HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/2011 00 Agenda and PacketMarch 22, 2011
2:00 pm — 7:00 pm
Yakima Convention Center — Suite 300
Information Packet
•To:Council Members
From: City Manager Dick Zais
Community Relations Manager Randy Beehler
Subject: City Council Retreat
Date: March 17, 2011
•
•
NENCDRAMBUN
Council Members,
In preparation for the Council retreat next Tuesday, March 22, at the Yakima Convention
Center, Suite 300, from 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm, please review the attached information, much of
which has been requested by Council members to be included:
1) The retreat agenda
2) Action Steps developed by the Council at its January 2010 retreat
3) Policy Priorities developed by the Council at its August 2010 retreat
4) Potential city manager search firms information
5) Regional Fire Authority information
6) City revenue options information
7) City employee medical and dental insurance cost/premium-cost-sharing summary
8) 911 service information
9) Mill District Development timeline
10) List of City Council committees
11) List of City/County Intergovernmental Committee issues related to the
Yakima Airport
12) City capital facilities project and funding information
13) List of citizen boards, committees, and commissions
14) The 2010 Progress Report on City Council Strategic Priorities
* Please bring this packet with you to the retreat *
The retreat will provide the Council with the opportunity to discuss a broad range of topics
covering a variety of issues. The agenda has been developed to allow flexibility in the amount
of time devoted to any given item. How much time is spent on each agenda topic will be
determined by the Council's interest and will be driven by the discussion during the retreat.
Please contact either of us if you need any additional information, or clarification of the
material provided in this packet, in order to help you prepare for a successful retreat.
•
•
Yakima City Council
Retreat
Agenda
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011
2:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Yakima Convention Center - Suite 300
O Recruitment and Selection of Next City Manager
Interviews and selection of executive search firm
• Timeline
• Transition issues
O Proposed Regional Fire Authority Study
• Council discussion of potentially establishing RFA study group
o Policy Priorities and Strategies
• Budgetary issues for 2011/2012
- Potential revenue options to finance City services
- Labor relations
- Longevity - Healthcare premiums
- Budget reserve levels
• Public Safety
- 911 - Sustainable GFI funding
Mill District redevelopment
- City's role in redevelopment
+ Council leadership/effectiveness
- Review Council committees structure
Intergovernmental relationships
- Yakima County - Airport - West Valley Fire
• Capital improvement priorities planning and financing
▪ Assign key issues to Council committees
4 Citizen Boards/Committees/Commissions
• Review citizen boards/committees/commissions structure
o Council Roundtable
• Open discussion of issues by Council members
O Adjournment
•
•
•
Yakima City Council
2010 Retreat
Action Steps
March 2010
• Schedule City Council Study Session re: Adult Business Ordinance
O Assign Council Rules and Procedures Committee to review current Yakima City
Council Rules of Procedure and recommend any necessary revisions to the full City
Council
• North 1st Street Improvements
- Determine what steps can be taken immediately
- Seek input from area business owners
- Continue/accelerate public safety emphasis in the area
Provide technical/organizational support to North 1St Street Association
- Pursue potential funding (SEID, state, etc.) for initial streetscape design and
eventual implementation
- Explore potential physical presence of City government in the area
• Explore potential improvements to Fair Avenue corridor
O Schedule City Council Study Session (2-3 hours) to review all existing City
capital facilities/infrastructure plans
O Seek opportunities for regional collaboration with Yakima County, other cities, and
other agencies in order to maximize available resources
• Explore potential improvements to City communications/outreach efforts
O Develop city manager transition process
• Discuss culture of City government
- Consider getting input from experts (business leaders, academics, etc.)
- Review roles/definitions/models
• Assign each Council committee to review committee mission/purpose and
make a recommendation to the full City Council re: continuation of committee
• Assign Council Economic Development Committee to explore potential for
initiation of community visioning process
• Establish 5-10 Council priorities that will direct policy, including:
- Reduce gang crime and gang violence
- Address continuing economic challenges facing the City
• Schedule 6 -month follow-up Council retreat
•
•
•
Yakima City Council
Policy Priorities
2010
August 2010
* Highest Priorily
- Address ongoing economic/fiscal challenges affecting the sustainability of City services
* Highest Priority
- The suppression, intervention, and prevention of:
Gang Crime - Gang Violence - Gun Violence
* Highest Priority
- Provide Council direction regarding potential City form of government change ballot
measure and/or develop a city manager recruitment/selection/transition process
* High Priority
- Evaluate existing City capital facilities/infrastructure investment plans and identify
and develop potential funding mechanisms
* High Priority
- Pursue opportunities for collaboration, resource sharing, and potential consolidation
with other local government entities in our region
* High Priority
- Work with North 1st Street Association to design public infrastructure improvements
for the area and to identify funding sources
* lediurnn Plli. y
- Explore potential improvements to Fair Avenue corridor
* Add'diion®1 Priorities
- Continue to monitor enforcement of Adult Business Ordinance
- Identify appropriate amendments to City Council Rules of Procedure and
update accordingly
•
Purchasing Division
Inter -Departmental MEMO
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Sue Ownby, Purchasing Manager
Date: March 17, 2011
Re: Consultant Review for City Manager Recruitment
To date, four responses have been received as follows:
Micah Cawley's top 3:
Dave Edler's top 2:
Kathy Coffey's top 3:
Maureen Adkison's top 3:
No one else has responded.
Thank you.
1) Colin Baenziger & Assoc
2) Waldron & Co.
3) The Mercer Group
1) Colin Baenziger & Assoc
2) Waldron & Co
1) The Mercer Group (72 points)
2) Bob Murray & Assoc (63.5 points)
3) Peckham & McKenney
1) Bob Murray & Assoc (76 points — tie)
2) The Mercer Group (76 points — tie)
3) Colin Baenziger & Assoc
City Manager Consultant Revi®
x
Reviewer
Exceptional (4) The submission exceeds expectations, excellent probability of success and in achieving all objectives. Very innovative.
Good
(3) Very good probability of success. Achieves all objectives in reasonable fashion.
(2) Has reasonable probability of success. Some objectives may not be met.
Acceptable
Poor (1) Falls short of expectations and has a low probability of success.
Not Acceptable
(0) Submission
` .
-'
�W'n'
-",c:,-h
111 "" g bF4i"'yi
k „S y
and the approach has
r.Pa r
,fir ;�-
r••' y� L
tA. Wi�H
:is:., , -., _ .., r ^ c
„k-,n� ,43`.. I•
tlr14.n 44����_4..-
f`+!:Y`w
'�a
—
' ^•-, r-. - �,`. ri
-f"-. 5 r9'�
,y,
;.ColincBaenzi r�-
^ ..., ,.^.
_-...
.Z`- - 's
„�Y"-- � - t a, -�
5' 4 i-
�..-a- -s
- `-',k.`,�
+.b°_3.a,S"» -, � .�,
$
i"�=”, ..z„
P �,f
-
of success.
7 . - Y� -
=+e,
s` r'. <.r,,, ^„
�iie'1-..- „=� _ :
..,5 �t5z^ � �-
tt r 4=„` 'x�"'
" ir.
...�'
i.0
i'r�' , �"�f:r�
n. :S- � t:C"'
-.a�Ri'.' b- 4.3Pa '" d-�
-��;_.��
� Th -` ..
The'Mercer.G�ou
w-' .; �',
_ �' J. , fie'.:.'
ry ba -�L P]' -: `:'i"
r �{,:' - ,.�4.:.
': ,..- ;.-�`.`2�t-S,u- 2fi'c.'
,:»'-�^
_ i{ -'i ..., ;,
�'.F, ,._
4
- _ .t ..,.
,...
- _t
,,.r-�'.
-�- -t ,.
<✓'$Z.. �sv-'..`
4, ��y ,,;per.-�
� �,�i�,:.� b?
-,e'S,
- � - S:'•' 'C^�5.�
1-.« _ ..r�"`.
ry
L.; -,.y 3'!k% 3 - , :'�,. � _� � aE.�+
✓-��-
5- 'n.
ti .v.L^ :`(-,: _
'°>C-
.�. .b
e _. �.
Peckham;&.McKenne
r 3- -.�
a ,s+.., :z'�`. Y
J'.v 'i . ty
h
�•��- s8„-,'fi•�, .gam
_, P4 „ro +r'�. ,vc� „lrs
-�z-'
�......-.ew..r>, .. skY... -
-tet&
" . t.. _' -
-'� a s,.�
'.#',., �--
ter'=• „ -'ze
ma=r: �:.
i- i +,.,.'(2 :
.f..�� . 'J:.. 4x.
.r"y.i...F ,
?- '-r '
n tk e �'l:.rkx`. -ixv � a
, k ,
r .. w(" ..«k:.
�' {" '
,Y.^- <^,{. '.'g°, ..
�•, -
' ,.d .., .,,a , :;r
�� ri _^
P,�othman .... y
..n ,r .; .X,.:, a+".:
`t � ... tz..,:
"'fir .3,- '--�-,..€a'
t -:°Aad -"r-`
moi”
'.Y-.er - 4.�,xYS- :.
.'=°vk` v_�,
.Y*`"4+- ,. �.. _h
„'fir:".. :_*r"'.
,3r
,�^�<x'G.k�, .a-�'aa>`2:=5t-..v^. -,
k;'SCORE`:
..
`gin•-�
y -'{' .'`s3+
�., <:j
:-'�'. + 'A.: x -=u-1' "-
:: •,� : .saYi' x•�
fit'. -�z
i+ . . rr-:x- _
''�' .-r- "5d"+�;'
�a
. it 'L....-
>_;.,
.vin'
Slavin; Mara ement
Y,..- sg, n � .
;, w ,-,
y.Consultants .:.,,=
�_�'r.�.
- . ,�
to :y:. F"
i -c, :t, �y
.,i,:em.. iF"H:'sr'-.r
,'k. -'J�
'1':--- c 6l
..,,-'X„x,-,..
fir. �.,..,
.. _., �.s _ a, "5 e. ..E ., .. - .. ,..5:-e.
d..
�.0 r��
_ -
...3-.�.. _ 'ya`
'l`" vx autt
xY� -.w,.
„4s Y="n.5,^,�.s. •�
°C.. -•>r+ > •rKa'?<t ir'.
:Waldron.&,Co.
• x'' .
mi�t`4.�. '� e.»:
-f ' d
€ ....{ir .•3`-:
s,<?::L 4z;. ,�+
- .-s
t';-.--- +'g'-'
-
.t r _,.--Rs,•z.�n,- ..s - :. t,_^-:
vis}
tea- � .�'-
g�a.-. - =^S,�
_�- ^_-. rta�.e -
- r.`� ,rs _ _s� - h.« ..
,.k -._
£� ..-..t1" WJfi
C>•>�., rf�,.r,
..8'3'. 4"+- -1 tr••
.ar'. �-•.+#tN.
a� _
-
en Rdi onser:,.,, ,-.
p
`=-" �° . o-
A-.,;A'�z. "v --:w. rY _m
s.� {._.< m
-'i �z -
- M+.' ._
-.2. _'�,
_..rte'
Years in Business
25
13
19
7
10
20
28
How many recruitments •
for local government
professionals
800
R,{;;_'
200
1000
305 counted off their list
400
700
Did not specify but said
list was available
How many City Manager
recruitments (Includes
Chief Administrator
Officers and similar
positions)
200
100
293 counted off their list
(didn't included
assistants and deputies)
_'`
74 counted off their list
(didn't include assistants
and deputies)
25 counted off their list
200
Listed 4 on short list
CityManager recruitment
brochure/sample materials
,, i�.E
,.:;:^
�
Provided
..y
,;t?w;�
Provided links to
samples on website
Provided
tri.>`:.
=
• Provided
��s:":�;
Provided
-'"
Provided
' .:{,
Provided
Years experience of
recruiter/project manager
:
25/30
13/30KA
28/9
rz °'
35/28
15/?
7/20 (govt/mgmt)
>'
15/14
References - Did they
provide 5 similar?
.��:;`';
;ti4.;
Kirkland, WA..
Laguna Beach, CA
Roseville, CA
-Coronado, CA
Walnut_Creek,CA
:'x:
Greensboro, NC -
Fife, WA
Cape Canaveral, FL
Roanoke, VA
Destin, FL + others
"a.
__;"=�;p�
Tacoma, WA
Covington, WA
Tracy, FL
Cacramento, CA
Edgewood, KY +others
''`c;'
Grand Junction, CO
Durango, CO
Sedona, AZ
- Milpitas, CA
Greeley, CO
Y
t
`rte:°=:
Shoreline, WA
Lewiston, ID
Bothell, WA
Issaquah, WA
Wood Village, OR=,°
9
4,>�.
.. FortCollins,
Co I ns, CO
Fort Myers, FL
Fraklin, TN
Iowa City, IA
Novi, MI +others
.,k^:. _
r'
; ".
+i
Leavenworth, WA
Renton, WA
Port of Bellingham, WA
City of Vancouver, WA
King County, WA
+others
Base Fee
-
$17,500
2 -
$23,500$
'}?5'
16,500
t
, r_
;r;
$ 17,000
< Y
-$18,500
.!.Jin{.,.�'i
:
"}'`
$15,000 + expenses 1/3
up front
t
',,,n
V:. :rss
s " r
°"'s A;
.��:
25% of the midpoin of
the position's salary
range with a $30,000
minimum
Expenses
P
$6,500 to 8 500
$
?;
v'='`:
„-
Included in base fee
$9,000„�>
.: Y,�
v�,,.
w
=
6 500 to 8 500
$ $
";`
� ;,
Capped at
PP $5,000($
Ffi;:
{"''
��,:
Client pays consultant
travel. $350 office costs,
$2,500 advertising. Will
not exceed 55% of
professional fee
8 2 50)
is„,-,,
'i =`{`
_
plus expenses (Amount
not specified)
TOTAL
$24,000 to $26,000
:,
$23,500
$25,500
; k''Fi
$24,000 to $26,000
;a `Y .
$23,500
.1`x:
$26,100??
`"° :l
_. _,
$30,000 plus exp
City Manager Consultant Revill,
Exceptional (4) The submission exceeds expectations, excellent probability of success and in achieving all objectives. Very innovative.
Good (3) Very good probability of success. Achieves all objectives in reasonable fashion.
Acceptable (2) Has reasonable probability of success. Some objectives may not be met_
Poor (1) Falls short of expectations and has a low probability of success.
Not Acceptable (0) Submission fails to meet requirements and the approach has no probability of success.
res
yam, >.-,
..1 - �
, t - a....' F - ,,,a: ,-
,_,
ryVendocRes �,.
; once
+^=W.
-
n
a-
fw
P�.,e. -+1_:. 5 ... rs 3.-» �.-ice:.. ... '" ,-- �_.
- :'ire^
� .tea ssa3'_.
: 4 , ski.
�.y,.T�
' X
- Y. rs- ....° ^; �s
.n,J
...�,,,..... r - 1: -v
-=131 '
Boti�Muira�s&Assoc��:
s- lv e t� �f
« ,a✓ TY ,.
ck^''
p -Y
".,`. ,u.._� :.%.,L,. .,.:r-. � ro -
- �-
-
�,
-z4 ^ a"
t ,f- -
.,. . a . .-2 -
'S
- '�.^ 'e.
:et t.. : -;:s°, s• .
S
�•Coliri=Baenii`er.&:.�.`
�. 9
^ 1
�: , � Assoc
�
Lm -„�
«sv^'"":iF fir' -§"'
-
rN ' X .
i S-' -
'Zv ,... aP,
-' - - -- uc
_
� y' .�i-�5,�,�_
:F ., tr...,
-K-. 4
i;,.&x ^..f . '. `t
5'#
�
,TheSMercer..Grou` p
�,
>- p'=
wr
ii✓ -,-4
.`:.;L �.,'>.
4-s� , -"�v--
T>..
'a�:'=.zR _. S, . e ry - }6• .- Y::N,1 ��^ r
:,}-�
r"t�i Y
aur r� ^. „+r.
i- �
im - vt��L. .- _.s -' �:'-.
,�' 'c.:
`
SCORE=
%} � Ayd
ry r,`'i. 'a'
' ¢s
..tr,l. . :'ate
"�,: kms sWy,1s - �-
k• 4e -x'
tet* -.t'f =Tv.
,. r �.1 Rrothrtian�
-.3•
C,r
� u: -
7"r.,--. ..'rx'i.,. �'•�t,
yiw•t -rer- .,,1<' _
s jam(„-
,,.. ��} ' '.l$J�''1l.
_SlavirrsMaria emenf-`_'
9.
:�P �
=G orisul -ts rf
_ tan
i4
yy [bL
'��3. "5
.,,1 S,- ,^d7"°'LrZ `-
"r -i. -�
s .,. "`�'p�a-,..'rz
..z^., -
.. .
'-4
S
, t,�
�'Wa o
F .. `.,
a t
l.TS'n'e.
nor
•;=, 1.-,
_ "z'vr,
r'- :a�.
-11
":Peckham:&;McKenne"
-.
ts,
, 3 1
_::gyp-:""iz
�: .. ,.,. �'
of �,�
�t#
?r%,�
.C•@
Ability to start work
immediately/timing/
schedule
Can start immidiately,
lined out a 16 week
schedule
a
,
If selected prior to March
16, work would begin
3/22. Lined out schedule
that ends June 13th.
Add 1 week for contract
negotiation
;
90 to 120 days -
provided 8 step chart
:;
14 weeks, lined out
schedule
Outlined schedule from
March 15, 11 to 7/15/11
90 days - provided 7
step chart
.``
Listed 4 stages but no
timelines
Guarantee
-
'-
If terminated for cause
within 24 months, will re-
do search at no cost
except expenses
' .
:
,; .
'
If City Manager leaves
for any reason (except
acts of God) within 12
months - charge, If
within 24 months except
exenses
```
If terminated for cause
within 24 months, will re-
do search at no cost
except expenses
' '
"
s=<:
';`,,:;
If CityManager leaves
for any reason within 24
months, will provide 1-
time replacement at no
cost except expenses
ti.:
'
;'
_
Should the finalist leave
or be terminited for
cause within two years,
no additional
professional fee
(insinuates expenses will
apply)
:'
`'=-„
<:'.
Will redo search if
position vacated for any
reason within 2 years, no
professional fee •
(insinuates expenses will
apply)
„
'.
• -,''•
If individual leave
position for any reason
other than death,
physical or mental
incapacity or termination
without cause, will redo
with no additional
service fee (insinuates -
expenses apply)
Qualifications of other
team members
r
ti''r
ri'
z17
sr.0
._
Approach
y
Method of developing the
candidate profile
=:
:':
r;Js.,
•
City Manager Consultant Revi.
Exceptional (4) The submission exceeds expectations, excellent probability of success and in achieving all objectives. Very innovative.
Good (3) Very good probability of success. Achieves all objectives in reasonable fashion.
Acceptable (2) Has reasonable probability of success. Some objectives may not be met.
Poor (1) Falls short of expectations and has a low probability of success.
Not Acceptable
fails to meet requirements
- 8 . €.
vz`
4.oziL^ �i{d: 't
' S@ ..tit
- x
'1 .. ..£ =si
_ � ., . .-' . . ..
�
L. . "ss
�-Cu.
s, t yy S
�5
.,,,-{,. l`� �-.-:t� =-fir-.
..•,.: � �
p<; -a
e-.
.BobaMurra ::8�;�Assoc�:
Y K:f
a(s�
. ,t ac'2
•,;. .. s£r., *:r: _ . .,
-'a i .c^s `�
s. . � .
.,z
-,ls=� k „i-'
,, ..;-Y z.'»-
=Yct-v.. tv
-'..-,
_
.. S
and the approach has
'-'1 ,
,.'d'x. rt - -fu ,
,„+'P.r•?..:s j.s-
r�".':' - �'St..a--Za`i�_�"
�., -x ,.,; -'c..
a�
rk _ "Ln -3� - - ic �f+,i}"
�.+;� �a,,,, ',k.
�,.r .,{
s„b sd
._F F.
4�F n
-z. Cf;.- �$_'
.,'fir;
"Baeiizi er 8� ,
�,�,��:4„,.�"_=:�-„ -, °
•'e., :�
ssoc'
s'-
'a.' _r`-'
4:5-. , •k...
cot`
_.. '; .- ,, •-�.:_=
: •. ' x ``� md":
� is
r”
. : {:,ry Y
,..Y �..1 lr.:
--i,Tat AFY. �.".,..'a:41°.v �s'�e.es,,..�.�2:u3'�-:
3f o
of success.
-..w" ',,.. - „v'C:
� �"'� :- ?Y.".ry �.��
-,'_ 1 -qx:
-
€.°`r- _ice=.
a. � *t T,N� iv X, -11 • Fra
� - n.,j�t3
-v. . ..c`
."'" . C`d'r. . �»
.ry - .�"` `�`'
Yue,_
3 rt
' ..3
_ �
TfeMercer Gcou x
.. {_. p�,
� ,. �'.,
ia�d'"'
- ..,t;!*
-'_-'ice- ;',�
.64?,y -Yz T
..!'Y
6
-_^s -
i-' .,..
`r
w�-s,., c`.'i::y�=-.. ..._vr'�'xis-?_
arSCORE'�. '
z - ia.
-mac i'”; .
."�:" �„';..
'�+. '$'
-=s5" tn` rte._
.Y,�- "x '�c
_{:: qi�; �
Y':`' - i}, ud
_- .St -:4 ^�Y`: .�
;.yc:'. 3- b., ;.
dirty,
�"• '
°B��McKenne
PeckFia`m ;
,Y.
rt g
�"� �. , `ia
.,�.- -�„^'
�4w� %
I., °� ;:'ate'.. -
� -
g �
,r. x
-,z-. .. '.t.. �'.�h",£--.,.�'d_r ._
t .,ter
:.�' .. .A..z
ti .._34..:6,`„"
r -e .ty 'L-, W- �^+'�
�``�' rye ,.`,: ,--,
YA��,.. `
4
niaks-,
'i'ms '-'
zL
.. n
-� ..�_. Prothnia .
� � _ �- x ° F
2 _ �t
.�' ;T' `' 's ,
>;. 3„
Via”
3
`''am''"y �` .1Yi✓
.,�, a 'e.v.-=v��
�'SCORE:6
.§ h .=.v, §iia
�a`19'"-"'fin. y fi
'- ':-..
A.'ytY.
-- Y `
�� .�(� .3
amu
`.�- c-.
.,s.:
viniMa'na emen
��. �:��'.;;.sw-;:,.
, ._= �'
.�, s -. '�1 nts
onsu to
k-
,gq'-- .N.,r
'
5
_
-z>_
�;4 adz "si -';
i. Y�- =9_= .i
-
C^:,
:+,
to
.�-.e
�'n.�'
�
,
�
-
k -�'•,.
v -n" �u:• d L
Waldron'&Co.
aria }��
_Y.
fi
�-:; p,•y'h`x.'^'
�"'y.,.
:31:
:`�.
X -. q <�
9- �?
- -#
--x., � % ,.. .. =_{e.' N -e -o
{:a'�ak
�=,r .�
,4�..
<=K:1- -��
s, •
_,...,.� :. �„y
Vendor: Res onse x,_
_�= P �,-r�,,, +a-1
-to-
xt 3r'�^"4.•�
Xrt.:4, , z� .�. v.-.
-, �. n.-:�•. -v
Ptd � - a
...v.
{+rf.'rs�.
Method of developing
industry compensation for
candidate profile
considering Yakima
environment
'
Ability to bring in a diverse
pool of candidates,
considering: 1)Ethnic
Diversity 2)Public/Private
Diversity
°r
Advertising campaign
_df "
r ,
F:rf
Method of recruiting{
candidates
,
-TI?'t
1,,
t
i �'
Method of screening
candidates
=''
` :
.`"
"-
7 .a;;
City Manager Consultant Revi®
Exceptional (4) The submission exceeds expectations, excellent probability of success and in achieving all objectives. Very innovative.
Good (3) Very good probability of success. Achieves all objectives in reasonable fashion.
Acceptable • (2) Has reasonable probability of success. Some objectives may not be met.
Poor (1) Falls short of expectations and has a low probability of success.
Not Acceptable (0) Submission fails to meet requirements and the approach has no s robability of success.
der €., a �
.q$t`° �` T-f.PT
• i., ,rev+'
. -✓.
-au:
`_�'.`,^ ._, --„ ,. .,. s� ,.
s � k' .... �
,rte
...a ,3a, -. .. -
_ .-e. . .S rr
% -• --F..., '•<.k-•� -ies�;,^>',
do . • v
YendorRes onse_ `
t., P
4:r
_ �4 . tom?`"•"
, ms's
i.' .'�'
__- £.:}�:3`i`+a "-'w•_.,,-.
=
--�`'
_
..
.: • '
a. . g :;-fin
� ''% , n,.K rt t `]a:, �L-��
'S
ear. _ _
x, � _r ',,.:. _ Y.,.. -' r °
__ rte',? s+ .,
F r �5.,
.Far' -v} _ 'a .
>tiS" �v . as -vatv'+-,.,.
_>Y ..�._�._
.e.3 , - .
,.-aC, tyy,r t".t
_�-E•.r.3 ', � i.:'f.
,:..,o ; -rray _ A t_„>a_.=
,, N .,
Bob-Murra :.&'Assoc-,_
Y.c.
'i'd, . J
-�-, .s-., _
,-i'_ $ '
��'t.x ;y
f, e T[ '�-.
k Hu..'i
. R.. �'iT a`'
•d_.,F+,s .ss,;_ .,:'-.., v._ .. �.s.+, t.,«a^:. `.:4
�"�i � �F.� 1"
r< `mss, _�:'
v '
- F' T' 1.
.., a"i";rS".F�Y' e F
.R
.... a:, ,v;. ., ,., •;�. ..::r''`'
_...- k� ., rs
a 3.-
r � -
-'fir.."
-%7 :
... , -
.._.,..-.7...Y-..._ .,.,
:..i, ):,
Cohn Baenzi er &
,-_.r _. ;
sty AssocCin. -
-4s- $� �:�
.,t x-:�'• :�-
' d"rip' �.,.! ".:s",�
?'rte r='•'s"i
� �.r ,,AA.ss
"1°v' q-
.p?'�..ty.yri?•'^s'. '--a3t"'x_..-x., c.:
SCORE^
_ :sT
��'� ,�.a.,� ,�" : x -it -,.
__. w:
'_•�[' k ,aa *-
.•'£as:z `_�'ifi.- _ .3i
- _ : `t`
� •; <_� ,x:F�-,:�:3 y -.';'Y"
.-:�s _. r `fin
-,.,[.. _, 4:r- ,.k,
.n.yr.<s ---'_.
g .:T o
,°�,}. -'� - .�.�.
T„he Mercer.Grou I?'c :s,w
eR' +-."Y' ',F
, �`. r0+"✓ .." . '$:ryt;' ��'s"
':L.
S its-�
f =']&,'
,r--.,.
,r - ,
'ti
'3et4,n--', 3.i.'r,,:.v-..:'ax- az i�+.,--., vL".-' .a _....,.____._e__-.,
..,3.,i- `6�+'4
-a r� n- �� �•,'" - #"a35.
pv. err wa reh _
m `3:2 � •- •s.+"��'t�
-''i}, f5.: �: _ ;,K ..
4
i 'x-- �''a.'4v .� ,»n>. •,_".�
- k•; .,a. `Sy_;,`. � �
. �y
5 :.�,�:: 4
Peckham:& McKenie Y
°"��'G”
4�5,f
`.EY � 3-` ..,.
"', k,, b'. -,.+.
Z E
si •.a�
•. Win_ .. a.. -
_ -� a�` r . , P -,
,_.-r. .,
,�-
•.W
,
[ ` J
._;- .g-, �'
T �, ��r
�' .w.-, z -_ y
'x-- "-Pt%.�
s 1.
33.., •'€ L. :.. ;.�h:°
-i'. > "J_ ,,
�
�, 4..,..�
Prothman�-
•i �§�
,',P� tv'n"„=$�`.., r-�, s !`
_, `§',
t�
� r x,... , -. -
sy .__}}
r
s - 7. _
-e"" _ _ .. .._a, _ _-. .v ,.a
SCORES,'r'�t�d. �-'4-z! 7 -
'k`✓-y �� i..'.;i�.S
ter' "+'r..
k
4:W ??=.' S yf.�
- f =
egg"`, 1,_��
'+'.i�` °r ''Aya:y '"C { a
...$fs �. � s»�'"''r':�--�€�;d`�-'P`T�
.bk;a+ -
-4-
_
Slavin Maria ement `
-",�E=-max-:=�,�.,.��.,'r�,�:;
9' "•^4 L
s. { -Ey -
_ i'r s
-_r.”
�=�
.. _ :�d '`:ea'i �.
•.>... -'r ... k-xr 'z
.•SCORE; v�'t•=� '>.vi"::
=
x�� •_ _ .S4
».�,=,
-r�
...:3 �
-d. ^ 'peri«"
:J-,
Pia
..$ .c
�.i .k - �-'Y � 1, ,i �, :,..::
`$-� _ i,.
.
:».Waldron=&;Co
,
�1'vi�i I
.•A' 64. -,
i�»' s€
-mss-_. N x -
a. '•n -
Method of personal
interviews
Y -
"
Method of public record.
search
"a'=
Method of
recommendations
.:.
`-;,.,
yt
n
Method of final interviews
4
, . x
It
"`•
5 :
,Yid
x
ro
>r:
, :
Background/
9
Reference Checks
Ti
-
l`; }t.,
i9 t
, tY.:
.x,,`C i{'_•
.,i :pd
aid.:
x:
L;
-r
r�5,
;r
..a'
-'_
�'..�'�.1.,..
1
ani-i'rr
'' k.;'
:...."..
` '
City Manager Consultant Revill)
Exceptional (4) The submission exceeds expectations, excellent probability of success and in achieving all objectives. Very innovative.
Good (3) Very good probability of success. Achieves all objectives in reasonable fashion.
Acceptable (2) Has reasonable probability of success. Some objectives may not be met.
Poor (1) Falls short of expectations and has a low probability of success.
Not
p,:„�.>'�uta,,YrSIb^�.-l'�t,e
tao,vh1m
�TjNy°fails
F'e
-s,x>
e..Rf°-y':,-.',et r
D'r
A
obMurra&"s`soc
_q<� •,
SCORE; ih .' 'I
} a Sr . ''g3 I
approach
pproachFz:h�,k.,,Pa'.+�- a-c'-+,`.�f''S j.s '
k
n-.',it,?;1_�� s, - a.nd ="S' - -i:.'tViAf h.o-e
oIm:Baenzi Or
..
!
`
',V7,, _..
uccess,.
,ro
,` uuyf success.
-h�
:'-"-".Y3-°
_
j,t.k§.
�
a,".a+'z'aF i_va',.5-.yrv .rfFtt..& RY 4+��3.r w•,-._f-4-F�
.
PeckamMcKenna
SCORE
--- a,#,?'rDv"'4�``- :�"•3y�r^"
t
e
rotFman
�
���
r-i
=.-gY
r
r -
fi'
i..•.,
a.•`e'
�
3r:-s��. iFtu
avm:Mana emen
,
on-Malta!)
.
.
Grv,`
rt_��� =
SCORE-�yJ"r _ Nzir' x}f
C%q'•
=
:{'l.'x'.a'n£,.s`"•:k�,e
v+a
*-:•.-,M�,_�1-..
aldron&
'
tTip_.-
'.Da
„.-
r.-
.�.'r ?v''y.`s.�
c; x •ssoe
_�r,qCit"'',r.�a-,k.-,Tr. : °-s&-r- _.�1x_i!;."`_4`�.-3c�-,.`y.m-a..•.`�.-.r ..fi
:
endor'Res ons
v
�3r1.'A:k�„r°'.'.'c-5cr:.:.e.,..-', vc•Y,-_.s
`�-�.1.-.s.�- i '•�-- � '.�--��.S..:,:[-�k,-.FZ.s_.:' �;.�.,...X'3.��.' cC..:,-,t...•.-',_,T_:r�`
_
Negotiation involvement
TOTALS
4
REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
Q. Shall the City of Yakima participate in a feasibility study with Yakima County
Fire District 10, 11, and the City of Union Gap?
THE STUDY WOULD PRODUCE:
• Current and future service needs analysis.
• Financial needs of a new RFA.
• Financial impacts to residents and businesses.
• Advantages and disadvantages of a RFA for citizens and businesses.
• A recommendation to the council based on the above mentioned areas of
study.
NOTES:
• RFA has been a subject of study for the PSC for over two years.
• This is only a feasibility study.
• The City Council would vote to accept the recommendation or not.
• The citizens would have to vote on any implementation of a RFA
• Fire District 10, 11, and the City of Union Gap have already agreed to participate in this
study.
• Three Yakima Council members would be invited to participate in the study along with 3
Union Gap Council members, business owners, and citizens.
MEMORANDUM
March 3, 2011
To: Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council
Cc: Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Dave Willson, Fire Chief
Subject: Regional Fire Authority Study Session
During the January and February 2011 Public Safety Committee meetings, the process of a
Regional Fire Authority feasibility study was discussed. These .discussions stemmed from the
• Council Public Safety Committee's (PSC) list of responsibilities containing these two items
concerning the Fire Department.
• Evaluate potential establishment of Regional Fire Authority (Budget Policy Issue)
• Consider financing plan for Fire Dept. capital needs (Budget Policy Issue)
Both of these issues are on the responsibilities list for 2010 and 2011. The issue of a Regional
Fire Authority was also brought to the forefront when Union Gap Mayor Jim Lemon contacted
Yakima Mayor Micah Cawley in January 2011 with a request to initiate discussions on a
Regional Fire Authority. Based on that positive discussion, the issue was presented to the
PSC. The PSC suggested having another meeting in February. Present at that meeting were
Union Gap and Yakima Mayor's, Council members Lover and Coffey, and Union Gap Council
members. In the February PSC Committee meeting discussion lead to the suggestion that a full
Council study session be held.
When working with multiple jurisdictions to make major changes many things must align to
make an opportunity available. Based upon the _ positive discussion with three other
jurisdictions, I believe there is enough alignment with surrounding jurisdictions to finally address
the issue of a Regional Fire Authority, and for a feasibility study to take place in Yakima.
The following information is intended to give you a basic understanding of what a Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) is and the basic framework that it may operate under.
In 2004 legislature enacted laws allowing Regional Fire Authorities to be formed and outlined
the process. The City of Auburn formed the first Fire Authority in Washington in 2006. Over the
next four years Regional Fire Authorities formed in:
• Kent
• Stanwood (North County)
• West Thurston
• Auburn (Valley)
• Centralia (Riverside)
• South Whatcom
• South East Thurston
• Central Greys Harbor
Other Fire Authorities in process of forming:
• Bremerton
• Wenatchee
• Richland/Kennewick
• King 10/Issaquah
• Port Townsend
• Lynwood, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, Mukilteo, Port Townsend, Briar
Of the eight RFA's formed so far, it has generally taken between one and two years for these
Departments to produce feasibility study documents. With all the current information available
this timeline may be reduced. The feasibility study would be very thorough and contain all
information needed to implement an RFA. The group performing the study would compile a
comprehensive report of recommendation to a "Planning Committee". This planning committee
would be comprised of three elected officials from each participating jurisdiction. The elected
officials would review the recommendation and vote whether to proceed to the next step. If
approved, the planning committee would make a business plan for the new RFA. The next step
would be a vote of all residents within the boundary of the new RFA.
There are many variables in forming an RFA including funding options, department structure,
and service levels. These, variables make it impossible to answer all questions at this early
stage. This brief study session is intended to give you enough information to make the decision
whether to do a feasibility study or not. The decision to accept the study document
recommendation would be yours to make many months from now.
If the Council decides to allow this feasibility study to take place, I would request that three
council members be part of the feasibility study group. These members along with the
remaining 20 members would be expected to attend a monthly meeting of two hours in length.
During the process. the study group may request some amount of money to aid in the study.
This would be for expert advice, publication, and study material etc.
As the interim Fire Chief, I appreciate the support the Council has shown in allowing this issue
to be entertained by Public Safety Committee. I feel it is very important that the Department
maintain the excellent level of service that the citizens receive. I firmly believe this project has
the potential to have a major impact on fire services in this region.
•
•
•
Fiona[ Fire .Authority Implementation age's
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an RFA?
An RFA is an abbreviation for Regional Fire Authority, which is the common term for what the state
law refers to as a Regional Fire Protection Services Authority. The RFA law is a legal process to allow
the voters of that area to consider fire service consolidation and regionalization of services to produce
service efficiencies. The RFA encourages Fire Districts and Municipal Fire Departments to consider
consolidation by treating both entities equally.
Where can Hearn more about the law that allows the RFA?
Recent changes to state law now allow the process of forming an RFA, RCW 52.26 see RFA RCWs
for the actual law.
Why combine services?
The purpose of the Regional Fire Authority is to provide the citizens with the best level of fire
protection and emergency medical services with through combined resources. The cost of maintaining
and improving fire protection and emergency medical services has increased substantially. Combining
services may provide the most cost-effective service for our citizens through economies of scale,
macro -service delivery strategies, removing duplication and erasing borders.
How big can an RFA be?
Basically, as big as you want it to be. As an example, the new Kitsap RFA with Bremerton Fire
Department, Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue and South Kitsap Fire and Rescue would
serve approximately 200,000 citizens, 300 square miles, $16 billion in assessed value, operating budget
of $40 million, 200 career Firefighters/EMT and Paramedics and 100 active volunteers and support
service personnel. The vision dictates that this new RFA must demonstrate value for the citizens now
and into the future. Other current RFA's include Valley Regional Fire Authority (VRFA), which
combined the cities of Auburn, Algona and Pacific, and Riverside RFA which combined Lewis
County Fire Protection District #12 and the city of Centralia. Both of these RFAs are working very
well within their plan and vision.
What is the Vision Statement for the Kitsap RFA?
The vision of the RFA is: Provide the highest quality emergencyfire and EMS service for our citizens with the
available resources. The Strategy is: To develop a consolidation work plan and determine if it provides net efficiencies in
fire and EMS service delivery between Bremerton Fire Department, Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue, and South Kitsap
Fire and Rescue.
How is the RFA set up?
The law allows the establishment of a RFA Planning Committee to explore the process of
regionalization. The Planning Committee then creates the RFA Steering Committee to provide the
information necessary for the Planning Committee to make sound decisions to the creation of the
RFA. The ultimate authority for the creation of the RFA rests with the voters when the RFA
Planning Committee forwards its recommendations and a ballot measure is placed before the voters.
Who are the members of the committees?
The members of the RFA Planning Committee for any planning process include three (3) members
from each participating agency. Thus, if you were looking to combine two (2) cities and two (2) fire
30
Regiona Fire Authority !mplanierrtc+ticn Guide
districts, the Planning Committee would be comprised of twelve (12) members (6- City Council
members representing the 2 cities, and 6- Commissioners representing the 2 fire districts).
When and where are the meetings held?
The RFA Planning Committee establishes meetings on a regular basis at an established time and
location (which can rotate as deemed proper by the Planning Committee). The purpose of these
meetings is to gather information for the development of the Plan. These should be open public
meetings to allow for public input, as well as their education on the RFA concept.
How the work isaccomplished and is there a time line?
The process of developing the RFA work plan will be for the Steering Committee to develop strategic
statements for all of the project task items and once approved by the Planning Committee, then
organize the work and produce a recommendation in a timely manner for consideration by the
Planning Committee.
How will the RFA be funded?
The funding options for the Regional Fire Authority are the same as those available for the Fire
Districts. Those options include property tax funded fire levies, EMS levies, bonds, excess levies.
Benefit service charges are considered a fee for service and are permitted in lieu of the last fifty cents
of property tax funded fire levy revenue. Finally, non -tax revenue, such as transport fees, contracts
and other assessments are available as possible funding sources. Any funding mechanism must be
approved by the voters by the same majority that the fire district measures required.
When the RFA is approved by the voters, what happens to existing career and volunteer
personnel?
All personnel (career and volunteer) from all involved agencies would be transferred to the new
department and retain their status through new agreements. Some member's assignments may change
to support emergency service delivery improvements. The key to a successful transition is to involve
Labor early in the process, and ensure that wages, hours and working conditions are negotiated as per
RCW 41.56.
Is it mandatory for the Labor Unions to combine when an RFA is formed which
covers two or more organized labor groups?
No it is not. However, it is strongly suggested that Labor be involved from the beginning when
contemplating and developing an RFA. Their input and support will be extremely important in the
successful implementation of an RFA. Additionally, it is strongly suggested to work together with
Labor under the auspices of RCW 41.56 related to collective bargaining to ensure that all members are
handled fairly with regards to wages, hours and working conditions. While different labor groups may
work under different collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) for a short period of time during the
inception of an RFA, it is strongly suggested that a new CBA be fairly negotiated and implemented by
both parties as soon as is practical.
Does the law allow additional fire districts or municipalities to join the RFA after it has been
formed? Can two or more RFA's join together or merge?
No. Under current law, there is nothing which allows for any additional entities (fire districts or
municipalities) to formally join an RFA, except under a contract for service or contractual
consolidation. RFAs are not currently allowed per legal statute to merge or annex areas, or have cities
annex into theta once the RFA has been. formed.
31
•
•
•
sqi 7a1 ' irt-:-.Au[ orft %!mpiwlmentatio'r Guide
When a City annexes into a Fire District, the City's property tax levy capacity increases from
$3.375 per $1000 of assessed valuation to $3.60 per $1000 of assessed valuation, Less the amount
the Fire District collects (either $L50 or $L00) and any funds collected by a Library District
(up to $0.50). Does the same thing happen when a City becomes part ofan RFA?
No. The statute does not allow for the same benefit to a City annexing into a Fire District (the
increase in property tax levy availability) as when a City becomes part of an RFA.
What is the impact of LEOFF 1 liabilities on parties considering formation ofa Regional Fire
Authority (RFA)?
The obligation for LEOFF 1 liabilities (especially for retired members) would succeed to the surviving
entity just as if that new entity had incurred the obligation in the first place (much like a "successor
employer" succeeding to the obligations of its predecessor under collective bargaining agreements).
This is true whether the combination were a fire district merger or formation of an RFA. The
surviving entity (an RFA in this circumstance) would be responsible for all LEOFF 1 liability
previously incurred by the former fire agencies (i.e. former fire districts or municipalities now involved
with the RFA).
Can the governing body members ofa regional fire authority (RFA) formed under chapter
.52.26 RCW be compensated for their services under the existing laws, much like fire district
commissioners are compensated under RCW 52.14.010?
The answer is yes. While not expressly stated within RCW 52.26, the opinion of Legal Counsel is that
Governing Bodies may indeed be compensated for their attendance at meetings much like that of Fire
District Commissioners. This provision should be addressed within the RFA Plan. Under the
authority of the Plan, and applicable statutes, the governing body should adopt its governing rules and
policies. One of those rules or policies could include a rule or policy establishing the compensation
policy of the RFA for board services. It makes most sense for the compensation policy to be in
accord with the language of RCW 52.14.010, which currently provides compensation of $90 per day or
portion thereof, whenever a board holds a meeting or a member otherwise provides authorized
services.
32
{
rity /i" di m& to fc i Guide
Fire Authority Development Process
The first step in the process to determine if the regional fire authority (RFA) is right for you is to ask
the following questions:
• Are we considering an RFA for the benefit of our citizens?
• Are we considering an RFA to gain efficiencies for the benefit of our citizens?
• Are we considering an RFA to improve the overall level of service, standards of cover, and
enhance services for the benefit of our citizens?
If the answer to these simple questions is yes, then an RFA might be a strong consideration for your
department. However, if you are considering an RFA simply to try to save money, or due to a funding
issue; or, if you are considering an RFA to eliminate issues between fire departments (such as issues
between cities and fire districts), then the RFA probably is not the answer for you. The RFA should
only be used if it can be determined that combining fire departments, or subsets of fire departments,
can truly benefit the citizens that are being served. If it is not about the citizens, then don't do it. If it
is...proceed forward!!!
For those not familiar with the term RFA, or the concept, a regional fire protection authority (RFA) is
a municipal corporation in Washington and a separate taxing district. Its boundaries are coextensive
with those of the two or more fire protection jurisdictions (e.g: a fire district or districts and/or a city)
that want to cooperate and form such an authority. The entity is created by a vote of the people. An
RFA operates pursuant to a Plan, which is formulated by a Planning Committee and approved by the
voters in the service area. The statute (Title 52) outlines broadly how the plan is formulated, what
agencies to coordinate with and consult, and includes public input requirements. There is a detailed
statutory provision dealing with the authorization of the RFA to establish a system of ambulance
service, requiring procedures to ensure that the system does not compete with existing private
24
�i'atsa Fire Au,. ci»IN, .m i?&.;'}'€5?tEiticn G - `'"
ambulance services, unless first there is a finding of inadequacy of service. There have been similar
"inadequacy" and "non-compete" provisions in city and county laws for many years. However, those
provisions do not exist for fire districts, as they can lawfully establish ambulance services that compete
with private ambulance services without running afoul of any law (or proving inadequacy), including
the antitrust laws.
In the Plan, the RFA's recommended sources of revenue should also be set forth, to include tax levies
and benefit charges, if any. However, if the plan calls for imposition of any benefit charges or levying
of any taxes that would need 60% voter approval, then the ballot measure to approve the Plan and
create the RFA needs 60% voter approval. Otherwise, the measure needs only majority approval by
the voters.
Therefore, if the decision is made by two (2) or more adjacent/contiguous fire department
organizations that wish to explore the potential of combining their services for the benefit of their
citizens, then the first step is to establish a Planning Committee. The Planning Committee, as stated
previously, is responsible to develop the "Plan" for the RFA, which is the single most important
component of the RFA as it establishes how the RFA will operate; how the RFA will be funded; and
how the RFA will be governed and managed. Here are some key points related to the "Planning
Committee":
• Each governing body of the fire protection jurisdictions looking into the RFA shall appoint
three (3) elected officials to the RFA Planning Committee. This can be a mix of Fire District
Commissioners, City Council Members and Tribal Leaders depending upon the RFA being
considered.
25
Rre `.E.'thcr'Fi.kfi `mpFe,'neF:tationG !d
• The RFA Planning Committee may elect officers and adopt rules and procedures at its first
meeting. These should then be agreed upon in writing.
• The Planning Committee may dissolve itself at any time by a majority vote of the total
membership of the Planning Committee. This would occur if the research into the RFA shows
that the RFA is not the method of choice for the participating agencies.
• Any participating fire protection jurisdiction may withdraw upon thirty (30) calendar days
written notice to the other jurisdictions.
The RFA Plan, developed by the Planning Committee (or by subcommittees as assigned by the
Planning Committee) provides for the design, financing and development of fire protection and
emergency services in the proposed RFA. The Plan:
• Shall create opportunities for public input in the development of the plan. This can be handled
through public hearings, public meetings, and other such venues.
• Shall consider transport issues related to use of private ambulance companies, or potential
transport by the RFA itself.
• May include land use planning and input from surrounding cities and districts.
• Shall deliver the final approved Plan to all of the governing bodies to initiate an election. The
Plan, agreed upon by the Planning Committee, still requires the approval of the governing
bodies of each entity in order to place the RFA on the ballot (i.e. individual City Councils and
Fire District Commissioner Boards still have to approve the RFA Plan for it to move
forward).
• If the RFA Plan is placed on the ballot, yet not approved through an election by citizens in the
affected areas, the RFA Planning Committee may modify the Plan for resubmission to the
voters.
26
f �.CWfz:%riEq:'At, '-‘critymrieirterikau F7 ui
■ If the RFA Plan fails three (3) times the RFA Planning Committee is dissolved (in other
words, three (3) strikes and you're out!!!).
Funding for the RFA may include any tax or benefit charge that is available to a fire district:
■ Fire levy (collection up to $1.50 per $1000 of assessed valuation, including the authority to run
multi-year lid lifts).
■ EMS levy
■ Excess levy
• Benefit Charge
• Bonds for Capital Purchases
All funding mechanisms require a super majority (60% or greater), except the $1.50/1000 of AV fire
levy (ad valorem property taxes). The funding mechanism for the RFA is built directly into the RFA
Plan. Thus, when the RFA is eventually placed before the voters at an agreed upon election, if the
RFA Plan includes a funding mechanism that requires a simple majority (ad valorem taxes at up to
$1.50 per $1000 of A/V) then the approval of the RFA Plan by the voters requires a simple majority
(50% plus 1 voter). If the RFA Plan includes a funding mechanism that requires a super majority (60%
or greater, such as via the Benefit Charge) then the approval of the RFA Plan by the voters requires a
super majority.
The governing bodies of the fire protection jurisdictions may certify the Plan to the ballot once they
receive the RFA Plan from the Planning Committee. The governing bodies of the fire protection
jurisdictions draft a single ballot measure that both approves the formation of the authority (RFA),
and approves the plan itself. Authorities may negotiate interlocal agreements necessary to implement
the plan. The electorate is the citizens voting within the boundaries of the proposed regional fire
protection service authority. In other words, all citizens in the proposed RFA who are registered to
27
f F :.i F Tr Ent "`y;, .f„u f rI
vote have the authority to vote on the RFA. It is the TOTAL of all who vote that determine the
outcome of the RFA (in other words, the RFA does not need to pass in each individual
jurisdiction...it is the combined vote from all participating jurisdictions which determines passage or
failure). The RFA is liable for its proportionate share of the costs of the election if it passes:If it fails,
each original governing entity must share the costs of the election based upon the formulas utilized for
elections based on the number of registered voters in each area.
If the RFA passes at the ballot, the RFA is formed on the next January 1st or July 1st after voter
approval. The county where the RFA has formed shall publish a notice declaring the RFA formed
within 15 days of the certification of the election. Any challenge on the procedure or the formation of
the RFA must take place within 30 days of the certification of the election to the County Prosecuting
Attorney and Attorney General.
A key point to keep in mind is that due to the operations within each County around the State, if an
RFA election takes place after August 1” of a given year, then the RFA will not be able to collect ad
valorem taxes or issue benefit service charges in the upcoming year (i.e. if the ballot measure passes in
mid-August or November of 2007, the RFA can not begin to collect funds as a municipal organization
until January of 2009...not 2008). This is due to the fact that for County Finance and the Assessor's
Office, August 1tt is the cut off date for any entity to be formally in place for the collection of property
taxation or benefit service charges in the following year. This key component must be kept in mind
during the Planning Committee process as it might require that the RFA operate in its first year under
contractual agreements with the old governance bodies (i.e. contracts with the Cities or Fire Districts)
to collect funds and distribute these funds back to the RFA for its operations. Then, the following
year, the RFA can operate as outlined under Title 52 for revenue. The statute provides that RFA Plans
shall be reviewed, and updated as necessary, by the governing body, every ten years.
28
4 ui -ot itt{ ?ee"ttation
Most of the typical list of powers usually provided to fire districts or cities are included for the RFA
within Title 52, plus a sort of "catchall" provision saying the board may exercise powers and perform
duties the board determines necessary to carry out the purposes, functions and projects of the
authority in accordance with Title 52, if one of the fire protection jurisdictions is a fire district, or
other statutes identified in the plan, if none are fire districts. Property rights and eminent domain
powers would be "transferred" from the former fire districts and/or cities to the RFA. This makes it
rather plain that a participating city or fire district is "out of business" completely, at least with respect
to fire and EMS, when an RFA is created. All funds, assets, and personnel of the participating
jurisdictions must be transferred over to the RFA. Detailed statutory changes make it clear that
employees get transferred, with at least equal compensation to what they enjoyed at the time of
transfer, no change in benefits, promotional opportunities, or probationary periods. If any of the
participating jurisdictions had a civil service system, as city firefighters do (and a few fire districts, such
as Lakewood) then the law requires that to be negotiated per RCW 41.56. Existing collective
bargaining agreements must be honored until they expire, or have been modified or renegotiated by
the RFA and the new Union(s).
The RFA can incur indebtedness and issue municipal bonds, up to three-fourths of one percent of the
taxable property within the boundaries and not to exceed twenty years. Also, general obligationbonds
are allowed to be issued, but not to exceed 1 1/2 percent of the value of taxable property.
Frequently Asked Questions
29
•
•
•
2011 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS BY DEPARTMENT
EXPENDITURE TYPE
City Administration
Finance
Municipal Court
Police
Fire
CED
Street & Traffic
Parks
Other Departments
TOTAL (')
As INCORPORATED IN 201 1
AMOUNT % OF TOTAL
($46,034) 1.5% .
(515,918) 16.6%
(28,577) 0.9%
(1,024,380) 32.9%
(518,737) 16.7%
(580,705) 18.7%
(383,655) 12.3%
(211,792) 6.8%
198,737 (6.4%)
($3,111,061). 100.0%
Even though the Policy Issue for budget reductions totals $2.3 million, the 2010 budget was reduced
by a net of about $800,000 in the budget development process prior to the posting of the policy issue.
As discussed in the Changes in Personnel section above, 6 positions for a total of just over $400,000
were extended from the mid -2010 reductions. The measures taken to reduce jail costs have also been
successful, so that jail costs are also being reduced by about $750,000. These reductions were offset
by increases in medical rates and fuel and other operating supplies/contracts, so the savings were
reduced. (Note: even though the chart above shows Medical/Dental insurance going down from
the prior year, the full family rates were actually increased by almost 10%. The net reduction arises
from the position eliminations.) The total reduction needed to totally balance the 2010 budget was
$3.1 million or 5.2% of the 2010 budget.
TAX PROPOSAL — 6% INCREASE IN LIEU TAX ON UTILITIES
Because the General Government budgets have been severely reduced by almost 10% over
the past 2 years, a tax proposal is being offered that can be used by Council to reduce the
budget cuts. The current tax on city -owned utilities is 14% on Water and Wastewater; 9%
on City Refuse; and 10% on Yakima Waste. Of these taxes, 3.5% is dedicated for Parks
operations, and 0.5% for Police capital. The remainder supports General Fund operations.
A 1% increase on these utilities would generate about $336,000 annually. Part of the
proposal is to start imposing the tax on the new Stormwater utility, which is expected to
generate another $19,000 annually, so that the total tax proposal would generate about
$355,000 per each 1%, or a total of $2,130,000 fora 6% increase.
For city utilities, the in lieu tax is included in the rates charged for service. Any increase
would need to be evaluated for a potential rate adjustment for each of the utility. Nob Hill
Water and Yakima Waste Systems would also be impacted by a tax increase. However,
taxes on these outside utilities are added on to the rates charged for service.
The increase to a typical household for the full 6% would be about $58 per year, or just
slightly less than $5 per month. This calculation is made assuming a 96 -gallon can for
Refuse; yard waste for 9 months out of the year; and 1,600 cubic foot monthly consumption
for Water/Wastewater.
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 23
City Council has the authority to increase this tax without sending it to a public vote.
Under the Charter, the Council could also refer it for voter consideration in a special
election. The following charts summarize the tax increase at various percentages for both
an average household and in total for the applicable utilities. The additional revenue this
tax could raise is also then spread ratably among the POG categories and compared to the
proposed budget reductions to assist Council in their deliberations.
A significant provision of the tax proposal is to sunset it in three years to enable the
economy to hopefully recover.
A summary of these utility taxes imposed by other cities is included as the last chart.
Statewide, the trend is that cities without a Business and Occupation tax have higher utility
taxes. Regionally, many cities have significant taxes on these utilities, with the exception of
Union Gap, which has a larger than average sales tax per capita because of its retail base.
IMPACT ON AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD AND BENEFIT TO 2011 BUDGET
PER HOUSEHOLD
Wastewater
Water
Refuse
Stormwater
ANNUALIZED
Wastewater
Water
Refuse
Stormwater
Nob Hill Water
Yakima Waste
AVERAGE MONTHLY COST
2% 4% 6%
$0.71 $1.42 $2.13
0.34 0.68 1.02
0.50 1.00 1.50
0.07 0.14 0.22
$1.62 $3.24 $4.87
ANNUAL REVENUE GENERATION
2% 4% 6%
$145,000
314,786
96,667
37,880
51,429
66,000
$290,000
629,571
193,333
75,760
102,857
132,000
$435,000
944,357
290,000
113,640
154,286
198,000
$711,761 $1,423,522 $2,135,283
POTENTIAL REVENUE DISTRIBUTED BY PRIORITIES .OF GOVERNMENT
IMPACT ON REDUCTION LEVELS
POG BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Public Health & Safety
Resource Management
Economic Development
Quality of Life
Customer Service/Communications
Strategic Partnerships
2011
REDUCTIONS*
$2,563,583
608,498
239,664
162,820
22,000
6,487
6% Tax REVENUE
DISTRIBUTION
BASED ON POG
$1,519,261
360,615
142,032
96,492
13,038
3,844
NET
REDUCTIONS
$1,044,322
247,883
9Z632
66,328
8,962
2,643
$3,603,052 $2,135,283 $1,467,769
* Includes Budgeted and Supplemental Reductions if needed.
24 - Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
WASTEWATER, WATER, REFUSE, STORMWATER IN LIEU UTILITY TAX ANALYSIS
TOTAL TAX REVENUE BY UTILITY
CURRENT 2010 2011 VALUE OF
RATES ESTIMATE BUDGETED I% TAX
Internal:
Water 14% $980,000 $1,015,000 $72,500
Wastewater 14% 2,129,000 2,203,500 157,393
Refuse 9% 435,000 435,000 48,333
Stormwater (new tax) 18,940
Subtotal City Utilities 3,544,000 3,653,500 297,166
Outside:
Nob Hill Water 14% 360,000 360,000 25,714
Yakima Waste 10% 330,000 330,000 33,000
TOTALS $4,234,000 $4,343,500 $355,880
REVENUE GENERATED BY 6% INCREASE
RATE CHANGE IN THE BI -MONTHLY BILL
"TYPICAL" RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
Wastewater
16 UOC (1)
Water
16 UOC
Refuse
96 Gallon Cart
Yard Waste
Billed by City Utilities
Stormwater (Annual)
Billed on Property Tax Statement
$2,135,283
CURRENT INCREASE 6%
RATES I% 6% ANNUAL
$71.02 $0.71 $4.26 $25.56
34.08 0.34 2.04 12.24
32.15 0.32 1.92 11.52
24.16 0.24 1.44 6.48
$161.41 $1.61 $9.66 $55.80
$43.00 $0.43 $2.58 $2.58
Total Annual Increase"Typical" Household $58.38
Average per Month
Per Bi -Monthly Bill
$4.87
$9.73
(1) 16 Units of Consumption (UOC) is the assumption used to set an irrigation base and to make other
adjustments for residential accounts if historical use is not available.
Introduction: Budget Highlights • Section I — 25
COMPARATIVE IN -LIEU UTILITY TAX RATES - 2010
TOP 23 CITIES -WASHINGTON STATE
WATER SEWER GARBAGE STORMWATER
Granger 36% 36% 36%
Wapato 33% , 33% 33%
Almira 25% 25% 25%
Grandview 24% 6% 40%
Toppenish 23% 23% 23%
Sprague 20% 4% 4%
Ephrata 20% 20% 8%
Port Townsend 20% 20% 20% 20%
Vancouver 20% 20% 20% 20%
Davenport 18% 18% 18%
Medical Lake 17% 17% 17%
Battle Ground 16% 16% 10% 16%
Seattle 16% 12% • 12% 12%
Winthrop 15% 15% 6%
Creston 14% 14% 14%
Yakima 14% 14% 9%
Kennewick 14% 7% 7% 1%
Brewster 12% 12% 12%
Kittitas 12% 12% 6%
Deer Park 12% 12% 12%
Olympia 12% 7% 10% 10%
Harrah 12% 12%
Prosser 12% 14%
YAKIMA VALLEY CITIES
WATER SEWER GARBAGE
Granger 36% 36% 36%
Wapato 33% 33% 33%
Grandview 24% 6% 40%
Toppenish . 23% 23% 23%
Yakima 14% 14% 9%
Moxee 6% 6% 6%
Naches 6% 6%
Tieton 6% 6% 5%
Selah 6% 6% 6%
Union Gap Not levied
Source: 2010 AWC Tax and User Fee Survey
26 — Section I • Introduction: Budget Highlights
i
ajor-Sources of Revenue Authorized for Municipal General Government Operations
[This chart presents some options provided by existing state law.
No recommendation pro or con or prioritization is intended to be suggested by inclusion of or sequence of items in this chart.]
REVENUE
OPTION
AUTHORITY
PURPOSES AUTHORIZED
LIMITATIONS
HOW ESTABLISHED
POTENTIAL YIELD
[2010 estimate]
Property Tax -Levy
Lid Lift -
RCW 84.55.050
General Government
To bring the levy to the statutory max. -2
options, both can be multi-year
By Voter Approval
Simple Majority, Election
$0.20/ thousand raises
$1,075,000 annually
$20/yr on $100,000 AV
Property Tax -Voted
Bond Issue
RCW 39.36.020
General Government -Capital
Available Debt Capacity
By Voter Approval
40% Voter Turnout -60% super -majority
$0.20/ thousand raises
$1,075,000 annually
$20/yr on $100,000 AV
Tax > 6.0% on Private
Utilities , i.e.
Electricity, Telephone
Natural Gas
RCW 35.21.870
5.50.050- 060 YMC
General Government
. By Voter Approval
Simple Majority Election
to exceed 6%
$1,300,000 annually
per each 1% .
Tax > 6.0% on Cable
TV (rate currently at.
6% -the same as other
private utilities)
Cable
Communications
Policy Act of 1984.
5.50.065 YMC
Rate is not restricted, but must not be .
"unduly discriminatory against cable
operators and subscribers."
Ordinance passed by City Council
(may require voter approval if deemed
"discriminatory")
$130,000 annually
per each 1%
Local Business and
Occupation Tax .
Tax < 0.2% of gross
receipts
•
RCW 35.21.710.
•General Government
Ordinance passed by City Council
Subject to Referendum -
$3,000,000 annually
[$1,500,000 per each .1%j
(less $500,000 -loss of
Business License Fees)
(needs $200,000 in new
admin cost for collection)
Business License Fee
increase
5.52 YMC
RCW 35.22.280 (32)
(no cap in RCW)
Fees increased in 1988 for Sundome Debt
Service. (about 22% currently obligated
for this purpose)
Ordinance Passed by City Council
(can only be imposed and increased as
long as no B&O tax is enacted -see
above)
Currently sliding scale
based on employee count -
10% = $52,000
Cje new revenue chart 9/2/2010 4:41 PM
Page 1 of
REVENUE
OPTION
AUTHORITY
PURPOSES AUTHORIZED
LIMITATIONS
HOW ESTABLISHED
POTENTIAL YIELD
[2010 estimate]
In Lieu Tax on Public
Utilities, i.e.Refuse,
Water, Wastewater
Ch. 7.64 YIVIC
(No cap in RCW)
General Government .
Current rates -14% Water and
Wastewater, 9% City. Refuse, 10%
Yakima Waste
(Parks now receives 3.5%)
Ordinances Passed by City Council
$330,000 annually
per each 1%
Tax < 6.0% on Private
Utilities, i.e.
Electricity, Telephone
Natural Gas
1.
RCW 35.21.870
5.50.050- 060 YMC
General Government
Ordinance by City Council to Remove
$4,000/customer/mo. lid
$580,000 annually (affects
primarily larger infg-.
businesses)
Admissions Tax
Max 5%
RCW 35.21.280
General Government
,
Ordinance Passed by City Council
$420,000 annually
(estimate based on similar
cities)
Gambling Taxes-
Social Card Games
(from 10% to 20%)
RCW 9.46.110
5.49.020 YMC
Primarily for law enforcement
Maximum 20% of gross receipts ,
Ordinance Passed by City Council
$740,000 annually ($74,000
each 1%)
Public Facilities
District Sales Tax
Option—up to 0.2%
RCW 82.14.048
Capital and Operating expenses of a
Regional Center
Simple Majority Election in Yakima,
Selah and Union Gap
All 3 City Councils must approve
recommendation for election
0.1% raises $1,900,000
annually
0.2% raises $3,800,000
annually
Metropolitan Park
District
Property tax up to
$0.75/$1,000 A.V.
RCW 35.61.210
Parks, Parkways, Boulevards, and
Recreational Facilities
(capital and operating)
Simple Majority Election to establish
District
District Board sets annual levy
Junior taxing District
subject to the $5.90/$1,000
maximum
$2,695,000 annually
assuming $0.50/$1,000
Cje new revenue chart 9/2/2010 441 PM
•
•
411ge 2 of 2
•
Employee Group
AFSCME (Emp. & Dep.)
AFSCME Transit (Emp. & Dep.)
IAFF (Firefighters)
a) LEOFF I (Emp. & Dep.)
b) LEOFF II (Emp. & Dep.)
IAFF (Battalion Chiefs)
a) LEOFF I (Emp. & Dep.)
b) LEOFF II (Emp. & Dep.) .
CitOYakirna
Medical and Dental Insurance Cost Summary --Major Employee Groups
Effective 1/1/11
1/1/11 Total
Employee &
Family Premium
Costs for
Medical and Dental
IAFF (non fire suppression)
a) Fire PERS (Emp. & Dep.)
b) Communications (Emp. & Dep.)
YPPA (Police Officer/Sgt)
a) LEOFF I (Emp. & Dep.)
b) LEOFF II (Emp. & Dep.)
$1,190.13/mo
$1,190.13 / mo
$1,421.99 / mo
$1,190.13/ mo
$1,421.99 / mo
$1,190.13 / mo
$1,190.13 / mo
$1,190.13 / mo
$1,421.99 / mo
$1,190.13 / mo
City Management
a) Mgmt., Supv., Conf. (Emp & Dep.) $1,566.72/ mo
Teamsters #760 (Police Captains & Lieutenants)
a) LEOFF I (Emp. & Dep.) $1,421.99/mo
b) LEOFF II (Emp. & Dep.) $1,190.13/ mo
Teamsters #760 (Deputy Fire Chiefs)
a) LEOFFI (Emp. & Dep.) $1,421.99/mo
b) LEOFF II (Emp. & Dep.) $1,190.13/mo
PERSXI
1/1/11 City
Share of
Total Employee
& Family
Premium Costs
$ 882.79/mo
$ 882.79/mo
$1,281.99/ mo
$1,050.13/mo
$1,114.65 / mo
$ 882.79/mo
$ 1,036.13/mo
• $ 1,036.13/mo
$1,329.15 / mo
$1,097.29 / mo
$1,137.54/ mo
$1,114.65 / mo
$ 882.79/mo
$1,205.09 / mo
$ 973.23/mo
1/1/11 Employee
Share of Total
Employee &
Family
Premium Costs
$307.34/ mo
$307.34/mo
$140.00/mo
$140.00 / mo
$307.34 / mo
$307.34 / mo
$154.00 / mo
$154.00 / mo
$ 92.84/mo
$ 92.84/mo
$429.18 / mo
$307.34 / mo
$307.34/ mo
$216.90/mo
$216.90/ mo
Percent of
Employee's Share
of Total Employee
& Family
Premium Costs
25.82%
25.82%
9.85%
11.76%
21.61%
25.82%
12.94%
12.94%
6.53%
7.80% -
27.39%
21.61%
25.82%
15.25%
. 18.22%
3/17/11
Teamsters #760 (Public Works Division Managers)
Employee and Dependent $1,566.72/mo
Teamsters #760 (Public Works Supervisors)
Employee and Dependent $1,566.72/ mo
$1,137.54/ mo
$1,137.54/ mo
$429.18/mo
$429.18/ No
27.39%
27.39%
Note: (1) PERC has recognized a new group, Police non commissioned supervisors; contract to be negotiated. Affected personnel are currently in the management group.
(2) PERC has recently received a petition to form a new 14 member group which potentially includes the Human Resources Specialists, Human Resource Assistant and
some finance personnel.
Med Charts (Annual)
3/17/11
•
To: Honorable Mayor Cawley and City Council Members
From: Acting City Manager Michael Morales
Subject: Yakima County 911 Letter
Date: January 27, 2010
Mayor and Council members,
Attached is a letter from Yakima County Commissioners delivered to the City on
January 26 announcing the County's intention to discontinue its contract with the City
for the provision of 911 services. According to the letter, the County proposes to extend
its current contract with the City (which expires March 31, 2011) through December 31,
2011 at which time a new County department would assume management and
operation of 911 services.
The City has already been contacted by local media regarding this issue. An article
about the Commission's letter is likely to appear in the Saturday, January 29 Yakima
Herald Republic. Communications Manager/911 Director Wayne Wantland spoke to a
YHR reporter yesterday and in addition to detailing the nearly 20 year history of the
interlocal agreement under which the City provides 911 services, he referred the
reporter to other administrators of the more than two dozen agencies throughout the
Yakima Valley that rely on the existing system.
You may receive media inquiries regarding this issue. If you would like to be briefed
beforehand regarding this issue, please contact either me or Community Relations
Manager Randy Beehler.
I recommend that this issue be the primary focus of the February 16 City Council Public
Safety Committee meeting. It is important for the City to formulate a careful response
to the letter from the County Commissioners. A timely discussion of this issue by the
Public Safety Committee, and in turn the full Council, will greatly assist us in that
process.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this issue.
1
FOR COUNCIL INFO ONLY
-C CCC ES
DATE
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
* District One
Michael D. Leita
Hon. Micah Cawley, Mayor
Yakima City Council
129 North Second Street
Yakima WA 98901
* District Two
Kevin J. Bouchey
January 24, 2011
Dear Mayor Cawley and Members of the Council:
* District Three
J. Rand Elliott
In 1990, the voters of Yakima County approved a tax on phone lines for the purpose of operating a 911
call center to enhance the public safety. The center was operated for the first two years by the County Sheriff.
The majority of calls seemed to be for the Yakima Police and Fire departments, and in conjunction with declining
interest on the part of the Sheriff, an inter local agreement was created to provide management of the service
through an Administrative Board and an Operations Board and about the same time the County contracted with
the City of Yakima to administer the Center.
As you are all aware, the State granted Counties authority to increase the per line tax in support of 911, and this
has generated substantial discussion among the 911 Administrative Board and the Board of Yakima County
Commissioners.
The BOCC is faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to increase a tax and needs justification
to do so. What is the benefit to the taxpayer and how will the money be spent? While we admire the fine work
and the valuable service 911 provides, it is our intention to return management and responsibility for 911 to the
County in the form of a new County Department to operate 911 and discontinue the management contract with
the City of Yakima.
This is a decision not arrived at without considerable consideration and discussion. Since we are the body that
will assess the tax we feel it is therefore our responsibility to administer it. We were elected to represent the
taxpayer and must answer to the voters.
128 North Second Street • Yakima, Washington 98901 • 509-574-1500 • FAX: 509-574-1501
We propose to ask the City of Yakima to extend the current management contract through December
31, 2011 at which time the management and operation of 911 would become a responsibility of Yakima County.
This course of action would create considerable activity in the next 11 months. A Director, Supervisors
and employees would need to hired and trained to take over on January ft. The Center would be re -located to
County facilities, possibly to the Restitution Center Building in Union Gap. This would provide ample space and
technological capacity to serve the 911 Center for many years to come.
This proposal may create concerns among some of the participating agencies, but be assured the
primary concern of the BOCC is to provide an efficient, modern, communication center for the welfare of the
citizens of Yakima County. Please provide your thoughts and concerns to me to help us make a final decision.
Respectfully,
CC: Commissioner Michael D. Leita
Commissioner Kevin J. Bouchey
City of Union Gap
City of Selah -
Town of Naches
City of Moxee
City of Wapato
Town of Harrah
City of Toppenish
City of Zillah
Town of Granger
City of Sunnyside
City of Gandview
City of Mabton
Iliott, Yakima County Commissioner
Fire District 1, Cowiche
Fire District 2, Selah
Fire District 3, Naches
Fire District 4, East Valley
Fire District 6, Gleed
Fire District 7, Glade
Fire District 9, Naches Heights
Fire District 10, Fruitvale
Fire District 11, Broadway
Fire District 12, West Valley
Fire District 14, Nile/Cliffdell
Yakama Indian Nation Tribal Council
•
klgte
N:Qumir&--
MUNICATIONS
200 South 3`d Street
Yakima, WA 98901
YAKIMA PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
February 24, 2011
To: Yakima City Council
Public Safety Committee
From: Wayne Wantland, Communications & Technology Manager / 911 Director
RE: Status of 911 Services
History: During the 2010 legislative session, the State legislature authorized an increase
of the county 911 excise tax from the then current maximum of $.50 to $.70 and an
increase of the state 911 excise tax from $.20 to $.25. This increase is required to
receive the state share. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has sole authority
to impose this tax, and the 911 Boards recommended approval to the BOCC. Attached is
a decision tree of how the subject tax is imposed, and the budget that was proposed to
the BOCC for the use of the tax and reserves. This budget assumed adoption of the
increase.
The justification for this increase was to help fund the modernization of the 911 system in
Washington State to what today is known as Next Generation 911 (NG911). NG911 is a
system that is capable of accepting 911 "calls" in any of the forms of communications that
are prevalent in society right now such as; text messaging, video or pictures, ADA
compliantmessaging and acceptance of data from systems such as On -star, etc.
On October 5, 2010 the Yakima County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on
increasing the county 911 excise tax to the new maximum limit allowed by the RCW as
revised by the legislature. At the meeting, the Commissioners expressed two primary
concerns: 1) disagreement with the State's provision that withholds state funding
assistance unless the increase is approved, 2) consolidation of emergency
communications in Yakima County was not moving forward to the BOCC's satisfaction.
At that meeting, the Commissioners voted not to increase the tax Since the cutoff for
notice of implementing the tax is 75 days in advance of any quarter, this action ensured
that we would not be receiving the added revenue for the first quarter of 2011 and would
have to begin paying the network costs which heretofore were paid by the state. As a
result of this action and the operating budget approved by the 911 Executive Board,
Providing Emergency Communication Services to Yakima County
Business Phone: 509.248.9911 Business Fax: 509.576.6555
approximately $108,000 is being used from the 911 reserve fund to meet operational
costs each quarter. If the tax is not imposed, reserves will be reduced by $432,000 in
2011. The beginning reserve balance for 2011 was $1.2 million.
Also at the October 5, 2010 meeting, the BOCC directed me, as the 911 Director, to
secure commitments from the emergency communications agencies in Yakima County to
participating in a consolidation effort. On November 4, 2010, I called a meeting of all the
current providers of dispatch services in the Yakima County to discuss consolidation.
Most of the attendees and others contacted indicated a willingness to consider
consolidation; but wanted further review and investigation into the feasibility and costs of
such a venture.
In late 2010, I had numerous conversations with Commissioner Rand Elliot, who
represents the Board of Yakima County Commissioners on 911, which culminated in an
email I sent to the BOCC on December 26 (enclosed). Despite the information
presented, the BOCC ultimately declined to impose the tax.
The excise tax can only be adjusted on a quarterly basis; therefore, the BOCC's decision
ensured that we could not collect the additional state revenue in the second quarter of
2011, continuing our reliance on reserves to balance the budget.
On January 25, the BOCC sent a letter to all jurisdictions indicating that it is their intent to
return management and responsibility for providing 911 to county government operating
as a county department. It must be understood that this action can only address the 911
Calltaking aspect of emergency communications for which the BOCC has financial
control. All dispatching functions are an operation of the City of Yakima and would take a
separate agreement between the two agencies if it were the intent that it move to county
control also.
Overview of 911: The City has been operatingthe 911 center in conjunction with our
dispatching operations for 15 years. The 911 section operates under the guidance and
approval of the 911 Executive and Operations Boards. These boards are representative
of all the jurisdictions in Yakima County and all fiscal and operational decisions are
presented to and approved by these Boards.
Currently, the 911 services are provided through a single answering point Countywide, by
a 'consolidated' communications center that merges 911 calltaking, law enforcement
dispatching and fire/EMS dispatching. The success of the center lies in the fact that the
users of the system have a voice in its operation, and in the case of the 911 Boards, total
control of its operation.
Funding: The Yakima Communications Center is operated with two distinct budgets:
• 911 Operations
• Dispatch Operations
Page 2
•
•
•
Revenues come from 911 excise tax on telephones (landline and cellular) are imposed by
the County and provided through the operating contract between the City and the County.
Use of these funds are restricted to 911 operating expenses, shared expenses
(management, supervision and equipment) are prorated between the two budgets.
Furthermore, if actual 911 year-end expenses come in below the budgeted amount of
county payments, the next year's payments are reduced to reflect the excess revenue;
ensuring that 911 revenue is only spent on 911 expenses. These credits have been
made every year of the centers operations because the center's expenses have
consistently come in below budget.
Dispatch Operations is funded solely within the City's budget with a majority coming from
the City's telephone excise tax and the remainder made up of revenue from those
agencies that chose to receive contracted dispatching services from us.
Reserves: During the fifteen years of City management of 911 we have been able,
through due diligence and conservative fiscal management, to accumulate a healthy
reserve fund of approximately $1.2 million. This reserve is intended to (a) keep the 911
system updated and modernized without ever requesting the Yakima county jurisdictions
provide additional local, general fund support and (b) to fund the costs of a future 911 call
taking and countywide dispatch consolidation. In the enclosed documents I have
presented how those revenues would continue to support 911 and the eventual
consolidation in a new facility.
Facility: The communications center has operated at the Police Station/Legal Center for
fifteen years. This location was selected out of necessity, but we have known for some
time that we need more space to accommodate a fully consolidated center for the long
term. We have exceeded our capacity at the Center and are exploring larger facilities that
can also accommodate consolidation with other regional communication and emergency
services functions.
Summary: The City has supported the concept of an independent authority to manage a
consolidated communications center (911 and Dispatch), rather than any one agency with
ultimate control and authority.
We have operated a countywide consolidated 911 communications center for over 15
years. The consolidation of the computer systems countywide has been the major hurdle
to a fully consolidated 911 and dispatch center, and this is now being addressed with the
IPSS / Spillman project. With implementation we will be in a position to seriously look at a
more centralized, fully consolidated center to offer services to all agencies that wish to
participate.
In our opinion, the County's desire to move the current 911 consolidated communications
operations from a City of Yakima managed department and facility and into a County
managed department and facility offers neither apparent benefit nor advancement toward
the goal of an independently governed, fully consolidated countywide 911 and dispatch
communications center.
Page 3
The communications operations are the most vital service in the community as it
processes emergencies, disasters and national security issues. Significant changes to
management and authority must be carefully considered and justified as performance of
the center and quality of service is a critical life safety issue.
cc; Michael Morales, Acting City Manger
Rita DeBord, Director Finance and Technology
Dave Willson, Acting Fire Chief
Greg Copeland, Acting Police Chief
Page 4
•
a
A t. _
• i s
1 d
`q., 8 i!
1 t
e i I
q.
• a t i
j
G 5
�O I y! 1 ;
; 3
14- e o 1
n a. H & o6
NNC 1� I
°gy g i
•2 81 5 i
j r
S
's
Q P ° 0 5 < 1
`r 5 I 5
0.
I I
CC
o s t
1 ' !
E "e 3
r `or 5 - a
y a
5
6 A t
i 1 I
d
0 55 i
N Leo 8 3 8 i
i ti
E;g u i r o i
^H A A
L 1
i
I
lc, J 5 d 1 1
.i` or E a ! 1 ! S e �
d a A% d A
i
£ $ pp
1 24
�i 3 2 6 L/ i II
4e 1 ig < 11 8 66
u S
I, O r � ! fl 3 3 6 1 p
@ lip
r P
i II 111 H
oa , I !iii. li'
P i E
�° 15
or i
L3 11
8 81
A°
5
O zOr C U l
E d e � s
4 fi! 11 1
• 1 -• 5 $
x � al
E $
S pp 7 e "1 g i
z $ Y 3 5 €
• $ � 8 1 2 e
�W
3 d A d 4
z i A 1 1111 h i'
1 d 1 3 S o g IL F 8 d •
• h
CITY OF YAKIMA
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
4111 (revised 1/19/11)
•
Public Safety Committee
Economic Development Committee
Neighborhood Development Committee
3rd Wed — 3:00 pm
* Televised
1St Wed - 2:30 pm
* Televised
1st Wed - 9:30 am
* Televised
Transit/Transportation Planning Committee 3rd Thurs - 3:30 pm
* Televised
Budget Committee
Intergovernmental Committee
4th Wed — 3:30 pm
* Televised
2nd & 4th Tues - 3:30 pm
* Televised
Rules & Procedures Committee/ As needed
Strategic Priorities/Mission & Vision Committee
Hearing Examiner Review Committee
Labor Management Committee
Citizen Boards/Commissions/Committees
Nominating Committee
As needed
As needed
As needed
Council Legislative Committee As needed
Kathy Coffey (Chair)
Bill Lover
Maureen Adkison
Alt: Rick Ensey
Maureen Adkison (Chair)
Dave Edler
Bill Lover
Alt: Rick Ensey
Bill Lover (Chair)
Kathy Coffey
Dave Ettl
Alt: Micah Cawley
Rick Ensey (Chair)
Micah Cawley
Dave Ettl
Alt: Maureen Adkison
Micah Cawley (Chair)
Bill Lover
Kathy Coffey
Alt: Maureen Adkison
Rick Ensey. (Chair)
Dave Ettl
Kathy Coffey
Alt: Dave Edler
Micah Cawley (Chair)
Dave Ettl
Kathy Coffey
Alt: Dave Edler
Dave Edler
Micah Cawley
Bill Lover
Dave Edler
Kathy Coffey (Chair)
Maureen Adkison
Rick Ensey
Alt: Micah Cawley
Dave Edler (Chair).
Kathy Coffey
Maureen Adkison
Alt: Rick Ensey
City/County Intergovernmental Committee
Issues Related To The Yakima Airport
Two overarching matters confront the Airport at this time:
- -Short Term Financial Stability
- -Imminent engagement into a $500,000 Airport Master Plan
The following issues are related to the above:
--Current number of commercial flights per day
- -Continued challenges with land leases and operating agreements
- -Bargaining Unit negotiations (just beginning)
- -Payments in arrears for property and employee health insurance, SEID
Loan
-=Vacant City designated Board Position
--Security Issues and protocols
- -State Auditor Report and Findings
--What are the most likely and/or viable futures for the Airport?
- -What does the community expect its Airport to be?
- -What will the Airport Overlay Zone look like and what are the surrounding
impacts?
- -Will any runways be modified or lengthened?
•
Introduction
The topic of public infrastructure was front and center at the City Council's January 23,
2010 retreat. Several projects throughout the community were identified, discussed, and
a number of them incorporated into the Action Steps identified by Council at the
conclusion of the retreat.
There was also a broader discussion about public infrastructure and the desire to get a
better picture of the current status and a sense of what is needed for the future. For.
some, the concerns raised at the retreat related to the condition of existing infrastructure,
particularly City streets. To others, the topic of infrastructure brought to mind the need
for new or expanded buildings or refurbishment of existing City buildings.
Ultimately, direction was provided to staff to begin a capital facilities planning process
that would include updating and in some cases developing the City's capital plans
relating to all City -owned infrastructure such as:
• Streets, traffic signals, bridges, pathways
• Parks and recreation facilities
• Utilities, such as; water, irrigation, wastewater (treatment and collection systems),
stormwater
• Public buildings; City Hall update, West Side Police Substation, Miller Park
Community Center expansion, Fire Station 94 (Airport) and other current and
future needs
Need for Capital Facilities Planning
Aside from the Council's directive to begin a comprehensive CFP process, there is a
management rationale and regulatory requirements to undertake such an effort. The
City operates over a broad area and encompasses a diverse set of services.
Considerable resources are dedicated toward the maintenance, operation and
improvement of the public infrastructure necessary to accomplish adopted service
delivery goals.
The cumulative present worth of these City -owned assets is on the order of one billion
dollars. With respect to operating government like a business, a tenet of almost any
business is to take care of the assets you rely upon to conduct your business. In the
alternative, what would be the rationale for failing to plan for the upkeep and renewal of
this accumulation of public investment?
Equally important is that a CFP tuned to the Land Use Plan is necessary to implement
the land use plan.
Some additional advantages of capital facilities planning include.
• More efficient use of City resources through project coordination
• Optimizes project prioritization
• Maximizes and leverages external funding opportunities and in fact required
for most loan and grant opportunities
• Informs the public of planned major capital investments and the
impact/benefit to them
• Alerts investors of the City's plans and maximizes opportunities for private
sector investment
And finally, the State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.070) requires a
CFP planning effort.
Capital Facilities Planning Effort
The goal here is to develop a comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan encompassing all
City owned assets. The plan would present a vision over a six to twenty year horizon of
capital projects necessary to support current and future demands over the same time
period. In preparing such a plan, numerous factors need to be considered for the plan to
succeed:
• Consistency with adopted land use plans
• Regulatory mandates, current and anticipated
• Financing of projects
• Infrastructure life cycles and the current or near-term need for refurbishment
• Opportunities for leveraging of projects - the project magnifier
• Community vision and expectations
The first four bulleted points above, while sometimes challenging, are very
straightforward, what is needed to support the service population, how long a building, a
pump, or a treatment plant component will last, how much it will cost, and available
funding options in most cases can be identified readily. The strategy of magnifying our
impact by leveraging projects while a bit more complex, is something this organization
has mastered. Ascertaining the will and expectations of the public, and managing
expectations can be quite challenging making public input in these kinds of planning
efforts a critical element to a successful process.
As proposed, the City of Yakima CFP will include the following for each of the City's
major infrastructure categories:
— Inventory and assessment of City -owned infrastructure and facilities
• Location
• Quantity
• Capacities of the capital facilities
• Condition/deficiencies
• Planned necessary action or alternatives
Future needs - rehabilitation, expansion, additional facilities
• Analysis of current and projected system demands
• Proposed locations and capacities
— Estimated costs
• Methods of financing
• At least a six-year financing plan for necessary capital facility
improvements
Scenario planning
• That is comprehensive and coordinated
•
•
•
•
• Leverages improvements against one another
• Necessary to implement the Comp Plan - consistency
Other Land Use Elements dependent on capital facilities; e.g.
West Valley Plan
• Adjust land use element if concurrency not attainable
• Evaluates opportunities for collaboration
In addition, a similar and less detailed analysis will be accomplished for other types of
infrastructure impacting the City's land use planning alternatives; e.g. Nob Hill Water,
natural gas, power, cable, and internet.
Current CFP and Capital Planning Efforts
Updating and coordinating of the City's numerous capital facilities planning documents
will require a significant and prolonged effort. Below is a listing of current plans:
Capital Facilities Plan Summary
Public Facilities
Transportation
Transit
Water/Irrigation
Wastewater
Stormwater
Solid Waste/Refuse
Parks
Fire
Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
Facilities Space Needs Assessment
Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan 2025
Yakima Six Year TIP
System Comprehensive Plans2005
System Comprehensive Plan 2004
Comprehensive planning document 1994
Staff analysis and County Solid Waste Plan
Staff analysis and Yakima Area Plan
Department Need Assessment - 2006
These documents represent considerable effort on the part of professional staff,
community input, and the City Council. The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
attempts to pull much of this information together, however, it too requires updating and
refreshing.
Some of these plans are early in the process of being updated. For some areas, like
Stormwater and Public Facilities, there is no comprehensive up to date CFP. Case in
point being public facilities: part of that information is within the Park plan, part in
Facilities Space Needs Assessment noted above, parts are included in various Police
and Fire Department planning efforts. Much work will be needed to prepare a
comprehensive and coordinated document.
CFP Development
The City Council Economic Development Committee has been briefed previously on this
project. Most recently the newly formed City of Yakima Planning Commission was
provided an overview of the CFP planning process, and a more detailed briefing by the
Water/Irrigation and Wastewater/Stormwater division managers regarding capital
planning in their respective areas.
It is anticipated that the City Manager's Office, Community and Economic Development,
and Public Works staff will be working closely with the Planning Commission as they
work to develop the Capital Facilities Plan.
As each of the elements is completed, they will ultimately be presented to the City
Council for consideration.
•
Public Works Trust Construction Fund REET 1
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Balance
Beginning Balance
Revenues:
Actual
2007
YTD Actual
2008. 2009
Projected
2010
Projected
2011
Projected
2012
$1,582,431.65
$2,027,807.88
$1,451,329.84
$1,172,051.99
$865,338.11
$698,792.11
Local Real Estate Excise Tax
Interest From Investments
1,056,417.39 755,840.57 541,616.30 516,570.49 500,000.00
Residual Equity Transfer(Water/Wastewater-2011)
Operating Transfer(Street-2011)
86,820.00 60,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 3,000.00
24,375.00 24,375.00 24,375.00 24,375.00 24,375.00
Operating Transfer(Irrigation-2011)
Purchasing Remodel From County
Total Revenues
Expenditures
16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00
33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00
0.00 0.00 13,215.68 0.00 0.00
1,218,237.39 890,840.57 642,831.98 604,570.49 578,000.00
500,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
510,000.00
Debt Service(PWTF-1818 Underpass)
Debt Serv1Ce(P1133-Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007)
Debt Serv1Ce(P1355-Fruitvale Cnl Wasteway mat date -2009)
Debt ServiCe(P1367-Resignalization mat date -2009)
Debt Service(P1455-Ftuitvale Cn1 Phase 1I mat date -2011)
Operating Transfer -Gen Fd(sun Dome Cnty Bnd mat date 2007-09)
Operating Transfer -Debt Sery Fd(1998 street Bond mat date 2008)
Debt Service (Fire Station 92 WV Add mat date 2022)
Debt Service (3rd Ave Mead Walnut mat date 2019)
Debt Service (Upper Kiwanis Developement mat date 2015)
Proj# 1783 - City Hall Facilty Improvement
Proj#2214 - W Nobhill Grind & Overlay
Proj#2285 2nd St Sidewalk County
Parking Lot Maint
Capital Transfer to Parks Capital Fund
Capital Transfer to Fire Capital Fund .
Capital Transfer to 321 Project 2284 DYFI Phase 4
Total Expenditures
Revenues over (under) Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance
0.00
10,378.34.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,072.37
0.00
123,000.00 ; 175,000.00
0.00 0.00
6,855.24 6,664.01
6,473.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00
43,204.25 42,782.79
42,361.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
68,859.05 67,038.96
65,219.00
63,399.00
61,579.00
0.00
40,000.00 40,000.00
40,000.00
40,000.00
40,000.00 40,000.00
60,000.00 . , 60,000.00
0.00
0.00
73,535.00
71,935.00
71,935.00
0.00 0.00
71,935.00
32,534.00
120,607.00
120,607.00
120,607.00
0.00
0.00
143,564.28
164,288.84
94,927.83
451,843.00
114,000.00
55,000.00
71,935.00
120,607.00
114,000.00
0.00
551,514.83
2,522.00
58,428.00
58,425.00
58,425.00
2,495.18
200,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
176,465.00
250,000.00
178,065.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
0.00-
176,465.00
.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
772,861.16
445,376.23
1,467,31.8.61
(576,478.04)
922,109.83
(279,277.85)
911,284.37
(306,713.88)
744,546.00
(166,546.00)
579,967.00
(69,967.00)
$2,027,807.88 $1,451,329.84 $1,172,051.99 $865,338.11 $698,792.11
$628,825.11
Note: Current practice is to maintain at least $500,000 in this Fund for capital contingencies/emergencies.
dbaldoz Page 1 3/17/2011
BEET 2 Capital Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Balance
Beginning Balance
Revenues:
Local Real Estate Excise Tax
Interest From Investments
Actual
2007
YTD
2008
Actual
2009
Projected
2010
Projected
2011
Projected
2012
$961,615.65
$1,273,152.25
$1,230,127.59
$1,069,425.65
$841,325.13
$106,503.13
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Debt Service (Downtown Revitalization mat date 2022)
1,056,417.38
52,500.00
0.00
1,108,917.38
755,840.55
541,616.31
516,570.48
500,000.00
500,000.00
40,000.00
0.00
795,840.55
12,000.00
0.00
553,616.31
5,000.00
0.00
521,570.48
2,000.00
0.00
502,000.00
0.00
0.00
500,000.00
Debt Service (3rd Ave Mead Walnut mat date 2019)
Street Maintenance Supplies
30,138.00
303,821.79
Contingency
Street Equipment/Replacement 170,000.00
Capital Transfer to Arterial Street (P1944 -River Rd project) 0.00
Capital Transfer to Arterial Street (P2012-NobHill/S 68th projt 130,000.00
Capital Transfer to Arterial Street (P2046 -Robertson Sch sidevi 103,000.00
40th Av Rdway Repairs Fruitvale 1,499.64
Fiesta Foods 27,000.00
P2193 Grinding/Overlay Flashers R&R 31,921.35
Capital Transfer to Arterial St P2229 NobHill Bridge Repair
P1944 River Rd/16th Ave Fruitvale
Capital Transfer to Arterial Street (P2232-16th/Wash Recons)
P2270 16th Ave Grinding & Overlay
Total Expenditures
Revenues over (under) Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance
dbald4111
136,215.00 13 6,215.00
32,534.00 120,607.00
400,000.00 250,000.00
136,215.00
120,607.00
350,000.00
0.00
50,000.00 50,000.00
75,000.00
13 6,215.00 13 6,215.00
120,607.00 120,607.00
250,000.00 200,000.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
195.20
126,327.35
9,963.38
120,000.00
0.00
0.00
18,593.66
137,954.07
2,407.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9,578.80
0.00
797,380.78
311,536.60
0.00
838,865.21
(43,024.66)
0.00
714,318.25
(160,701.94)
0.00
20,442.00
0.00
749,671.00
(228,100.52)
255,000.00
475,000.00
0.00
1,236,822.00
(734,822.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
456,822.00
43,178.00
$1,273,152.25 $1,230,127.59 $1,069,425.65 $841,325.13 $106,503.13 $149,681.13
P.
Administration
0 e Suppression
e Investigation
& Education
Training
Communications
•
•
March 17, 2011
401 North Front Street, Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-6060
Fax (509) 576-6356
www.yakimafire.com
To: Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council
Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Dave Willson, Fire Chief
Subject: YFD Capital Needs
This is a brief compilation of documents concerning the needs of capital improvements
for the Yakima Fire Department over the next five years. The past 3 years have seen
much needed improvements. First with the Station 92 (7707 Tieton Dr.) remodel and
last year the completion of the Station 94 (Airport) remodel which brought the living
conditions up to acceptable levels.
The future facilities improvements needed will be updates on our two oldest stations (91
and 95) which were built in 1975. The structural designs of these stations are not the
concern however, replacing rusting pipes, worn electrical systems, and other wear
sensitive systems will need to be addressed on these 36 year old structures. Excellent
user upkeep has maintained these buildings in very good and presentable condition.
With the completion of the two latest remodels, wewill be focusing on estimates for
needed updates on station 91 and 95. I would only be making a rough estimate that
several hundred thousand dollars would be needed to keep these buildings viable.
The training grounds will also need a repave within the next 4 years costing upwards of
$200,000.
The fire apparatus replacement schedule was made current through 2012 with the
recent purchase of two low-cost non -custom pumpers that should be delivered by early
summer. We will require the next single pumper purchase in 2015 at a cost of
approximately $700,000.
Summary:
Station 91, 95 upgrades $300,000
Drill grounds repaved $200,000
2015 apparatus $700,000
Reserve Service
Replace/Sure
•
Engines
• •
Fire Apparatus Replacement Schedule
Le•end
Equipment #
Assignment
Description
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
4509
E293
1987 Darley
4510
E294
1991 Darley
SjA";,
4511
E295
1991 Darley
, iF, "II-
.
4512
E91
1991 Darley
, ' '
4513
E92
2000 Central States
4514
E93
2003 Central States
4515
E94
2005 Central States
4516
E95
2007 Rosenbauer
Re.lacement
_
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
-
Replacement
Replacement
Trucks
Equipment #
Assignment
Description
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
5503
TK91
1995 Central States
i. -
5504
TK93
1995 LTI
SjA";,
5505
TK91 (New)
2009 Crimson
, iF, "II-
.
Replacement
, ' '
Gas Tax for Arterial Street Fund 142
Transfers for Debt Service, etc
Fund 142
Revenues:
01 of 1
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projection
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gas Tax 142 Arterial Street
544,615.75
607,508.57
642,857.90
610,798.82
584,353.83
586,096.65
565,000.00
Expenditures
Project 1944 River Road (Mature 2017)
Trans to 392 Project 1818 RR Grade
P 1493 Fair Avenue (Mature 2013)
P 1360 Tieton Drive Reconstruction (Mature 7/2011)
P 1374 Reconstruction of N. 1st Ave (Mature 7/2011)
P 1526 Fair Avenue Improvements (Mature 7/2015)
P 1886 Yakima Street Overlay (Mature 6/2010)
36,883.00.
200,000.00
124,850.00
124,850.00 124,850.00 124,850.00
65,333.00
65,333.00
36,113.23 36,925.70
65,333.00
35,090.45
65,333.00
34,137.81
65,333.00 65,333.00 65,333.00
33,185.08 32,232.40 0.00
54,101.63 51,836.75
52,219.63
51,719.87
51,220.20 50,720.49 50,471.00
58,842.11 58,309.60
132,645.42 131,719.81
57,777.08
130,459.34
57,244.62
129,198.86
Total Expenditures
Revenues over (under) Expenditures
0.00 0.00
347,035.39 344,124.86
197,580.36 263,383.71
0.00
577,762.50
65,095.40
0.00
462,484.16
148,314.66
56,712.07 56,179.57 55,914.00
127,938.37 126,677.91 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
459,238.72 455,993.37 296,568.00
125,115.11
130,103.28 268,432.00
Note: About 1/3 of the total gas tax is allocated to the Arterial Street Fund, and is used for debt service on major street improvements and to match state and federal
grants. This fund balance was budgeted to end 2011 with a balance of about $170,000.
DB 3/17/2011 4:31 PM Capital Gas Tax.xls.xlsx
YAKIMA POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE: March 16, 2011
TO: Yakima City Council
FROM: Capt. Greg Copeland
SUBJECT: YPD Capital Needs
The information related below represents a brief overview of the current capital needs of
the Yakima Police Department
1. Westside Substation: This idea has been proposed for several years, both as a
police facility and as a multi -department facility. Funds have not been available to
proceed with the project, so there has been no progress made. However, the bond issue
that funded the construction of the current police/legal center is set to be retired in
December, 2013—it can be renewed by council action, and should be considered as a
funding source for a Westside Substation. The project would cost several million dollars.
2. Vehicle needs: The department is under -funded to maintain reasonable
replacement rates for police vehicles. For 2011 we received about 200k, however we
really need to replace 12 vehicles a year, at a cost of 336k.
3. Technology needs: Similarly, we need to update and maintain our technology
inventory, at a cost of about 140k per year, as indicated by the following approximate
amounts:
Coban in -car video 65k
Mobile (vehicle) radios 25k
Portable radios 25k
Station (inside) computers 25k
For 2011, we received almost no money for these items. In particular, many of our
Coban in -car video units are many years old and nearing the end of their service life—
they are extremely important to us—as evidenced by our latest officer -involved shooting
situation. The video from that case represented undeniable proof that the officer acted
properly. The City also, just this week, prevailed in a civil case and won summary
judgment, in large part due to the Coban recording.
4. Building capital expenses: Our capital building line item for 2011 was 25k—this
amount could be (and is being) used up quickly. An amount of 50-75k is probably more
reasonable.
•
Council Information Item
June 30, 2010
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Dick Zais, City Manager
From: Joe Rosenlund, P.E.
Streets & Traffic Operations Manager
Re: Information Only
Revenue Sources and Expenditures for Yakima Streets
One item for discussion at the Transit and Transportation Planning Committee on
June 17, 2010 was how street maintenance is presently funded and what potential
sources are available for additional funding. The discussion was a follow-up to the
request brought up by Council Member Lover at an earlier meeting. It was felt that
having this information available to the City Council would be of great value as they
discuss transportation and funding issues in the future.
The two attachments to this report provide the street related revenue and expenditure
information. The first is a report that the city submits annually to the Washington State
111) Department of Transportation. It lists the revenues and expenditures incurred for 2009
by BARS code.
The second attachment is a brief summary of funding mechanisms available to the city
for the purposes of transportation improvements and maintenance. The city is utilizing
some of these mechanisms now and others may or may not have been used in the
past.
•
•
OPSources of Revenue Available to the of Yakima -transportation Purposes
[This chart presents some options provided by existing state law.
No recommendation pro or con or prioritization is intended to be suggested by inclusion of or sequence of items in this chart.]
•
REVENUE
OPTION
•
AUTHORITY
PURPOSES AUTHORIZED
LIMITATIONS
HOW ESTABLISHED
POTENTIAL YIELD
[2010 estimate]
Non -voted debt
< 1.5% Total
Assessed Value (AV)
within City
WA Const.,
Art 8 Sec 6
RCW 39.36.020
Ch. 39.46 RCW
General Government Capital
Revenue must be identified/obligated
to pay debt service
Bond Ordinance Passed by City Council
$53,000,000
[unused debt capacity]
Voted Debt General
Purposes-- Total City
Debt < 2.5% Total
Assessed Value
within City
WA Const.,
Art 8 Sec 6
RCW 39.36.020
Ch. 39.46 RCW
General Government Capital
p
Debt Service supported by excess
property tax levy
60% Majority Election
General Obligation Bonds
$52,000,000
[unused debt capacity— in
addition to non -voted
capacity listed above]
Property Tax—Levy
Lid Lift (up to 6 yrs)
RCW 84.55.050
RCW 84.52.043
General Government -2 options, both
can be multi-year
Cannot exceed Statutory maximum levy
rate (currently $3.10/thousand)
Simple Majority Election
In Sept. (primary) or Nov. (general)
election
$0.10/thousand raises
$538,000 annually.
$10/yr on $100,000 AV
Property Tax—Excess
Levy (one year)
RCW 84.52.052
General Government
Can exceed Statutory Maximum rate for
the year of the excess levy
60% Majority Election
$0.10/thousand raises
$538,000 annually
$10/yr on $100,000 AV
Local Business and
Occupation Tax
Tax < 0.2% of gross
receipts
RCW 35.21.710
General Government
Ordinance passed by City Council
Subject to Referendum
$3,000,000 annually
[$1,500,000 per each .1%]
(needs $200,000 in new
admin cost for collection)
Tax < 6.0% on Private
Utilities, i.e.
Electricity,Telephone p
Natural Gas
RCW 35.21.870
5.50.050- 060 YMC
General Government
Ordinance by City Council to Remove
$4,000/customer/mo. lid
$580,000 annually (affects
primarily larger mfg.
businesses)
Cje new revenue chart 3/17/2011 4:23 PM
Page 1 of 4
REVENUE
OPTION
AUTHORITY
PURPOSES AUTHORIZED
LIMITATIONS
HOW ESTABLISHED
POTENTIAL YIELD
[2010 estimate]
Tax > 6.0% on Private
Utilities , i.e.
Electricity, Telephone
Natural Gas
RCW 35.21.870
5.50.050- 060 YMC
General Government
Simple Majority Election
to exceed 6%
$1,300,000 annually
per each 1%
Tax > 6.0% on Cable
TV (rate currently at
6%)
Cable
Communications
Policy Act of 1984
5.50.065 YMC
Rate is not restricted, but must not be
unduly discriminatory against cable
operators and subscribers.
Ordinance passed by City Council
(but would recommend only if voters
approve other utility taxes >6%)
$130,000 annually
per each 1%
In Lieu Tax on Public
Utilities, i.e.Refuse,
Water, Wastewater
Ch. 7.64 YMC
(No cap in RCW)
General Government
°
Current rates -14 % Water and
Wastewater, 9% Refuse
(Parks now receives 3.5%)
OrdinancesPassed by City Council
$325,000 annually
°
per each 1 /°
Admissions Tax
Max 5%
RCW 35.21.280
General Government
Ordinance Passed by City Council
$420,000 annually
(estimate based on similar
cities)
Additional Sales Tax -
Transit
up to 0.9%
(add10.
RCW 82.14.045
3.89.010 YMC
"Public Transportation" Purposes
(excludes street maintenance)
Simple,465,000
Majority Election
_
aually
$each additional 01 per
County Motor
Vehicle and Special
Fuel Tax
10% of state rate
(2.8(r/ga1.)
RCW 82.80.010
Transportation Purposes
Approval of county legislative body
and a simple majority of the registered
voters
Uncertain
Transportation
Benefit District
Vehicle License Fee
(up to $100 per
qualified vehicle)
RCW 36.73 &
82.80.140
Transportation Purposes
including streets
Ordinance Passed by City Council (up
to $20 per vehicle)
Simple Majority Election -$20-$100
$1,007,000 annually
($20/Vehicle)
Cje new revenue chart 3/17/2011 4:23 PM
•
•
Se 2 of 4
REVENUE
OPTION
AUTHORITY
iiI--
PURPOSES AUTHORIZED
LIMITATIONS
HOW ESTABLISHED
Mr
POTENTIAL YIELD
[2010 estimate]
Transportation
Benefit District—
Sales Tax(upto
°
0.2%)
RCW 36.73 &
82.14.0455
Transportation Purposes
including streets
Simple Majority Election
Levied for 10 years -renewable for
another 10 years
$2,930,000 annually
($1,465,000 per each
additional 0.1%)
Commercial Parking
Tax
RCW 82.80.030
Transportation Purposes
(RCW has no cap on tax rate, and allows
various ways to assess tax)
Ordinancep yCity assed b Council
Subject to Referendum
Uncertain
Street Utility -(up to
$2 per employee or
residential unit)
RCW 82.80.050
Street Capital and Maintenance
Ordinance passed by City Council
Uncertain if available
Local Improvement
P
Districts (LIDs)
Ch. 35.43
Local improvements including streets
and alleys
... levy and collect special assessments
on property specially benefited thereby
to pay the whole or any part of the
expense" RCW 35.43.040
Petition by effected Landowners,
Enacted by City Council
Can only be determined in
relation to specific projects
Reimbursement
Contracts For Street,
Road, And Highway
Projects
Ch. 35.72
Street projects which the owners elect to
install as a result of ordinances that
require the projects as a prerequisite to
further property development
Ordinance Passed by City Council that
requires certain projects as a
prerequisite to further property
development
Can only be determined in
relation to specific projects
Business License Fee
increase
5.52 YMC
RCW 35.22.280 (32)
(no cap in RCW)
Fees increased in 1988 for Sundome Debt
Service. (about 30% currently obligated
for this purpose)
Ordinance Passed by City Council
Currently sliding scale
based on employee count--
10% = $52,000
Cje new revenue chart 3/17/2011 4:23 PM
Page 3 of 4
REVENUE
OPTION
AUTHORITY
PURPOSES AUTHORIZED
LIMITATIONS
HOW ESTABLISHED
POTENTIAL YIELD
[2010 estimate]
IMPACT FEES: Note: Cities are authorized to require impact fees to pay for improvements necessitated by new development -Yakima does not impose.
Impact Fees
82.02.050 - .090
Fire, Parks, Schools, Street Capital
Projects
"... cities ... that plan under RCW
36.70A.040 are authorized to impose
impact fees on development activity as
part of the financing for public facilities"
Imposed upon development as a
condition of development approval
Can only be determined in
relation to specific projects
Transportation
Impact Fee
p
Ch. 39.92
Mitigate off-site transportation impacts
that are a direct result of proposed
development
Provide a portion of the funding for
reasonable and necessary off-site
transportation improvements to solve the
cumulative impacts of planned growth
and development in the plan area
Generally: requires a plan adopted
under ch. 39.92
Specifically: monetary charge imposed
on new development for the
authorized purposes
Can only be determined in
relation to specific projects
Cje new revenue chart 3/17/2011 4:23 PM
•
life 4 of4
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ECONOMICS BRANCH, P&PSC
PO 130X 47400
OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 98504-7400
360-705-7940
CITY/TOWN REPORTTO THE
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
(RCW 35.21.260) FOR BUDGET YEAR
CITY/TOWN
PREPARED BY
TELEPHONE NO.
Yakima
Debbie Baldoz
(509) 576-6687
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR CITY STREETS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
(Round to the Nearest Dollar)
A. REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING
BARS CODE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Traffic Policing
Real and Personal Property Taxes
Local Retail Sales and Use Tax
4,313,351
311.10
313.10
316.10
Business and Occupation Taxes
Commercial Parking Tax
316.30
316.40
13 & 0 Taxes on Privately Owned Public Utilities
316.50
13 & 0 Taxes on Public Utilities of Other Governments
316.70
Government Owned Utility Tax
317.14
Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax • Border Arca Jurisdictions
317.30
Local Real Estate Excise Taxa
1,083,233
321.00
Business Licenses and Pennils
321.91
Franchise Fees
322.40
Street and Curb Permits
331.00
Federal Grants - Direct (EDI) 0
331.14.20
Federal Community PtanninLand Development Block Grant,
0
331.20
Federal De artmcnt ofTransponation
331.83.5X
Federal Emergency Management Agency'
Federal Entitlements, Impact Payments
332.00
333.66
Federal Grants • Indirect (EPA)
333.14.20
Federal Commsiy Planning and Development Block Grant
Federal Fm_ployment and Training Administration (JPTA)
333.17.20
333.2D.2X
Federal llighway Admin. Grants (Direct or Indirect):
333.20.21
Federal Aid - BR 2,687,534
333.20.22
Federal Aid - STP
333.20,23
Federal Aid • HES
333.20.60
Hi ,hway Traffic Safety Administration
333.81
Federal De.anment of Energy
333.83.50
Federal Emergency Management Agency 3.535
State Grants (Specify)
WSDOT 24.202
334.00
Traffic Safety 30.000
Department of Fisheries 175,028
334.03.IX
Department of Ecology
334.03.80
Urban Arterial Board - Grants
334.03.81
334.04.IX
Transportation Improvement Board - Grants
Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development
227,248
0
335.00.81
Mobile Home/Trailer/Camper Excise Tax
- 335.00.83
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
335.00.84
Capron Refunds
PUD Privilege Tax
335.00.91
335.91
Impact Fees
Pans* 1
A. REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING
BARS CODE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
336.00,81
Local Option Vehicle License Fee
336.00.85
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax - Equalization
336.00.87
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - City Street (Only)
1.249,776
336.00.88
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Street Improvement (Only)
584,354
336.00.90
Local Option Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
336.00.91
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Transfer Relief Account
336.06.94
Liquor Excise Tax
336.06.95
Liquor Profits
337.00
Local Grants (Specify) W.Valley School
327,216
338.42
Int overnmental Services - Road Maintenance
338.95
Intergovernmental Services - Road Const. & Engineering
0
339.22
ARRA
515.409.68
342.40
Protective Inspection Fees
0
343.83
Storm Dmi�c Fces and Charges
343.85
Street Utility Charges
343.90
Other Fees Related to Physical Environment
0
344.10
Road/Street Maintenance Repair Charges
10.060
344.20
Sales of Road Materials
344.80
Planning/Development Fees
0
345.81
Zoning and Subdivision Fces
18,913
347.90
Recreation Fees and Charges
348.96
Personnel Service Fces
349.42
Road Maintenance Services
2.876
349.95
Road Construction and Engineering Services
12.267
353.00
Nonparking Traffic Penalties
0
354.00
Parking Traffic Penalties
0
361.11
Invcstmenl Interest
61,001
361.50
Interest and Penalties on Special Assessments
636
361.90
Other Interest Eaminp
362.00
Rentals, Leases, etc.
26,886
367.00
Contributions and Donations from Private Sources
19,214
368.00
Szcial Assessment Principal
4,841
369.40
Other Judgment and Settlements
369.90
Other Miscellaneous Revenues 79
381.20
Intcrfund Loan Repayment Received
391.10
General Obligation Bond Proceeds
0
391.30
kecial Assessment Bond Proceeds
391.60
Proceeds of Bond Anticipation Notes/Warrants
391.80
Loan Proceeds - Stale 10 Arterial Street
600,000--
00,000-395.10
395.10
Sale of Fixed Assets
6,3I 1
397.00
Operating Transfers - In
932,806
345.85
Growth Mgnrt Impact Fees
0
387.00
Residual Equity Transfer
81,574
395.20
Compensation/Loss of Gen Asset
0
395.30
Compensation/Loss ojetssea
2.332
343.16
Weedy Lai Charges
0
TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCING
13,000.681
•
B. STREET AND RELA
BARS CODE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
521.70
1. CONSTRUCTION
95,888
595.1 D
Engineering
1.203.292
595.20
Right of Way
1,1 35,175
595.30
Roadway
736.766
595.40
Storm Drainage
117,121
595.50
Structures
995,592
595.60
?male and Pedestrian Services
38,120
595.61
Sidewalks
172,219
595.62
Special Purpose Paths
0
595.63
Street Lighting
112,022
595.64
Traffic Control Devices
17,298
595.65
Pnrking Fncilities
44.578
595,70
Roadside Development
34,215
595.80
Ancillarypperations
0
595.90
Construction Administration and Overhead
114,646
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
4,606,398
IV. ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
597.00
Operating Transfers - Out
282,875
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
282,875
(TOTAL STREET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES
11.374.532
Pant; 3
111. OTHER STREET RELATED EXPENDITURES
I1. MAINTENANCE
521.70
542.30
95,888
Roadway .
1,953,683
542.40
543.50
Storm Drainage
127,868
542.50
Structures
3,471
542.60
Traffic and Pedestrian Services
0
542.61
Sidewalks
77,346
542.62
Special Purpose Paths-
103,713
' 542.63
Street Lighting
408,349
542.64
Traffic Control Devices
997,804
542.65
542.66
Parking Facilities
6,897
Snow and Ice Control
438,736
542.67
Street Cleaning
347,164
542.70
Roadside Develo.mcnt •
188,220
542.80
Ancilla Operation
0
542.90Maintenance
Administration and Overhead
114,646
11
(TOTAL MAINTENANCE
4,664,185
IV. ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
597.00
Operating Transfers - Out
282,875
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
282,875
(TOTAL STREET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES
11.374.532
Pant; 3
111. OTHER STREET RELATED EXPENDITURES
521.70
Traffic Policing
95,888
543.00
General Administration
723,835
543.50
Maintenance of Facilities
0
545.00
Extraordinary Operations
12,009
594.00
Capitalized Expenditures
806,204
594.42
Construction of Facilities
0
519.70
Other lobbing and Contract Work
103,713
TOTAL OTHER STREET RELATED EXPENDITURES
1,729,640
IV. ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
597.00
Operating Transfers - Out
282,875
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
282,875
(TOTAL STREET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES
11.374.532
Pant; 3
IV. DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES
591.00
Redemptions - GO Bonds
79,425
591.00
Redemptions- LID Bonds
0
591.00
Redemptions - Other Long -Term Debt
0
592,00
Interest and Other Debt Service Costs
12,009
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES
91.434
IV. ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
597.00
Operating Transfers - Out
282,875
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ENTRIES AFFECTING FUND BAL
282,875
(TOTAL STREET AND RELATED EXPENDITURES
11.374.532
Pant; 3
SUMMARY OF STREET/ROAD RELATED FUND ACTIVITY FOR REPORTING YEAR 2009
FUND NUMBER
(STREET/ROAD
RELATED)
FUND NAME
REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
141 Streets /Traffic
5,578,638
5.415.804
142 Arterial Street 3,141,402
3.315,476
143
Transportation Improvement
Central Business District
Public Works Trust
0
102,617
642,832
0
218,874
137.450
321
342
343
REET 2 Capital Fund
553.616
407.496
392
Cumulative Reserve for Cap. Improve.
2,773,687
1,692,110
95.888
000
General Fund95,888
283
Bonded Debt
112,000
91,434
3rd Ave/Mead Walnut Street Project
2,145,000
0
• 165,000
1,980,000
TOTALS
13,000,681
11,374.532
416,540
(Should equal Total Rev., page 2)
(Should equal Total Exp., page 3) '
STATUS OF LONG-TERM DEBT (STREET/ROAD RELATED DEBT ONLY,
. GO BONDS, LID/RID BONDS, LONG-TERM LOANS, ETC.)
TYPE OF BOND
NOTE OR LOAN
(GO,LID/RID,
ETC.)
•
ca
4
,E
a
(STREET, PARKING, STREET
LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS, STORM
SEWERS, ETC.)
AMOUNT
OUTSTANDING
JAN. 1, 2009
AMOUNT
' ISSUED
(CURRENT
YEAR)
AMOUNT
REDEEMED
(CURRENT
YEAR)
AMOUNT
OUTSTANDING
DEC. 31.2009
TYPE OF
CONCRETE
PLANT OR
SURFACE
CRUSHED
G.O. 1944
TOTAL
River Rd Improvements
Downtown Revitalization
1,620,000
PAVEMENT
150,000
1,470,000
G.O.21 16
1,415,000
MILES '
75,000
1,340,000
G.O.
349.2
3rd Ave/Mead Walnut Street Project
2,145,000
0
• 165,000
1,980,000
G.O. 283
Law &Justice/682
416,540
79,425
337.115
TOTAL G.O.
5,596,540
0
469.425
5,127.115
PWT LOANS
1989
Resignaliration & Lighting Improvmts
42,151
63.512
0 '
0
42,151
31,756
0
31,756
1990
Tieton Drive Reconstruction
1991
Reconstruction of N. 1st Avenue
149,913
49,971
99,942
1995
Fair Avenue Improvements
Downtown Yakima Street Rehab
372,755
252,095
53,251
126,047
319,504
126,048
2000
2010
RR Grade Separation
0
' 600.000
600.000
Total
880,426
600.000
303,176
1,177,250
TOTALS
6,476,966
600,000
772,601
6,304,365
c of debt related to streets -17.65% of 52,360,000.
STREET INVENTORY REPORT END OF CALENDAR YEAR 2009
Page 4
•
•
CEMENT
ASPHALT
BITUMINOUS
GRAVEL OR
TYPE OF
CONCRETE
PLANT OR
SURFACE
CRUSHED
DIRT AND
TOTAL
SURFACE
PAVEMENT
ROAD MIX
TREATMENT
ROCK
UNIMPROVED
MILES '
MILES
10.9
349.2
22.30
30.20
0.00
412.60
Page 4
•
•
•
Members
Bill Wheeler.
Tomas Holbrook
Les Flue
Amber Hansen
Mike Morriesette
Dave Edler (Lover)
Mike Leita
CITY OF YAKIMA •
Boards and Commissions
AIR TERMINAL BOARD
2400 W. WASHINGTON AVE.
4 Year term -- 5 members
Year
Appointed
Year
Term
Expires
(City) 2004 06/30/2012
(City) 2006 06/30/2014
(County) 2006 06/30/2010
(County) 2007 06/30/2012
(Board) 2009 06/30/2013
(City Liaison, Alternate)
(County Liaison)
Operates under Joint Air Terminal Operations Agreement dated 06/30/82.
Appointed by:
Meets:
Residency
Requirements:
Term Limitations:
Attendance
Requirements:
Responsibilities:
Two from City Council; two from County Commission;
and one selected by four appointees, jointly approved
by City and County.
Fourth Thursday at 7:30 A. M.
@ airport conference room
Two members appointed by the City must be city
residents (Ord. 2010-14).
None.
None, but may be removed by the City Council.
Maintains, equips, operates and regulate the Yakima
Air Terminal. The Board also has the power to
acquire property for, establish, construct, enlarge and
improve the Airport and other air navigation facilities
and airport protection privileges. An annual budget of
anticipated revenue from the Air Terminal operation
and proposed expenditures will be prepared by the
Board and submitted to the governing bodies of both
the County and the City for approval.
City Clerk Page 1
revised 3/16/2011
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
YAKIMA ARTS COMMISSION
4 -Year Term - 13-15 members
Year
Members Appointed Term Expires
Kathy Coffey 3/2/10 6/30/13 Council Rep
Jessica Moskwa 3/2/10 6/30/1.1 Agency Rep
Sandy Dahl 3/2/10 6/30/13 Agency Rep
Noel Moxley 3/2/10 6/30/11 Agency Rep
David Lynx 3/1/10 6/30/12 Agency Rep
Cheryl Hahn 3/2/10 6/30/13 Agency Rep
Stephanie Clevenger 3/2/10 6/30/12 Agency Rep
Laurie AD Kanyer 3/2/10 6/30/11 Artist
Gloria Gonzales Garcia 3/2/10 6/30/12 Artist
Donald Berk 3/2/10 6/30/12 Community Rep
John Cooper 3/2/10 6/30/13 Community Rep
Andrew Granitto 3/2/10 6/30/11 Community Rep
Elizabeth Miller 3/2/10 6/30/11 Community Rep
Julie Shoval 3/2/10 6/30/13 Community Rep
John Slaughter 3/2/10 6/30/12 Community Rep
Operates under City Ordinance Number 2010-01. Established under Chapter 1.36 of the
City of Yakima Municipal Code.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Department Contact:
Term Limitations:
Residency Rqmts:
Attendance Rqmts:
City Council
CED Director
Four Years — 2 term limit
Four of the Community Reps must be city residents
Requirements: Voting members shall include:
2 working artists
4-6 Community members
6 agency representatives: Yakima Symphony, Capitol Theatre, Allied Arts, The Seasons, Larson
Gallery, Yakima Valley Museum
•
•
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
PLANNING COMMISSION
6 -Year term - 7 members
Year
Year Term
Members Appointed Expires
Ron Anderson 2010 6/30/2016
Bill Cook 2010 6/30/2014
David Huycke 2010 6/30/2012.
Craig Rath 2010 6/30/2012
Al Rose 2010 6/30/2016
Benjamin Shoval 2010 6/30/2014
David Watson 2010 6/30/2011
Established under Ordinance 2010-22; Yakima Municipal Code Title 1, Chapter 2.43.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Contact:
Residency:
Requirements:
Term Limitations:
Attendance
Requirements:
Responsibilities:
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council
Joan Davenport, Planning Division
Must be a City Resident
Two consecutive, may again serve after 2 yrs from end of
second term
None.
Long range planning issues within the city limits.
City Clerk Page 1
revised 3/16/2011
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
CHARTER CITY EMPLOYEES -- CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
6 Year Term -- 3 members
Members
Greg Lighty
Beverly Warren
Melanie Gilmore
Year
Year Term
Appointed Expires
(Employees) 2001
(Council) 1994
(Commission)
09/01/2013
12/31/2015
06/01/2014
The Charter City Employees Civil Service Commission operates under City Charter
provision; Article XVI, Section 3.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Term Limitations:
Residency
Requirements:
Attendance
Requirements:
Responsibilities:
City Clerk
City Empl-Civil Svc Commission
revised 3/16/2011
City Council as stipulated in the City Charter
1st/Mon (Sept/2nd Mon) - City Hall 3:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
None.
None. Must be a registered voter
None.
Adopts rules, administers merit principles
governing the appointment, promotion,
transfer, lay-off, removal, discipline and
welfare of the classified employees other
than Police and Fire.
Page 1
•
•
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
POLICE & FIRE - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
6 Year term - 3 members
Members Year
Year Term
Appointed Expires
Melanie Gilmore 2001 12/31/2014
Mike Vowell 2008 12/31/2013
Greg Lighty 2004 12/31/2016
Operates under RCW 41.12 and Ordinance No. B-199, enacted in 1937. The Fire Civil
Service Commission was established under Chapter 1.46.020 of the City of Yakima
Municipal Code, RCW 41.08.010 and RCW 41.08.030. The Police Civil Service
Commission was established under Chapter 1.54.020 of the City of Yakima Municipal
Code, RCW 41.12.010 and RCW 41.12.030.
Appointed by: City Manager with Council approval.
Meetings: 1st/Mon (Sep 2nd/Mon) at 3:30 P. M. -
City Hall - Council Chambers
Requirements: U. S. Citizen, 3 -Year City resident, and registered
voter, by RCW
Term Limitations: None.
Attendance
Requirements: None.
Responsibilities: Adopts rules and principles governing employment,
advancement, demotion and discharge pertaining to
Police and. Fire employees.
City Clerk Page 1
Revised 3/16/2011
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD
4 -Year Term - 7 members
Year
Members Appointed Term Expires
Jon Hopwood 1999 6/30/11
Benjamin Shoval 2010 6/30/11
Nestor Hernandez 2006 6/30/14
Phyllis Musgrove 2010 6/20/11
Greg Bohn 2008 6/30/12
Bob Mason 2002 6/30/12
Martin Chacon 2009 6/30/14
Code Administration Manager Ex officio
Operates under City Ordinance Number 99-15. Established under Chapter 10 to Title
11 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code.
Appointed by: City Council
Meetings: First & Third Wednesday @ 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
Department Contact: Joe Caruso
Term Limitations: Four Years — No limit on number of terms
Residency
Requirements:
Attendance
Requirements:
COMMUNITY REVIEW BOARD
Requirements: Members must represent different aspects of the
public as a whole including local residents, the
building industry, the health community, the business
community, and the residential rental community, but
not more than two from any of these.
Responsibilities: Conduct administrative hearings and render decisions
based upon written findings and do all things
necessary and proper to carry out and enforce
chapter 11.10 YMC.
City Clerk Page 1
3/17/2011
•
•
•
Members
Nick Hughes
Larry Hull
Jack Cannon
Rodney Lewis
Mike McMurray
Joe Morrier
Diane Vance
Non Voting Member:
(City Council Member)
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
DOWNTOWN YAKIMA PARKING COMMISSION
4 -Year Term - 8 members
(7 voting, 1 non-voting)
Year
Appointed Term Expires
11/20/07 June 30, 2014
11/20/07 June 30, 2011
06/15/10 June 30, 2014
11/20/07 June 30, 2011
11/20/07 June 30, 2014
11/20/07 June 30, 2011
11/20/07 June 30, 2011
June 30, 2011
Operates under City Ordinance Number 2007-35. Established under Chapter 9.49 Title
® of the City of Yakima Municipal Code.
Members are recommended by the Committee for Downtown Yakima to the City
Council.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Department Contact:
Term Limitations:
Residency
Requirements:
Attendance Rqmts:
City Council
Four Years — 2 term limit
Requirements: Voting members shall include:
1. A business owner representing businesses between 7th Ave and 1st Ave.
2. A business owner representing the businesses on Front St.
3. Two business owners representing businesses between 1st and 9th Streets
4. Two property owners within the district boundaries.
5. A resident from within the district boundary
City Clerk
3/16/2011
Page 1
Members
Shawn Darling
Wanda Riel
Tom Denlea.
Renay Mitchell
Eve Semon
Ron Gamache
Whitman/Johnson
Mayor Aubrey Reeves
Herb Schmidt
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
HOTEL/MOTEL COMMISSION
3 Year Term - 9 members
Representation
Structure
Yakima -Voting
Yakima -Voting
Union Gap -Voting
Union Gap -Voting
Selah-Voting
County -Non Voting
Yakima Council -Non Voting
Union Gap Council -Non voting
Selah Council -Non Voting
Year
Appointed
2007
2004
2004
2006
2004
2004
2004
2004
Year
Term Expires
Operates under City Ordinance 2004-17 pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.101.130(1).
Appointed by: City Councils of Yakima, Union Gap, and Selah
Meetings: Unknown -
Department Contact: Unknown
Term Limitations: Three Years — No limit on number of terms
Requirements: Voting members must be operators of lodging businesses
within the Yakima County Tourism Promotion Area or
employed by the operator of such a lodging business
Attendance
Requirements: Unknown
Responsibilities: An advisory body to make recommendations to the City
Council concerning all annual budgets; however, the City
Council of the City of Yakima shall have the ultimate
authority to set and approve all annual budgets.
City Clerk Page 1
revised 3/16/2011
•
•
•
•
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
(Sally Shelton)
810 N 6th Ave. - Yakima, WA 98902
Mail to: P.O. Box 1447 98907
5 Year Term -- 5 members
Director: Dick Allen (thru 12/31/08)
Lowel Krueger effective 1/1/09
Members
Brian Johnson
Mamie Purdue
Robert Wardell
Christine Goodwin
Linda Chaplin
Year
Appointed
2009
2006
1998
2009
2009
Year
Term
Expires
01/31/2015
01/31/2013
01/31/2012
01/31/2016
01/31/2013
Operates under State Law RCW 35.82 and Resolution No. D-3719 enacted
06/27/77.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Term Limitations:
Residency
Requirements:
Attendance
Requirements:
Requirements:
Responsibilities:
Linda's/B&Cs/Housing-Authority-Board
Updated 3/16/2011
Mayor and City Council
Fourth Wednesday at 3:30 P. M. -
Meeting: Housing Authority Office
810 N. 6th Avenue (453-3106)
None.
None.
None.
No commissioner of an authority may be an officer or
employee of the city or county.
Development and operation of programs to provide
improved housing for low income families and
individuals, throughout the City; and cooperation with
other agencies in neighborhood improvement
programs, and provision of housing for displaced
persons.
Members
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Year
Year Term
Appointed Expires
Kathy Coffey, Chair 2008
Dennis Hogenson, Capitol Theatre 2008
John Cooper, V&C 2008
Angie Girard, Convention Center 2008
Sara Allen (Ledgestone Hotel) 2008
Colette Keeton (Howard Johnsons) 2008
Jay Wildgen (Clarion) 2008
Established under RCW Chapter 67.28 and Substitute Senate Bill 5867 (Chapter 452,
Laws of 1997) and created by Resolution No. R-97-84, adopted June 17, 1997.
Appointed by: Yakima City Council
Meetings: On-call basis
Department Contact: Dick Zais,. 575-6040
Term Limitations: No set terms.
Must either be a representative of a business
required to collect the lodging tax or a person
involved in activities authorized to be funded by
the revenue received from the lodging tax.
Residency Requirements: None
Attendance Requirements: None.
Responsibilities: When Council proposes the imposition, increase,
or repeal of an exemption from a tax under RCW
Chapter 67.28, such proposal shall be submitted
to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review
and comment at least 45 days before final action
on the passage of the proposal by the City
Council. The Committee's comments shall include
an analysis of the extent to which the proposal will
accommodate activities for tourists or increase
tourism, and the extent to which the proposal will
affect long-term stability of the fund used for
paying the costs of tourism promotions, acquisition
of tourism -related facilities, or operation of
tourism -related facilities.
City Clerk
revised 11/01/99
Page 1
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
4 Year term - 7 members
Members
Sam Karr
Robert Busse, Chair
Rod Bryant
Paul Williams
Alex Deccio
Mike Nixon
Tom Hinman
Director of Public Works
Year
Year Term
Appointed Expires
2007 6/30/11
1981 6/30/12
2000 6/30/13
2007 6/30/11
2009 6/30/12
1981 6/30/13
2006 6/30/13
Ex -Officio
Established under Chapter 1.35 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code.
Ordinance No. 1573, enacted 10/01/73 and Ordinance No. 2688
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Residency
Requirements:
Term Limitations:
Attendance
Requirements:
Responsibilities:
Mayor and City Council
Second Monday at 5:15 P. M. -
City Hall
Must be City residents (Ord 2010-15)
None
Operates under
Three consecutive unexcused absences disqualifies
member from serving.
Advises the City Council and Director of Parks and
Recreation concerning the formulation of policy, plans
and programs to maintain and operate City parks. and
carry out recreation programs.
City Clerk Page 1
Revised 3/16/2011
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD
4 Year Term - 7 members
Members
Alex Hodge
Brian Johnson
Angie Girard
Eve Semon
Dan Marples
Dave Raglin (Union Gap)
Mike Frausto (Selah)
Year
Appointed
2007
2001
2007
2005
2001
Term Expires
June 30, 2014
June 30, 2011
June 30, 2012
June 30, 2013
June 30, 2013
Ex officio members: Dave Edler (Alt Coffey) and Assistant Yakima City Manager
Operates under City Ordinance Number 2001-28. Codified as Chapter 35.57 RCW
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Department Contact:
Term Limitations:
Residency
Requirements:
Attendance
Requirements:
City Council (5 -Yakima, 1 Selah, 1 Union Gap)
3rd Tuesday at 8:30 at Convention Center
Rita DeBord, Director of Finance & Budget
Four Years — No limit on number of terms
None
Requirements: Shall not be members of the legislative authority of the Cities of
Selah, Union Gap, or Yakima at any time while serving on the Board. Have
knowledge and/or experience in tourism, convention, and/or related business.
Diversity of backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, education, cultures, industries,
business experience, etc. desirable. Must be bondable.
Responsibilities: To govern the affairs of the Public Facilities District
including; approval of changes in the district's bylaws; oversee the general
'operation and structure of the district; interface with and advise the Yakima City
Council, City Manager and City Staff on operations of the District; interface with
the hotel/motel owners and other convention and tourism related businesses
within the District. The District was established to lease and operate the Yakima
Convention Center. This allows for a portion of the sales taxes currently
collected and sent to the state to be directed back to the PFD. These funds will
be used to finance the expansion of the Convention Center.
City Clerk
3/17/2011 Page 1
•
•
•
•
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
SOUTHEAST YAKIMA COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD
4 Year Term - 7 Members
Year Term
Members Appointed Expires
David Purcell 2009 6/30/12
Aaron Case 2008 6/30/11
Jamie Covarrubias 2008 6/30/14
Martha Gamboa 2008 6/30/12
Johnnie Harvey 2008 6/30/13
Gloria Hernandez 2008 6/30/14
Robert Trimble 2008 6/30/11
A representative for the operator of the Southeast Community Center shall also be an
ex -officio member of the advisory board.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
City Contact:
Residency
Requirements:
Term Limitations:
Attendance
Requirements:
Responsibilities:
City Council based upon the recommendations of
Operator (Board of Directors).
Minimum is Quarterly
Ken Wilkinson (staff liaison)
Must reside within the city limits of Yakima
None.
None.
To make recommendations to the Operator and
,City regarding Management policies,
operations, maintenance, and capital
improvement needs.
City Clerk Page 1
Revised 03/17/11
CITY OF YAKIMA
Boards and Commissions
YAKIMA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
4 Year Term - 7 members
Members
Joe Mann
Greg Rainka
Nancy Kenmotsu
Jenifer Wilde-McMurtrie
Byron Gumz
Scott Irons
Karl Pasten
Director of Community & Economic Devel.
Year
Appt
2005
2010
2007
2007
2010
2005
2008
Ex officio
Term
Expires
6/30/13
6/30/13
6/30/11
6/30/11
6/30/11
6/30/12
6/30/12
Operates under City Ordinance Number 2005-2. Established under Chapter 11.62 of
the City of Yakima Municipal Code.
Appointed by:
Meetings:
Department Contact:
Term Limitations:
Residency
Requirements:
Mayor with approval of the City Council
4th Wednesdays of the month
City Hall
Vaughn McBride (per Com. Dev.)
Four Years — Limited to 2 terms
City, unless exception granted by Mayor and
approved by Council. 3 members must be from
specific disciplines.
Attendance
Requirements: None.
Requirements:
City Clerk,
revised 5/20/08
The Commission shall always include at least three professionals
who have experience in identifying, evaluating, and protecting
historic resources and are selected from among the disciplines of
history, architecture, architectural history, landscape architecture,
historic preservation, planning, folklore, cultural anthropology,
prehistoric and historic archaeology, American studies, curation,
traditional building crafts, the practice of historic rehabilitation or
restoration, finance and banking, law, and real estate, or related
disciplines.
Page 1
•
•
•
•
)0
Progress. Report
on
City Council Strategic Priorities
Presented by
City Manager Dick Zais
March 2011
•
•
2:010
Progress .Report
,Aon_
City Council'
Strategic, Priorities
Introduction
This report serves as a report card on the progress made in 2010 by the seven
departments and nearly forty divisions of the City of Yakima to put into practice
the City Council's Strategic Priorities through various City policies, programs, and
services.
This report includes a condensed "Top Ten" summary of major accomplishments
in 2010 (pages 5-7), a more expansive "Achievements and Initiatives" section
(pages 8-28), and a "Future Challenges and Opportunities" section (pages 29-
31).
The Yakima City Council's Strategic Priorities were adopted in December 2008
according to rankings of the priorities established through an online community
survey conducted in fall 2008. The priorities are the guiding principles upon
which City programs, policies, and services are developed, delivered, and
measured.
In August 2010, the City Council developed a list of Policy Priorities that provide
more specific direction in the development and implementation of City programs,
policies, and services in order to meetidentified goals. This report also includes
narratives that detail progress made in addressing the Policy Priorities
established by the City Council.
2
•
•
•
City of Yakima
Vision Statement
Adopted March 2008
To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant,
safe, and strong Yakima community
City of Yakima
Mission Statement
Adopted March 2008
To provide outstanding services that meet the
community's needs
To govern responsibly by effectively managing and
protecting public resources
To build trust in government through openness,
diverse leadership, and communication
To strategically focus on enhancing
Yakima's quality of life
3
•
Yakima City Council
Strategic Priorities
Adopted December 2008
#1 Maintain and Improve Public Health and Safety
#2 Efficiently Manage Public Resources and
Ensure Fiscal Stability
#3 Promote Economic Development
and Diversification
#4 Preserve and Enhance Yakima's Quality of Life
#5 Provide Responsive Customer Service and
Effective Communications
#6 Build and Utilize Strategic Partnerships
•
•
•
1)
2)
3)
The City's increased crime fighting efforts are making
an impact.
"Top Ten"
Summary of
Accomplishments
Additional tools and resources have been devoted to
enhancing the City's ability to fight crime.
• Adoption of Gang Free Initiative in May 2010
• Adoption of Nuisance Property Ordinance in April 2010
• Formation of federal and local agencies gang crime task force
• Renewal of .3% county -wide criminal justice sales tax
• Yakima County Gang Commission
• Successful targeted high crime area emphasis patrols
• Significant decline in number of car thefts
The City and the private sector have partnered'to develop
and utilize effective strategies to continue the renaissance
of Downtown Yakima.
Downtown Yakima Futures Initiative — Additional $1 million state allocation
• Initiation of Mill District Redevelopment Project preliminary phases
• Capitol Theatre Campus Project — Nearly $7 million -Phase 2
North 1st Street Improvements Design
5
4)
5)
6)
7)
The City continues to successfully promote economic
development and diversification.
4. Renewal Community Commercial Revitalization Deduction projects
• Yakima Planning Commission formed
• Business Improvement District
• West Nob Hill Boulevard Improvements
Significant investments are being made to improve and
preserve Yak ma's public infrastructure.
• Council Economic Development Committee Infrastructure Assessment
4 MLK, Jr. Blvd. and Lincoln Avenue underpasses
• Nob Hill overpass improvements
4> Trolley bridge improvements
4> Irrigation system rebuild
4> Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades
The City is maximizing limited resources and living within
its means.
• Significant spending reductions in 2010
• Outside funding - $37 million in 2010
4> Significant jail cost savings realized in 2010
• Indigent defense grant
• 23'' consecutive "unqualified opinion" from state auditor
The City is proactively increasing openness, accountability,
and transparency in government.
• Form of government election
Priorities of Government budget model
• Council Code of Ethics
4> Council Listening Meetings
4> State of the City presentation
• Increase in Public Disclosure Request responses
6
8)
9)
•
10)
•
New programs, activities, and facilities are being created
to enhance Yakima's quality of life.
• Arts Commission formed
• Downtown Rotary Club Playground at Kiwanis Park
• Southwest Rotary Club Basketball Court at Kiwanis Park
• Franklin Pool upgrades
• Neighborhood Stabilization program
William 0. Douglas Trail
Through innovation and efficiencies, the City is improving
customer service.
r
• Social Media Policy adopted
• Twitter and Facebook sites launched
Combining of finance and utility services functions
Fall leaf pickup biodegradable bag program
Partnerships with other local governments; the private C-;7':,
sector, and non-profit organizations help. the City. meet u, T
the needs of a. growing community.
• Full implementation of City/County purchasing operations consolidation
• Regional public safety records computer system
• Legislative Committee formed
Established Council North 1st Street Committee
4, Marvin Gardens low -moderate housing project
•
•
•
Achievements
and
Initiatives
#1. Maintain and Improve Public Health and Safetlf-tr:
Combating Gang Crime and Gang Violence
Public safety is the Yakima City Council's Number One Priority. The Council's central
focus right now is to increase the City's efforts to combat gang crime and gang violence.
The City is undertaking its own prevention, intervention, and suppression initiatives and
is building cooperative partnerships with other public and private entities to attack the
gang problem in the Yakima Valley.
Gang Free Initiative
Approved by the City Council in May 2010, the Gang Free Initiative ("GFI") is designed
to coordinate the gang prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts of multiple
public and private entities in the community in order to maximize their effects.
- Gang Awareness Campaign — Launched in April 2010, a four-month Gang
Awareness Campaign coordinated by local business leaders featured TV, print, and
radio ads, a TV special aired on all local stations, and other media -based education
efforts. The awareness campaign has resulted in hundreds of people contacting
local agencies to learn how to combat gang crime and gang violence.
- GFI Steering Committee — In early July 2010, the City Council appointed a Gang
Free Initiative Steering Committee comprised of a cross section of community
representatives. The Steering Committee's primary assignment is to develop
strategies and tasks for implementation of the GFI.
- GFI Coordinator— In May 2010, the City Council authorized creation of a GFI
Coordinator staff position. In the fall of 2010, Steve Magallan was hired to serve as
the initial GFI Coordinator and will be responsible for implementing and
administering the GFI, securing ongoing funding for the GFI, and engaging local
organizations and community members in cooperative gang prevention, intervention,
and suppression efforts.
- GFI Community Assessment — A community assessment is being conducted
to determine specific needs and areas of focus for the GFI to address. The results
of the community assessment will help to guide allocation of GFI resources and will
strengthen future efforts to secure ongoing GFI funding.
8
Nuisance Property Ordinance
An ordinance approved by the City Council in April 2010 allows properties involved in
multiple serious police calls to be declared nuisance properties. Owners of nuisance
properties are given 30 days to take action to eliminate problems or face significant
fines.
Federal Agency Intervention
Announced in June 2010, multiple federal agencies and Yakima Valley law enforcement
agencies formed a task force specifically designed to combat gang crime and gang
violence. Formation of the task force may be a prelude to the potential implementation
of a federal Safe Streets program in the Yakima area.
Yakima County Gang Commission
The City was a key partner in the 2010 formation of the Yakima County Gang
Commission, which is designed to coordinate gang prevention, intervention, and
suppression efforts throughout the county.
Emphasis Patrols
Coordinated emphasis patrols in targeted neighborhoods have proven successful in
reducing gang crime and gang violence. In May 2010, an emphasis patrol focused on
three target areas in Yakima resulted in a more than 11% reduction in serious crime in
those areas when compared to May 2009. Another emphasis patrol in June 2010
resulted in serious crime dropping by more than 20% in the areas targeted by the patrol
when compared to the same month the previous year. Additional emphasis patrols will
be conducted depending on available funding.
Gang Enforcement Team & ProAct Unit
The Yakima Police Department operates both a Gang Enforcement Team and a ProAct
Unit, which work in unison to ensure seven -day -a -week coverage by specialized squads
devoted to the suppression of gang crime and gang violence.
Prevention and Intervention Programs
The City devotes additional resources specifically aimed at gang intervention and
prevention efforts including the Yakima Police Athletic League, the School Resource
Officers program, the Gang Resistance Education and Training program, the Volunteers
in Policing program, the Crime Free Rental Housing program, and the Block Watch
program (with a dedicated Block Watch Coordinator).
Renewal of County -Wide Criminal Justice Sales Tax
More than 78% of voters in the November 2009 election approved the renewal of a
dedicated .3% sales tax which continues to support critical elements of the City's
Criminal Justice System. The tax currently funds five officers and 1 detective in the
Yakima Police Department, one assistant City attorney and one legal assistant, two
Municipal Court clerks, a three-quarter time Municipal Court commissioner, one animal
control officer, and costs associated with housing jail inmates.
Anti -Graffiti Efforts
The City combats graffiti through prevention, investigation, enforcement and abatement
efforts including:
- The Gang Resistance Education and Training Program ("GREAT") and the
Yakima Police Athletic League ("YPAL") provide youth with alternatives to gangs.
9
•
- The Yakima Police Department Gang Enforcement Team ("GET")
aggressively targets and pursues graffiti offenders.
- Cameras placed strategically in areas hard hit by graffiti have proven to be effective
in helping to identify and catch offenders. New, high-tech cameras were recently
purchased with a federal grant to replace older, lower -resolution cameras. There are
now over a dozen cameras in use throughout the City at any given time.
- More than 150 graffiti -related arrests have been made in the in the last two years.
- The City's Graffiti Cleanup Program, which has been primarily focused on
paint out efforts, has been modified to include providing graffiti removal products to
Yakima residents and businesses. Paint out efforts will continue
but will be focused in alleys.
Decline in Number of Car Thefts
Thanks in part to targeted emphasis patrols, the number of cars stolen in Yakima
declined in 2009 over the previous year and has continued to go down this year.
Between July 2008 and July 2009, 412 vehicles were stolen compared to 331 vehicles
stolen between July 2009 and July 2010, representing a nearly 20% drop. Yakima's car
theft rate has followed the nationwide trend of fewer vehicles being stolen for the past
three years.
• License Plate Reader
A grant from the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority ("WAPTA") provided
funding for the Yakima Police Department to purchase two mobile automatic license
plate readers. The readers, which are attached to patrol cars, use optical character
recognition technology to take digital pictures of license plates, which are then nearly
instantaneously compared to law enforcement databases that identify vehicles known or
suspected of being involved in crimes. In use for only a short time, the readers have
helped police identify numerous stolen vehicles.
Volunteers In Policing Program
The Yakima Police Department Volunteers In Policing ("V.I.P.") program is helping to
meet increasing demand for services. V.I.P. volunteers perform duties such as issuing
handicap parking tickets, doing vacation home checks, staffing safety fairs and
community events, and assisting detectives with call backs on cases.
• Legal Department Criminal Caseload
The Criminal Division of the City's Legal Department successfully prosecuted over 6,000
criminal cases and appeared in almost 13,000 hearings in Yakima Municipal Court in
2010.
• Municipal Court Caseload
In 2010, Yakima Municipal Court handled nearly 18,000 cases. With two full-time
judges and a half-time court commissioner, the Municipal Court was able to continue to
deliver a high level of service despite limited resources.
10
• Priority Dispatch/Tiered Response System for EMS Calls
For the last year, a priority dispatch/tiered response system has been in place in order
to more efficiently and effectively allocate emergency medical services ("EMS")
resources. Rather than automatically dispatching both fire apparatus and a private
ambulance, 911 call takers utilize a "triage" approach in order to determine which fire
department and ambulance company personnel need to respond based on information
gathered from the person making the emergency call.
• Keep Kids Alive Drive 25
For the last three years, the City has joined nearly 1,000 other communities across the
country which are part of the "Keep Kids Alive Drive 25" campaign. The City's Public
Works Department provides adhesive signs featuring the "Keep Kids Alive Drive 25"
logo free of charge to community members who are encouraged to stick the signs on
the sides of refuse bins or in other highly visible locations throughout Yakima
neighborhoods.
• Drinking Water Testing
Yakima's drinking water undergoes annual testing required by federal and state
agencies and consistently ranks among the safest in the entire nation. During the later
part of last year and the early part of this year, the City's Water/Irrigation Division
worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to conduct special testing of the
City's drinking water supply. The testing is intended to improve drinking water quality,
increase protection against disease -causing microorganisms and contaminants, and
reduce health risks that can result from the treatment process. The testing showed that
Yakima's drinking water does not require any additional treatment process.
• Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades
Construction of a $14 million upgrade and modernization of the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which began in spring 2006, was completed in late 2009. Upgrades
have included three new blowers, a blower building, a new centrifuge, a new Solids
Handling Building, methane gas piping improvements, replacement of aging SCADA
components, upgrades to power distribution, additional emergency power generator,
and installation of a UV disinfection facilities to replace the outmoded chlorine -based
system. Plant upgrades assure that the City meets various state and federal clean
water mandates as well as allow for the continued growth of the community.
Efficiently Manage Public Resources
and Ensure Fiscal Stability
Priorities of Government Budget Model
In place for almost two years, the City's Priorities of Government budgeting model has
helped to create a more open and accessible budget process, better communicate
budget decisions, and hold the City accountable to provide responsive, efficient, and
effective programs and services. The City Council established six General Government
Budget Priorities in order to provide guidance in the allocation of resources which fund
basic City services. The General Government Budget Priorities, which have been
11
•
•
•
implemented according to accompanying budget policies, reflect the City Council's
commitment to balance community needs with the availability of resources.
,, Budget Policies
In August 2010, the City Council adopted policies recommended by the Council Budget
Committee establishing specific budgeting guidelines regarding minimum balance levels
for General Fund Cash Reserves, utilization and allocation of General Fund Cash
Reserves, and clearer identification within the budget of non-recurring General
Government expenditures. The Council Budget Committee is continuing to work with
City staff to develop additional policies to establish guidelines for determining fees and
charges levels, and expects to provide a recommendation to the full Council in the near
future.
2010 Budget
A slow economy has hurt City tax revenues and has required the City Council to make
many difficult budget decisions. Even after eliminating 24 staff positions in the 2010
budget, freezing salaries for most City employees, and reducing programs and services,
additional steps were taken last year to keep the City's budget balanced. Furloughs
were implemented for 220 employees (which helped the City avoid additional layoffs)
and spending on public infrastructure improvements, travel, supplies, fuel, and other
basics was reduced. Approximately $1.3 million in 2010 mid -year budget reductions
were made.
Outside Funding
The City is continually searching for outside funding to supplement revenues generated
locally through taxes, fees, rates, and other sources. More than $37 million of the 2010
Citywide budget came in the form of grants, state and federal allocations,
intergovernmental revenues, private contributions, etc. That outside funding, which
equates to nearly 20% of the total 2010 City budget, allowed the City to make needed
capital investments and provide programs and services that otherwise would not be
available to the community.
Jail Cost Savings
Since the City began providing public defenders to inmates during the arraignment
process in 2009, considerable jail cost savings have been realized. With a public
defender present at arraignment, inmates are able to be released from jail while
awaiting further legal processing. It is estimated that $800,000 in jail costs were saved
in 2010 due to the expansion of the public defender program.
Grant Pays for Extended Yakima Transit Hours
Yakima Transit extended the hours of service for all of its routes by one hour in March
2010 thanks to a Jobs Access and Reverse Commute ("JARC") grant from the
Washington State Department of Transportation. The JARC grant is paying for an
18 -month demonstration project aimed at helping people find and keep jobs by providing
transportation options.
2009 Financial Audit
The City received its 23rd consecutive "unqualified opinion" (the highest rating possible)
from the Washington State Auditor's office for the 2009 fiscal year. An "unqualified"
finding indicates that the City practices sound financial management and has solid
administrative procedures in place.
12
• Indigent Defense Grant
In December 2009, the City was awarded a $150,000 grant from the Washington State
Office of Public Defense ("WSOPD") as part of WSOPD's public defense improvement
program. The grant is being used to cover a portion of the costs incurred by the City to
provide attorney services to indigent defendants.
• Federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grant
The City has been awarded an $814,000 grant as part of the federal Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Program. Grant funds are being used to replace aging heating and
air conditioning systems and lighting with more efficient equipment at several City
facilities. Street lights and traffic signals will also be upgraded, resulting in energy cost
savings.
• Records Systems Management
Implementation of two new computerized systems that have significantly enhanced the
efficiency of major records keeping functions of the City was completed in 2010.
Software from Intellitime makes management of the City's payroll system much less
labor intensive. Accessibility to a variety of City records, including those associated with
Public Disclosure Requests ("PDRs"), have been greatly improved through a new
Laserfische system.
Online Bid Specifications/Addendums System
The City's Purchasing Division now provides online access to bid specifications and
addendums for potential vendors. By providing the information electronically,
considerable savings have been realized through the reduced cost of postage and
printing.
• Online Job Application System
Approximately 70% of all City employment applications are now received electronically
through the City's online job application system. The system has reduced postage costs
previously incurred by the City and has increased the number of applications received,
providing the City with a larger pool of qualified candidates to choose from.
#3. Promote Economic Development and Diversification ._
• Downtown Futures Initiative
• In 2009, the Washington State Legislature allocated another $1 million toward
Phase 4 of the DYFI. Phase 4 included sidewalk, lighting, and landscaping
improvements along 8th Street from "A" Street to Chestnut Avenue. Another
element of Phase 4, which included the realignment of 8th Street and construction
of an outdoor meeting/reception area for the Yakima Convention Center, was
completed in late fall 2010.
• The investment of over $13 million in public funds in the first three phases of the
Downtown Yakima Futures Initiative ("DYFI") is making an impact. Paid for with a
combination of allocations from the state legislature, state Community, Trade, and
Economic Development funds, federal Housing and Urban Development moneys,
13
•
•
•
and City resources, the sidewalk, lighting, and landscaping improvements have
changed the downtown environment and encouraged private investment.
• The private sector has invested over $70 million in Downtown Yakima in the past
four years alone.
Initiation of Mill District Redevelopment Project Preliminary Phases
In 2010, the City made significant progress in implementing preliminary phases necessary
for the full initiation of the Mill District Redevelopment Project. Infrastructure planning and
design, traffic analysis, environmental review, and landfill remediation analysis are all
underway. Utilizing up to $25 million in state funding through the Local Infrastructure
Financing Tool ("LIFT") program, the City will construct public infrastructure to serve the
redevelopment of the former Boise Cascade mill site. The mill site's owners envision a wide
range of uses for the approximately 220 acres from commercial to light industrial,
recreational to retail, and believe the property is well situated to become a key economic
center for the Central Washington region.
MLK, Jr. Blvd. and Lincoln Avenue Underpass Projects
After a decade spent planning, designing, and securing funding, in spring 2010 the City
began construction of the first of two planned railroad underpasses in Downtown
Yakima. The underpasses, one on Lincoln Avenue and one on Martin Luther King, Jr.
Boulevard, will be the largest City infrastructure projects in Yakima's history and will
create significant economic benefits. Construction of the underpasses, estimated to
cost approximately $43 million, will generate more than 160 direct jobs paying an
average of $30 per hour and an equal amount of indirect jobs. The Lincoln Avenue
underpass is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in fall 2011.
The MLK Boulevard underpass will be constructed once full project funding is secured.
When completed, the underpass projects will enhance air quality by greatly improving
traffic flow, eliminate the risk of train/vehicle collisions at the two locations, and reduce
existing delays in the City's fire and police response capabilities.
Yakima Planning Commission Formed
In fall 2009, the Yakima County Commission notified the City of its intention to withdraw
from an agreement under which a joint City/County Regional Planning Commission
made recommendations regarding land use policy to both the City and County. In place
of the Regional Planning Commission, the City Council established a City of Yakima
Planning Commission in May 2010. As an element of its initial efforts, the seven -
member City of Yakima Planning Commission reviewed and provided input regarding
refinement of the City's existing inventory of capital facilities and infrastructure
investment plans and/or development of new plans.
w Council North 1st Street Committee - Infrastructure Improvements Design
In 2010, the City Council formed the North 1st Street Committee (Adkison, Coffey,
Ensey) to direct efforts to make public infrastructure improvements throughout the North
1st Street area. The committee secured a $25,000 Strategic Investment in Economic
Development ("SIED") grant to develop a design concept for improvements in the North
1st Street area. The design concept, which is being developed in conjunction with
business and property owners in the area, is expected to be completed by summer
2011.
14
• Economic Development Committee Infrastructure Assessment
In 2010, the Council Economic Development Committee received an update regarding the
status of the current inventory of capital facilities and infrastructure investment plans that
have been developed by the City in recent years. The committee is awaiting further input
from the Yakima Planning Commission. Following input from the planning commission, a
more extensive presentation may be developed for the City Council.
Business Improvement District
In 2009, the Yakima City Council approved a proposal made by local business owners
to establish a new Business Improvement District to replace a Parking and Business
Improvement Area originally created in 1974. Funds generated from assessments
collected within the new BID, which stretches from 11m Street to 7th Avenue between
Lincoln and Walnut, are being used by the Committee For Downtown Yakima for
ongoing maintenance, promotion, and other improvement activities in the City's core.
Businesses within the BID pay about $8.00 more per month on top of their annual
business license fee.
Renewal Community Commercial Revitalization Deduction Projects
Since 2002, the City has received more than $80 million in federal Renewal Community
Commercial Revitalization Deduction allocations. During that time, the program has
helped to generate more than $150 million in private investment and create or retain
more than 1,000 jobs in Yakima.
Additional Economic Development Incentives
Substantial local private investment has also been sparked thanks to a variety of other
economic development incentives available to Yakima businesses, which include:
• Federal Section 108 low-interest loans
• Community Empowerment Zone employee and sales tax deferrals
• Downtown Housing Tax Incentive
• Industrial revenue bonds
• Minority and Women Business Enterprise loans
s• West Nob Hill Boulevard Improvements
Improvements to West Nob Hill Boulevard associated with the development of a new
Wal-Mart store were completed in fall 2009. The improvements include the addition of a
west bound lane on Nob Hill from 51st Avenue to 64t Avenue, the $400,000 cost of
which was paid by Wal-Mart, and a $3 million expansion of Nob Hill to five lanes
between 64th Avenue and 72nd Avenue. Wal-Mart and Walgreens paid about $2.3
million of the cost of the 64th Avenue to 72nd Avenue project with the balance being
covered by funds received by the City under the federal Recovery and Reinvestment
Act.
Uniform Development Standards/GMA Interlocal Agreement
Discussions between the City and Yakima County are continuing regarding the creation
of uniform development standards that would apply throughout the Yakima Urban
Growth Area. Uniform standards would provide predictability for developers and
consistency in the application of rules and regulations. Uniform development standards
are one element of an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Yakima County, which
is currently being renegotiated, that assures development within the Urban Growth Area
is consistent with the state's Growth Management Act.
15
West Valley Neighborhood Plan
The West Valley Neighborhood Plan, a "subarea" element of the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan, was jointly adopted by the City Council and the Yakima County
Commission in 2010. The plan provides a common vision for the development of the
western portion of the Yakima Urban Growth Area.
• Airport Safety Overlay
Together with board members and staff of the Yakima Air Terminal, efforts are
continuing to complete revisions to the existing Airport Safety Overlay ("ASO").
Completion of the ASO revisions will provide predictability for property owners and
developers within the ASO.
• 4 -Party Wastewater Agreement
Discussions may begin this year concerning the potential renegotiation of the
4 -Party Wastewater Agreement between the City, Yakima County, the City of Union
Gap, and the Terrace Heights Sewer District. Ultimate adoption of any modifications to
the agreement would require Council action.
#4. Preserve and Enhance Yakima's Quality of .Life��
Arts Commission Formed
In March of 2010, the City Council appointed 15 members to serve on the newly -created
Yakima Arts Commission. The commission includes local arts organization
representatives, working artists, a City Council member, and community
representatives. According to the ordinance which created the Yakima Arts
Commission, the primary purposes of the commission will be to, "...enhance the cultural
and aesthetic quality of life in the city of Yakima by actively pursuing the placement of
public art in public places and actively seeking to expand public access to visual and
performing arts."
• Capitol Theatre Campus Project
In 2007, the City and the Capitol Theatre Corporation secured approval from the state
legislature to increase the share of state sales tax revenue available to the Public
Facilities District consisting of the cities of Yakima, Union Gap, and Selah. The
additional revenue supported Phase 2 of the Capitol Theatre Campus project, including
the nearly $7 million Production Center and 4th Street Theatre which were completed
and opened in fall 2010. Phase 2 also includes a more than $3 million pavilion which
will be built north of the theatre. Construction of the pavilion will take place once
additional funding is secured.
Downtown Rotary Club Playground at Kiwanis Park
In June of 2010, the new Downtown Yakima Rotary Club Playground at Kiwanis Park
was opened. The majority of the approximately $156,000 cost for the playground
equipment was paid for by a grant from the Downtown Yakima Rotary Club. Ken
Leingang Excavating donated its time and equipment to do the site preparation. And,
the City's Parks and Rec Division provided about $10,000 to pay for the playground's
safety surface and also covered the cost of relocating irrigation lines, removing sod, and
16
installing a drainage system. The playground elements, including a "Spacenet Climber,"
were chosen by students from Adams Elementary.
Southwest Rotary Club Basketball Court at Kiwanis Park
In June of 2010, the new Southwest Yakima Rotary Club Basketball Court at Kiwanis
Park was opened. The Southwest Rotary Club donated approximately $20,000 to pay
for construction of the new state-of-the-art basketball court, which features an aluminum
jump circle in its center with the club's logo on in. City Streets Division crews began
excavation work for the new court in mid-March. Central Pre -Mix provided the concrete
for the court at a reduced price, and Poppoff, Inc. poured the concrete in late April, also
at a discounted cost.
Franklin Pool Upgrades
An updated and improved Franklin Pool welcomed swimmers when it opened for its
2010 summer season. About $40,000 was spent to upgrade the 53 -year-old pool
located at 2101 Tieton Drive. The pool's entrance area, locker rooms, and other public
spaces were all freshly painted, the snack bar was expanded, and new deck lighting
was installed allowing the pool to be open longer. The large pool slide, a longtime
favorite at Franklin, was also retrofitted. The centerpiece of the enhancements at
Franklin is a new grassy area, complete with shade umbrellas, that increases the
capacity of the pool from 300 to 400 swimmers.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
In the fall of 2009, the City began a Neighborhood Stabilization program funded by a
$650,000 grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce. The funding, part
of federal ARRA stimulus moneys distributed to states, is being used locally to purchase
distressed properties and redevelop them as low income and moderate income housing.
As of fall 2010, two properties had been purchased (with rehab work on them underway)
and 11 other properties are in the process of being purchased.
Free Outdoor Family Entertainment in City Parks
Both the Outdoor Summer Cinema Series and the Summer Sunset Concert Series
provide quality, family entertainment in City Parks. The Outdoor Summer Cinema
Series rotates between Fridays at Randall Park and Sundays at Gilbert Park and
features "almost new" releases projected on a 19 -foot inflatable screen. The Summer
Sunset Concert Series takes place on Thursday evenings at Franklin Park and features
a wide variety of musical styles, ranging from jazz and blues to rock and country.
Generously supported by local businesses, both series run from mid-July through mid-
August. Admission to both series is free, but concert goers and movie watchers are
encouraged to bring non-perishable food items which are donated to Northwest Harvest.
Nob Hill Overpass Improvements
A $1.9 million project to strengthen the structural integrity and replace the roadbed of
the Nob Hill overpass began in August 2009 and was completed in early 2010. The
project was fully funded by moneys received by the City from the 2008 Federal Bridge
Program.
17
Parks and Recreation Grants
Generous grants from several local organizations are allowing the City to make needed
improvements to parks facilities and to provide valuable programs. Recent grants
include:
• $2,500 Yakama Legends Casino grant for new swing set at Kiwanis Park
• $2,000 Parker Youth Sports Foundation grant for a shelter at Elks Park
• $15,000 Apple Valley Kiwanis grant for additional skate park improvements
• $2,500 Yakama Legends Casino grant for Outdoor Summer Cinema Series
• $3,000 Parker Youth Sports Foundation grant for Fisher Park reader board
Front Street Sculpture
The Yakima Arts Giving Circle raised more than $23,000 for a sculpture which was
donated to the City of Yakima and installed in February of 2010 near the intersection of
"A" Street and North Front Street.
Trolleys Bridge Improvements
Work to clean, repaint, and repair the Yakima Trolleys bridge over the Naches River
began in August 2009 and was completed that fall. The entire $300,000 cost of the
improvements to the bridge, a key part of the last intact interurban electric trolley line in
the country, was paid for by a federal enhancement grant.
Japanese Garden at Tahoma Cemetery
Through an agreement with the Japanese Bochi Society, a Japanese garden is being
developed at the City -owned Tahoma Cemetery. The society is responsible for the
creation and maintenance of the garden, which will honor the legacy of the Japanese -
American community in the Yakima Valley.
Adult Soccer Leagues
Over the last two years, the City has established several new adult soccer leagues.
Chesterley Park now hosts an Adult Over -30 Coed League, an Open Coed League, and
a Women's League.
Kiddin' Around
In 2009, the City's Parks and Recreation Division became part of a collaboration of 17
local businesses and organizations that partnered to develop Kiddin' Around, a series of
activities and events designed to get kids outside and healthy. Having completed its
second year in 2010, the program features activities from May through September
ranging from tennis to dancing, hopscotch to martial arts.
William 0. Douglas Trail
Nearly $2.4 million in state and federal grant funding is allowing for the continued
development of the William O. Douglas Trail, a recreation corridor linking Yakima to
Mount Rainier National Park. The City Council is partnering with local supporters of the
trail in the planning, design, review, and final approval of project elements.
Barge -Chestnut Neighborhood Historic Register Designation
In 2009, the City Council placed the Barge -Chestnut neighborhood on the Yakima
Register of Historic Places; the first such designation in Yakima. The designation
recognizes that the area contains a significant resource of buildings with architectural
qualities that exemplify Yakima's distinctive cultural and economic history. Properties
within the neighborhood may be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
18
• Irrigation System Rebuild
The rebuild of the General Irrigation System ("System 308") began in 2004 and is
expected to take 20 years to complete. The $20 million project is replacing the oldest
section of the City's irrigation water delivery system, thereby greatly improving pressure
to customers and essentially eliminating existing serious leakage problems.
• Illegal Dumping Program
The City's Refuse Division and Office`of Neighborhood Development Services have
established a program designed to identify and clean up areas where trash has been
illegally dumped. In the past year, more than 14 tons of garbage has been removed
including tires, appliances, furniture, brush, and a variety of other trash.
• Arterial Chip Seal Program
Launched in June of 2007, the City's new Arterial Chip Seal program will replace the
surfaces of Yakima's major roadways on a 12 -year cycle. In addition to providing more
attractive streets, the chip seal program will also improve safety and reduce long-term
maintenance costs.
• Senior/Disabled Home Repair Program
In the past year, 40 homes in Yakima received facelifts through the City's
Senior/Disabled Housing Rehabilitation program (nine homes rehabilitated) and
Senior/Disabled Emergency Home Repair program (31 homes repaired).
• Senior/Disabled Exterior Paint Program
Volunteers from Habitat for Humanity, local churches, and youth groups provide labor
for the City's Senior/Disabled Exterior Paint program, which this year will serve 25 senior
and/or disabled homeowners.
#5. Provide Responsive Customer Service
and Effective Communications.
Form of Government Election
After conducting several public hearings on the subject in the summer and fall of 2010,
the City Council decided in December of 2010 to place before voters a ballot measure
providing an option to change from the existing Council -Manager form of government to
a Mayor -Council form of government. The measure was part of the February 8, 2011
special election ballot. Approximately 47.5% of Yakima's voters cast ballots in favor of
the measure while approximately 52.5% did not support it.
« City Council Listening Meetings
In June 2010, the City Council conducted three separate "Listening Meetings" on
consecutive evenings at different locations throughout the community. The Listening
Meetings provided an opportunity for citizens to share ideas and concerns with the City
Council in a more casual setting than is normally available during formal Council
business meetings. The Listening Meetings were held at the Yakima Police Athletic
League Center, the Southeast Community Center, and the Harman Senior Center.
19
City Council Standing Meeting
In March 2010, the City Council unanimously voted to conduct a "Standing Meeting" on
April 20th in order to provide Council Members with an opportunity to listen to each
other's views on specific subjects. Assistant Mayor Kathy Coffey proposed the Standing
Meeting concept because she thought it would allow for better discussion and more
free-flowing group dynamics. The April 20th Standing Meeting included discussion of
issues related to gang crime and gang violence, the City's annexation policy, and the
formation of an ad hoc committee. Following the April 20th Standing Meeting, the
Council agreed by consensus that the meeting had not met the Council's expectations
and to hold off scheduling future such meetings for the time being.
Credit/Debit Card Bill Paying System
In summer 2010, the City launched a new system that allows utility customers to pay
bills both online and in person using credit or debit cards. The system provides added
convenience for customers and has streamlined cash receipting processes for City staff.
Processing of other transactions, including license payments, parks program fees, court
fees, etc., are being consistently added as the system is refined. That process has
continued during the early months of 2011.
.. Council Code of Ethics Adopted
In September 2009, the City Council unanimously adopted a Code of Ethics which
establishes standards of conduct for City elected officials. The Yakima City Council
Code of Ethics reinforces existing legal requirements for City elected officials regarding
such issues as decorum, conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts and gratuities, and
lobbying after leaving office.
Social Media Policy Adopted
In June 2010, the City Council approved a Social Media Policy that incorporates
elements of a dozen or more similar policies from other governmental entities, but is
also tailored to meet the unique needs of the City. By examining the best practices of
other governmental entities, the Community Relations Division has developed a social
media strategy that is cautious, yet allows the City to benefit from this growing method of
information exchange and community building.
rt Twitter and Facebook Sites Launched
Following the June adoption by the City Council of a Social Media Policy, the
Community Relations Division launched official City Twitter and Facebook sites to
enhance its communications and outreach efforts. The Twitter site has been up and
running since early July 2010 and is being utilized to notify "followers" of road
construction updates, traffic restrictions, City meeting notices, news releases, availability
of documents on the City's website, and other important information. Activated in
August 2010, the Facebook site allows the City to share information similar to that
provided through Twitter and includes current and historical City pictures, links to City
Council member biographies, various City policies, and facts about Yakima.
Public Disclosure Requests
The number of Public Disclosure Requests ("PDRs") received by the City each year
continues to rise. From 2001 to 2009, the number of PDRs increased more than 900%
(from 31 to 311). In 2010, more than 450 requests for documents were submitted by
community members. In addition to the growth in the number of PDRs, the volume of
documents being requested has also expanded dramatically. The City is meeting the
increased demand as was confirmed by the findings of an independent performance
20
evaluation by the State Auditor's office last year. Auditors determined that the City's
compliance with PDRs was "outstanding" and among the best for all cities in the state.
Fall Leaf Pickup Biodegradable Bag Program
For the past three years, in partnership with Yakima County, the City's Refuse Division
has utilized an Alternatives to Burning grant to provide biodegradable bags to customers
to use for annual Fall Leaf Pickup program. The bags, which are made primarily made
from cornstarch, decompose over time and disappear completely once they are
composted.
State of the City Presentation
In July 2010, the City Council and City Manager Dick Zais made a State of the City
presentation at a Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce general membership
luncheon. This marked the 4th consecutive year that a Yakima State of the City
presentation has been made to the Chamber of Commerce.
No Cost Garbage Collection for Downtown Events/Activities
As part of the effort to spur the renaissance of Downtown Yakima, the City has provided
no -charge garbage collection for downtown events and activities including:
• Cinco De Mayo Festival
• Hot Shots 3 on 3 Basketball Tournament
• Seasons Performance Hall outdoor festival
• Cruisin' The Ave events
• Committee For Downtown Yakima maintenance
Combining of Finance and Utility Services Functions
Completed in fall 2009, previously separate City Finance Department and Utility
Services functions were combined to improve customer service. Customers are now
able to complete different transactions, such as paying a utility bill, buying a dog license,
or paying a parking ticket, at a single service counter instead of having to visit separate
service counters as has been the case in the past.
Computerized Utility Management System
Implementation of a new, computerized Utility Management System began in fall 2010.
The system is integrating processes ranging from utility account services and billing to
permitting and code administration. The system is making it easier for customers to go
through those processes and others while allowing the City to better track and manage
information.
Utility Customer Information Brochure
For the last three years, the City has distributed a Utility Customer Information Brochure
that includes explanations about rates and services and also answers frequently asked
questions about the Stormwater utility, the Wastewater utility, the Water and Irrigation
utilities, and the Refuse utility. The brochure is being updated regularly and provided to
customers through utility bills and other methods.
21
•
•
•
•
•
Community Relations Program
The City's Community Relations office averaged more than 50 media contacts per
month in 2010, a small increase from the previous year. The Community Relations
Manager continues to serve as a primary spokesperson for the City. The City's
Community Relations Program provides media and citizens with consistent and accurate
information while allowing other City staff to focus on their key responsibilities.
Citizens' Police Academy
The Citizens' Police Academy continues to be a key part of the outreach efforts of the
Yakima Police Department. The academy familiarizes community members with
department operations and has generated numerous volunteers for police programs.
Nearly 100 people have graduated from the academy in the last three years.
Landlord/Tenant Counseling Program
Through its Landlord/Tenant Counseling Program, the City's Office of Neighborhood
Development Services has helped more than 3,250 people resolve housing issues in
the last three years.
Housing Counseling Program
The City's Office of Neighborhood Development Services has helped more than 2,200
people in the last two years through its Housing Counseling Program. The program
provides first time homebuyers with information about how to qualify for loans, helps
existing homeowners access financing for weatherization and rehabilitation, and refers
both new and existing homeowners to training classes that teach them about how to
care for and repair their houses.
Wheelchair Ramp Loan Program
Now in its third year, the City's Office of Neighborhood Development Services
Wheelchair Ramp Loan Program provides temporary use of ramps to senior and
disabled members of the community.
Water/Irrigation/Wastewater Systems Connection Assistance
By providing grants and/or loans, the City helps low and moderate income community
members connect to the water/irrigation system and the wastewater system.
#6. Build and Utilize Strategic Partnerships
.9 City/County Purchasing Operations Consolidation
In November 2010, the City and Yakima County celebrated the one-year anniversary of
the consolidation of their respective purchasing operations. The consolidation is
designed to control costs while also improving efficiencies for both the City and the
County in negotiating contracts with vendors, processing bids, and maintaining all
necessary purchasing records. The consolidation is the first of its kind to occur between
city and county government in the U.S. in at least 30 years. The purchasing services
contract between the City and the County will be renegotiated on an annual basis.
22
Public Safety Records Computer System
The Yakima Police Department, the Yakima Fire Department, the Yakima County
Sheriffs Department, and numerous other Yakima Valley law enforcement and
emergency services agencies will cooperatively implement a regional public safety
records computer system later this year. The system will improve the ability of local law
enforcement and emergency services agencies to access common data and better
coordinate response efforts.
Selah Transit Route Extended
In March 2010, the Yakima Transit route to Selah was expanded to include the Speyers
Road/Freemont Avenue area of town. Yakima Transit's Selah route started in 2005 with
a grant -funded pilot project. In 2006, Selah voters approved a sales tax increase to
permanently fund Yakima Transit service to the community.
Y Legislative Committee Formed
In 2010, the City Council formed a Legislative Committee in order to focus the City's
legislative agenda. The committee is making a concerted effort to engage key
legislators regarding issues that have been identified by the City as priorities for
consideration in the state capitol and in Washington, D.C. The committee is playing a
central role in developing and implementing a strategy to ensure that the City's
legislative efforts are successful and will work closely with other local organizations,
such as the Chamber of Commerce, to coordinate lobbying efforts.
City/County Intergovernmental Committee
The City of Yakima/Yakima County Intergovernmental Committee, consisting of elected
officials from both entities, meets at least monthly to address issues of mutual interest
and maintain open lines of communication. The committee is currently working to
develop shared strategies regarding development standards, Growth Management Act
compliance, and potential future City/County services consolidation.
Regional Stormwater Program
A Regional Stormwater Policy Group, consisting of representatives from Yakima County
and the cities of Yakima, Union Gap, Moxee, and Sunnyside, has worked for the past
several years to achieve cost-effective compliance with state and federal stormwater
mandates. The Regional Stormwater Program, which has been in operation for over a
year, is projected to save ratepayers several million dollars over the next five years
compared to earlier estimates for individual compliance by the County and the four
participating cities. .
TRANS-Action/DRYVE
The City is an active member of both TRANS -Action and DRYVE; regional consortiums
that have brought together private business, local elected officials, service
organizations, citizens, and others to develop joint strategies for improving
transportation infrastructure to benefit economic development. The efforts of TRANS -
Action and DRYVE have proven successful in prioritizing transportation needs
throughout the Yakima Valley and targeting state and federal funding sources.
ONDS Community Volunteers
Community volunteers continue to play a critical role in the City's Office of Neighborhood
Development's ability to provide quality services. Over the past year, volunteers have
contributed more than 15,000 hours of labor.
23
•
•
•
Fire Department Cooperative Services Agreement
The Yakima Fire Department has agreements with the West Valley Fire District for fire
investigation services, the Naches Heights Fire District for maintenance and testing of
breathing apparatus, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for Arson
Canine Accelerant Detection services, and the East Valley, West Valley, and Union Gap
fire departments for joint training. These agreements demonstrate the value of inter-
agency cooperation.
Regional Development Customer Service Committee
Coordinated by New Vision, a Regional Development Customer Service Committee was
formed in 2009 to review and make recommendations regarding issues that include
urban area development standards, builder certification processes, permit applications,
and the City/County "Ramp Down" policy. The committee, which meets quarterly,
includes representatives from the development community and local government.
Protection Order and No Contact Order Clearinghouse
Yakima Municipal Court and other levels of court throughout Yakima County jointly
applied for and were awarded a nearly $283,000 federal grant to develop and implement
a clearinghouse for domestic violence protection orders and no contact orders. The
clearinghouse, which is still in the planning stages, will allow all courts to access
protection and no contact orders by computer, thereby eliminating conflicting orders and
other errors.
Arson Intervention Group
In 2009, the Yakima Fire Department, along with Yakima County fire districts and federal
agencies, formed an Arson Intervention Group. Since it was founded, the coordinated
efforts of the Arson Intervention Group have resulted in numerous arrests and the
prosecution of nearly a dozen arson counts.
Yakima Fire Department Book Brigade
As part of its "YFD Gives Back" initiative, every engine company in the Yakima Fire
Department has adopted an elementary school within the City limits and regularly visits
students to encourage good reading habits through the department's Book Brigade
program.
Southeast Community Center
Through a public/private partnership with the Yakima Valley OIC, Yakima's Southeast
Community Center ("SECC") continues to provide a wide range of services, from foot
care clinics to senior lunches, summer parks programs for youth to after school
activities. OIC is in the fourth year of a five-year contract to operate the SECC.
Statewide Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network
Last year the City joined the statewide Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network
("WARN"). WARN is a consortium of utilities formed to provide mutual aid and
assistance in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies. WARN
provides participating agencies with the ability to draw on additional resources and
expertise when faced with small, Targe, or even catastrophic crises.
24
•
•
•
Future
Challenges
and
Opportunities
o Economic Stress Impacts on 2011 Budget
Even though the City Council adopted a conservative 2011 budget last December,
economic conditions continue to present City with tough choices as it develops future
General Government budgets.
The national recession and local economic slowdown, pending labor contract
negotiations, increasing costs for construction materials and other critical supplies,
and escalating expenses for medical care, insurance, and liability coverage are
combining to make ensuring a balanced 2011 General Government budget
difficult.
Cost containment measures implemented in 2010, including the elimination of staff
positions, helped to restrain expenditure growth and have been carried forward into
2011
•. The dramatic drop in tax revenues experienced in 2010 has slowed, but the longer-
term outlook is still very challenging. The Priorities of Government budgeting
model adopted by the City Council in July 2009 has been used effectively in
determining how to make reductions so far and will play an important role in how
the Council decides to allocate limited resources in the future.
o City Manager Transition
In July 2010, City Manager Dick Zais announced his plans to retire by early July 2011.
The Council is currently developing its strategy for identifying, recruiting, and hiring the
next city manager.
o Potential Fire Apparatus Ballot Measure
In June 2010, the City Council conducted a study session regarding challenges faced by
the City in replacing aging fire apparatus and determined that a stable funding solution
is required. As a result of that study session, work is underway to develop a potential
future ballot measure that could address both immediate and long-term fire equipment
needs. No decision has been made yet regarding when such a ballot measure might be
presented to voters.
o Potential Street Maintenance Bond
The Council Transit/Transportation Committee is currently considering the potential of
placing a street maintenance bond on a future general election or special election ballot.
A bond is one option for generating funding necessary to make critical repairs to the
City's aging street system. The last time a street bond was approved by Yakima voters
was more than 25 years ago.
25
o Yakima Bears Stadium Proposal
In summer 2010, owners of the Yakima Bears minor league baseball team approached
the City to encourage consideration of public investment in the construction of a new
multi-purpose stadium on a portion of property, formerly the site of the Boise Cascade
mill, owned by Yakima Resources. In the fall of 2010, the City Council authorized
$75,000 for the City to have a financial feasibility study conducted regarding potential
public financing options for the proposed stadium. Initial review of some of the funding
sources suggested by the Bears has been completed. A final determination regarding
the feasibility of utilizing public resources to build the proposed stadium is expected to
be made by spring 2011.
o Renewal Community Legislation Reauthorization
The City is actively pursuing reauthorization by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of
Representatives of Renewal Community legislation, which provides economic
development incentives including wage credits, tax deductions, capital gains exclusions,
and bond financing. Yakima received 1 of the only 40 Renewal Community
designations 7 years ago. The program has been a key economic stimulus in the
Yakima area and is critical to future growth.
o Regional Police Records Management System
The Yakima Police Department worked with the Yakima County Sheriffs Department
and other Valley law enforcement agencies for several years to establish a regional
police records management system. Such a system will improve the ability of local law
enforcement agencies to access common data and to better coordinate crime fighting
efforts. Implementation of the system is expected to be completed by summer 2011.
• Additional City/County Services Coordination
The City and Yakima County are actively exploring the potential for coordinating
services including land use planning, code enforcement, uniform development
standards, street maintenance, and inmate detention. All options, including
consolidation, that could result in improved levels of service and/or reduced costs will be
examined.
O 1-82 Corridor Development
Transportation improvements throughout the 1-82 corridor will be critical to its short-term
and long-term development. The City is working closely with TRANS -Action and
DRYVE to prioritize transportation projects and lobby for funding as projects within the I-
82 corridor are identified.
o Regional Fire Protection/Emergency Services
The Yakima Fire Department is exploring opportunities for the provision of fire
protection and emergency medical services on a regional basis. Potentials include
establishing "fire protection agreements" with neighboring cities or creating a
regional "fire protection authority" to provide services to participating entities.
o Automated Meter Reading
Research continues regarding the potential implementation of an Automated Meter
Reading ("AMR") .program for the City's drinking water system in cooperation with the
City of Selah and the Nob Hill Water Association. AMR programs utilize wireless radio
technologies to improve the_accuracy of readings, pinpoint water system problems, and
allow customers to better manage water usage. Initial design and implementation plans
are expected to be developed by spring 2011.
26
•
•
•
o 4 -Party Wastewater Agreement
Discussions may begin soon concerning the potential renegotiation of the
4 -Party Wastewater Agreement between the City, Yakima County, the City of Union
Gap, and the Terrace Heights Sewer District. Ultimate adoption of any modifications to
the agreement would require Council action.
o Consolidated 911 Dispatch
Establishing consolidated regional 911 communications and dispatch capabilities
continues to be a priority among emergency service providers throughout Yakima
County. Discussions are ongoing concerning the resolution of issues related to systems
compatibility and interoperability.
o Kiwanis Park Master Plan
Work continues toward full implementation of the Kiwanis Park Master Plan, which
includes improvements such as a skate park, youth baseball or soccer fields, additional
parking, etc. Participation by interested community groups in the identification of
potential additional projects, and available financing options, will be critical to
establishing viable strategies for future development of Kiwanis Park and surrounding
properties.
o Airport Safety Overlay
Together with board members and staff of the Yakima Air Terminal, efforts are
continuing to complete revisions to the existing Airport Safety Overlay ("ASO").
Completion of the ASO revisions will provide predictability for property owners and
developers within the ASO.
o Airport Zoning District
The City, Yakima County, and Yakima Air Terminal board members and staff are jointly
developing a new zoning district for the area in and around the airport. The airport
zoning district will provide for greater flexibility and ensure compatible and appropriate
land use in the airport area.
27