HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/29/2011 00 Misc Distributed at the Meeting t t/29/
RECEIVED
CITY OF YAKIMA
NOV 2 02011
November 28, 2011
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
City of Yakima
Honorable Mayor
Honorable City Council
Honorable City Manager
As a observant citizen living in the City of Yakima and having reviewed the current
budget proposal I wonder why we the citizens can't have better Police protection without
hiring 6 new officers.
I see within the budget where we have enough command staff to make up two full squads
of Police Officers and get the people of their duffs and working the streets.
Why is it that we have eight clerical staff working finance and budget. And their leader is
riding high on their work product and has no sense of direction. I see where we can cut
four of the finance and budget people and put another animal control officer to work, hire
three persons for the jail which is currently understaffed and being back filled with police
officers at time and one half.
Just in looking at the Police Dept in itself 20 % (twenty percent) of the department is
filled with an over - abundance of leadership 1 Chief, 3- Captains, 5 Lt's, and 17 Sgts. That
is 26 of the current staff of 131 persons on the Police Dept.
In the time of budget reductions and personnel needs I have found a way to reduce the
budget and yet still have 131 police officers on the dept. However, obviously some
people will not like this proposal since it will require several people to lose rank.
Having a 15 % staff would give you 1 Chief, 2- Capts, 3 -Lts, and 14 Sgt's and 111 Police
Officers and Detectives. This proposal would strengthen the Gang Enforcement Team
and Patrol Officers on the Street, and Detectives for investigations.
This would also reduce the PAL Center, which can be run by volunteers and Community
Service Division which could also be operated by volunteers.
Tough stuff but these are the days we have to do something. If you think that the City
Council can enact a law for new taxes or propose a vote for new takes , there not thinking
with a clear mind.
The following proposed Police Dept. staffing levels would reduce 1 Capt. to Lt. 3 Lt's.
To Sgt and 6 Sgt's. to police officer status. On review of the contracts with the City of
Yakima, it would appear the in all these cases that Management would have the right to
determine the needs with in the Police Dept. Face it these are tough times, you need to do
something to save a few bucks. And you can put the police on the street and get them off
their chairs and doing something instead of thinking about frivilous law suits.
Chief of
Police 1
PATROL DIVISION
Captain of
Patrol 1
A- Team
Lt 1
1S Sqd. 1 Sgt 9
officers 10
2n Sqd. 1 Sgt 9
officers 10
3rd Sqd. 1 Sgt 9
officers 10
4 Sqd. 1 Sgt 9 officers
10
B -Team
Lt 1
1S Sqd. 1 Sgt. 9 Officers 10
2 Sqd. 1 Sgt. 9 Officers 10
3rd Sqd. 1 Sgt. 9 Officers 10
4 Sqd. 1 Sgt. 9 Officers 10
Patrol Division total staffing Eighty -Three (83)
INVESTIGATIVE /ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
Captain 1
Lt. Detective and Administrative to include all internal affairs 1
Detectives 1 Sgt. 7 detectives property crimes / 1 VCTF 9
Detectives 1 Sgt 8 detectives Crimes against people/ 9
Gangs 1 Sgt 7 Officers 8
Traffic 1 Sgt 4 Officers 5
Narcotics Division 1 Sgt 3 Detectives 4
Admin. Services /Training 1 Sgt, 6 School Officers, 1 Housing Off.,
1 Nuisance Off., 1 Transit Off 11
Total Investigative / Adminitrative staffmg Forty -Eight (48)
On checking the current Civilian Staff at the Police Department, I find that they are
currently working on a reduced staff level and find no need to change current staffmg.
Additionally, by putting more patrol officers in the patrol division, would lesson the need
for overtime by increasing staff levels.
Also by placing more detectives in the Division would allow to have one to two night
detectives on duty to reduce overtime.
In Traffic Division, having a night time traffic offier on duty for weekends would leave
patrol officers available for criminal activity. Would also reduce the need for call out on
serious accidents again saving overtime.
While knowing just a few officers on the Police Dept. They concur that staffing at the top
is heavy and they could use more help on the street.
If the Police Dept. is (Atop heavy, how many more positions are top heavy.
I realize I'm just a citizen paying taxes, but I constantly ask if maybe I'm paying to much.
J. P. Costrass
Yakima, Wa.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER -- - -
; a 129 North Second Street
k* ` w City Hall, Yakima Washington 98901 ) t S f fecf /
Phone (509) 575 -6040
cu_,'i.
,1 °"brnitU `
( ( /z ' / 1
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and member of the Yakima City Council
FROM: Don Cooper, City Manage , l
DATE: November 28, 2011
SUBJECT: Insurance coverage for City /County owned property
The Airport Board has proposed to reduce the insurance coverage on buildings at the airport in
an attempt to reduce operating costs. The proposed reductions would be to one, reduce
coverage for the terminal from replacement cost to functional cost and two, to drop coverage on
three other buildings. The estimated savings would be between $5,600 - 7,000 per year.
These proposed reductions would expose the City and County to a potential loss based upon
our policies. As of late last week, Yakima County had not agreed to the reduction in coverage.
The City must also approve the reduction in coverage (it should be noted that both the City and
County need to be in agreement since they are co- owners of the property). Our insurance
broker does not recommend the reduction in coverage (see attached emails). I concur with the
insurance broker's recommendation.
The Airport Board has not approved a budget for 2012. Normally they are required to present a
budget to the City and County for approval by November 1 of each year. They requested, and
received, permission from the City to delay the budget presentation until December 1; however,
it does not appear that deadline will be met. Chapter 35RCW requires a budget to be passed by
the end of the fiscal year. It remains to be seen if a budget will be adopted by the end of the
year (any budget must be approved by the City and County per the agreement).
It should also be noted that the airport owes the City approximately $80,000 that is due by
12/31/11. This amount may or may not be able to be repaid. In the budget that was presented
to the Airport Board (but not approved) it showed a small operating deficit but no funding for
capital items. There also seems to be some questioning of the numbers that were presented as
part of the budget discussion. As the Council is aware, the County has proposed to provide
financial management as an in -kind service commencing in January. The Airport Board has not
yet agreed to this proposal.
Based on this information, does the City Council agree or disagree with the proposal to reduce
the insurance coverage for the buildings at the airport?
Yakima
bend
Tap
1994
•
Cooper, Don
From: DeBord, Rita
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:11 PM
To: ' carl .remmel @yakimaairterminal.com'
Cc: Cooper, Don; Waarvick, Chris; Morales, Michael; Epperson, Cindy; Dukart, Robin
Subject: RE: Airport Budget
Carl,
In response to your email to Chris Waarvick, below, here is updated information:
- -> You asked for a breakdown of the airports current outstanding (delinquent) bills to the City; they are as
follows:
- -> $24,708.96 Medical Insurance July - October 2011
$12,354.48 Medical to be billed Nov/ Dec. 2011
- -> $10,985.88 SIED Loan
- -> 31,899.00 2011 Property Insurance
- -> 45.004th Qtr. Fire Alarm billing
$67,638.84 Past Due Amount
$12,354.48 Additional payments due by Dec. 31st
$79,993.32 Total
- -> With regards to the airport's proposal to reduce insurance on airport property, as noted in #2 of your
email below, the two property owners (City & county) have been informed of this request. The County has indicated
they do not approve of this proposal, I have not yet received City Council's response.
Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding the above information and please advise me of the
airport's plan for bringing the above accounts current.
Thank you,
Rita
Rita DeBord
Director Finance and Technology
City of Yakima
Original Message
From: Waarvick, Chris
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:36 PM
To: DeBord, Rita; Morales, Michael
Subject: Fw: Airport Budget
FYI.
Original Message
1
•
From: Carl lee Remmel [mailto:carl.remmel @yakimaairterminal.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:01 PM
To: Waarvick, Chris
Subject: RE: Airport Budget
(1) Once 2012 budget is agreed upon tomorrow night, it will be put under a cover Itr and hand carried to both the City
and County offices on Wed. This was what the last reso from the Airport was about asking for this relief.
(2) "Rita is of the mind that Council may need to consider the property value adjustments." I spoke w /Rita about this.
All I can say is this was approved by the YAT Airport Board.
(3) " - - - as well as if any consideration will be given to the request from the County and City for $100,000 each to be
able to function beyond a bare bones budget." Only spoken to once; way, way off the table, Chris.
(4) " And you are well aware that the Airport is in arrears for nearly
$70,000 in payments to the City at this time." Can you break this done further for me, please ? ??
Carl L. Remmel
Carl (Lee) Remmel, AAE
Airport Manager
Yakima Air Terminal
2400 W. Washington Ave.
Yakima, WA 98903
(509) 575 -6149 (Office)
(509) 575 -6185 (Fax)
(509) 731 -5578 (Cell)
carl .remmel @yakimaairterminal.com
Important Notice: This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is priviledged, confidential and /or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This email
may not be provided to any other party without the sender's consent. If you feel you have received this email in error,
please delete it, notify the sender and do not retain, read, copy or disseminate this email.
Original Message
From: Waarvick, Chris [mailto:cwaarvic @ci.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:26 AM
To: Carl Lee Remmel
Subject: Airport Budget
Lee,
Inquiring minds in Finance are curious as to the detailed schedule of events for City Council to consider the Airport
Budget. If you are planning to bring it on November 29th, it needs to be in to the City Clerks hands by late tomorrow or
early Wednesday. City Council adopted a revision to the original consideration date for the Airport Budget to late
November a few weeks ago, I believe. Rita is of the mind that Council may need to consider the property value
adjustments, as well as if any consideration will be given to the request from the County and City for $100,000 each to
be able to function beyond a bare bones budget.
And you are well aware that the Airport is in arrears for nearly $70,000 in payments to the City at this time.
2
Cooper, Don
From: DeBord, Rita
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:19 PM
To: Cooper, Don
Subject: FW: Property Ins. - Airport
FYI: See both emails below — one from County the other from our insurance broker.
R.
From: Craig Warner [ mailto :craig.warner @co.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:01 AM
To: DeBord, Rita
Cc: Harvey, Helen; Cutter, Jeff; Mike Leita; Rand Elliott; Kevin Bouchey
Subject: RE: Property Ins. - Airport
Rita,
I spoke with the Commissioners (Mike and Kevin) and they are unwilling to approve any change of coverage that would
expose greater risk at this time. Thanks for keeping the County informed.
Craig
From: Joel.Pearson @wellsfargo.com [mailto:Joel.Pearson @wellsfargo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:12 AM
To: rdebord @ci.yakima.wa.us
Cc: hharvey @ci.yakima.wa.us; jcutter @ci.yakima.wa.us; Craig Warner
Subject: RE: Property Ins. - Airport
Rita,
Mr. Cooper is correct, the City and County do have some risk associated with these changes. Let me explain.
There would be no coverage for the buildings being deleted from the policy. The problem would be a partial loss since
there would be costs associated with demolition and clean -up. However, since the City has a $100,000 deductible, those
costs would have to exceed that amount before it becomes an issue. Based on the value of the buildings, that does not
appear to be a great risk. So these deletions make sense in my opinion.
The terminal is a more difficult issue. As Craig pointed out in a previous email, the policy is on a loss limit basis, so the
coverage is not limited to the value shown for the building. That is when everything is on a replacement cost basis
meaning the policy pays for the cost of replacing the building exactly as it is now. However, the coverage is being
changed to functional replacement cost meaning the cost to replace the building for the same function, but not the
same type of construction. Mr. Remmel feels an adequate value would be $10,000,000, so that would be the limit in the
policy. The insurance carrier feels the full replacement cost on the building would be between $25 to $30 mil.
The risk is that the amount established by Mr. Remmel would not be adequate to replace the building on a functional
basis and the City & County would have to pay the additional amount. A partial Toss could also create issues since major
repairs could be on a functional basis.
1
•
Since we are having computer issues, I do not have the exact premium savings for the value reduction on the terminal,
but I believe it was around $5,600. Not enough savings to justify the risk in my opinion.
Joel Pearson
Managing Director
Wells Fargo Insurance Services USA, Inc.
1430 N. 16th Ave.
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509 - 853 -4211
Fax: 509- 248 -9007
This message is intended only for the addressee. Please notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its contents to any other
person and any such actions may be unlawful. Wells Fargo Insurance Services reserves the right to monitor and review
the content of all messages sent to or received from this email address.
From: DeBord, Rita [mailto:rdebord @ci.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 6:26 PM
To: Pearson, Joel
Cc: Harvey, Helen; Cutter, Jeff
Subject: FW: Property Ins. - Airport
Joel,
1. See emails below
2. What is your recommendation from a risk management perspective for the coverage levels?
Cali me if you want to discuss.
Thanks
Rita
#576 -6771
From: Cooper, Don
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:43 PM
To: DeBord, Rita
Cc: All City Council
Subject: RE: Property Ins. - Airport
The city owns the property jointly with the county I believe both bodies would have to approve such a change as it
means will be absorbing a greater risk, I would also like to have a recommendation from risk management as to level of
coverage. But at a minimum I am of the opinion that the CC and Cty Com must approve.
From: DeBord, Rita
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Cooper, Don
Cc: Epperson, Cindy
Subject: Property Ins. - Airport
Don,
2
I am in the process of finalizing the renewal of our property insurance for 2012. Their is one outstanding item
for which I need clarification before we can finalize our renewal data, and it relates to Airport property. (Note:
the city includes airport property on our property insurance because we receive better premiums than would
the airport on its own; we do bill the airport for their portion of the city's premium costs.)
Issue: The Airport manager has requested several changes to coverage of the airport property insurance next
year; presumably in an effort to reduce the associated premium costs. These changes include:
(a) reducing coverage on Main Terminal Bldg from its current Replacement cost value of approx. $25 M to a
Functional cost value of $1.0 M and
(b) eliminate coverage on three other buildings
Our insurance broker has stated that these changes would reduce premium costs by approx. $7,000 annually,
while reducing the amount of coverage by over $16 M.
I understand the airport board has authorized these changes; however, I don't know if the property owners (City
and county) have agreed to these changes — which amounts to accepting the risk of a significant loss of property
value in the event these buildings are destroyed. Before we officially change the coverage on the insurance
policy, I want to ensure that the City and County have agreed to this change.
How would you like me to go about obtaining Council authorization for this change? I believe the airport's
proposed 2012 budget is on the Dec. 6th CC agenda — should I simply address this issue at that time? Or would
you like this to be handled in another manner?
3