,
and a step forward
S
11 -23 -10 Fire Dept. Page 2of 2
Projected State Park Closures - Washington Trails Association Page 1 of 3
• Projected State Park Closures
Thirty Three Parks Listed as Potential Sites
A list of Washington State Parks slated for possible "mothballing" by the State legislature Source
Washington State Parks
Annual Cost Savings % Total Annual
Location Annual per year if Revenue / Park FTE
Expenditures Total mothballed Expenditures Visitation
Revenue Tota
Jarrell Cove 185,226 32,239 152,987 17 41% 2 71 35,860
Fields Spring 198,241 43,232 155,009 21 81% 2 90 60,690
Federation Forest 230,567 5,217 225,350 2 26% 3.34 62,424
Sacajawea 210,781 16,252 194,530 7 71% 3 15 63,573
Rainbow Falls 259,565 54,530 205,035 21 01% 3 83 68,669
Beacon Rock 503,848 245,914 257,934 48 81% 7 87 91,289
Lewis & Clark 287,410 52,378 235,032 18.22% 3 61 92,845
Fort Columbia 228,397 157 228,240 0 07% 4.34 113,055
Alta Lake 367,421 139,405 228,016 37 94% 4 99 135,994
Columbia Plateau Trail 373,567 21,491 352,076 5 75% 4 70 138,728
Wallace Falls 181,089 20,767 160,322 11 47% 3.35 145,162
• Lake Easton 623,409 189,918 433,491 30 46% 8 15 149,850
FOR COUNCIL INFORMATION
DATE 11/
http. / /www wta.org /trail news /magazine /projected- state- park - closures 11/19/2010
Projected State Park Closures - Washington Trails Association Page 2 of 3
Yakima Sportsman 330,637 111,252 219,385 33 65% 4 93 169,254
;
Maryhill 408,518 217,540 190,978 53.25% 5 97 182,506
Illahee 314,263 46,336 267,927 14 74% 4 86 191,510
Dash Point 455,220 186,855 268,365 41 05% 6 08 193,778
Potlatch 223,816 59,488 164,328 26 58% 3 16 205,229
Twin Harbors 690,834 250,371 440,463 36.24% 9 30 210,800
Ginkgo /Wanapum 347,505 157,083 190,422 45 20% 5 05 253,351
Flaming Geyser 434,109 52,421 381,688 12 08% 6 05 258,819
Peace Arch 242,762 12,042 230,720 4 96% 3 81 265,033
Saltwater 262,516 75,263 187,253 28 67% 4 96 309,046
Ocean City 646,636 294,691 351,945 45 57% 9 06 311,697
Fort Ebey 300,207 131,512 168,695 43 81% 4 84 315,458
Wenatchee Confluence 399,089 247,744 151,344 62 08% 5 44 317,281
Lake Wenatchee 423,515 253,792 169,723 59 93% 6 93 355,746
Fort Flagler 674,989 458,537 216,452 67 93% - 8 92 447,951
Mount Spokane 579,639 166,574 413,065 28 74% 8 81 484,636
Millersylvania Memorial 556,373 349,692 206,681 62 85% 8.37 649,221
Sun Lakes - Dry Falls 653,159 278,411 374,748 42 63% 9 74 660,789
http. / /www wta.org /trail- news /magazine /projected- state - park - closures 11/19/2010
Projected State Park Closures — Washington Trails Association Page 3 of 3
Larrabee 412,521 184,573 227,948 44 74% 6 00 692,583
Fort Casey 472,018 1 1 1,613 360,405 23 65% 6 75 698,077
Washington Trails Association
2019 Third Avenue, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98121
tel (206) 625 -1367
S
http: / /www wta.org /trail- news /magazine /projected- state -park- closures 11/19/2010