The URL can be used to link to this page

03/13/2012 00 Council Information Packet i l l YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET March 13, 2012 Council Information Packet • 1. Council Information �yt A4 i Ti 4 , BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: March 13, 2012 ITEM TITLE: Council Information SUBMITTED BY: CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: 1. City Meeting Schedule for week of March 12, 2012 2. Preliminary Future Activities Calendar as of March 12, 2012 3. 3/8/12 Weekly Issues Report 4. Preliminary Council Agenda 5. 2011 Election costs 6. 2/28/12 Letter from Robert Lockbeam of Major's Restaurant 7. 3/7/12 Letter from Wastewater to Terrace Heights Sewer District 8. 2/27/12 Letter from Carl Isaacson, Ike's Food and Cocktails 9. 3/12 Yakima Basin Joint Board Fish Count Report 10. 3/2/12 Washington Department of Ecology News 11. 3/2/12 Final Programmatic EIS For Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan 12. Newspaper /Magazine /Internet Articles: * "The urge to merge," Public Works Magazine, February 2012 * "Harnessing the Power of Community Collaborations, " ICMA.Org, March 2012 Resolution Ordinance Other (specify) Contract: Mail to: Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date: Insurance Required? No Funding Source: Phone: APPROVED FOR Ci Mana SUBMITTAL: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Click to download ❑ 3 -13 -12 information packet CITY MEETING SCHEDULE For March 12, 2012 — March 19, 2012 Please note: Meetings are subject to change Monday, March 12 8:30 a.m. Pension Board Meeting — Human Resources Conference Room Tuesday, March 13 10:00 a.m. Yakima County Commissioners Agenda Meeting — Council Chambers Wednesday, March 14 11:00 a.m. Boundary Review Board — Council Chambers 1:30 p.m. EMS Operations Board Meeting — Yakima Regional 3:30 p.m. Yakima Planning Commission — Council Chambers Thursday, March 15 9:00 a.m. County Hearing Examiner — Council Chambers Monday, March 19 10:00 a.m. City Council Media Briefing — Council Chambers Office Of Mayor /City Council Preliminary Future Activities Calendar 4 Please Note. Meetings are subject to change • Meeting Organization Meeting Purpose ` Participants Meeting. Location , 'Date/Time: , Mon. Mar. 12 8 30 a.m. Pension Board Meetings Board Meetin• Coffe HR Conference Room Wed. Mar. 14 1:30 p m. EMS Operations Board Board Meeting Lover Yakima Regional 3:30 p m. Yakima Planning Scheduled Meeting Ensey Council Chambers Commission Mon. Mar. 19 1000 a m City Council Media Briefing Scheduled Meeting Lover Council Chambers _ Air•ort d Stu Session Scheduled Meetin• Adkison s Conference Room w. .w .._w Adkison Airport Con e �.z.._ Tue. Mar. 20 1200 p m. Miscellaneous Issues Scheduled Meeting Cawley, Adkison TBD 2:00 p m Yakima County Gang Scheduled Meeting Adkison Yakima Police Dept. Special Commission Ops Training Room 4 30 p m City Council Executive Scheduled Meeting Council Council Chambers Session 6 00 am, CityCouncil Meetin• Scheduled Meeting_ Council Council Chambers Wed. Mar. 21 12 00 p m. PAL Board Meeting Board Meeting Coffey PAL Center 12 p.m New Vision Annual Meeting Scheduled Meeting Open Convention Center Thur. Mar. 22 7 a m. Airport Board Meeting Board Meeting Adkison Airport Conference Room 9 30 a m DYBID Elections Scheduled Meeting Bristol City Manager's Conference Committee meeting Room 129 EMS & Trauma Board Board Meeting Lover Yakima Memorial Mon. Mar. 26 12 p m. Greenway Board Meeting Board Meeting Ettl Greenway Visitors Center 12 00 p m Capitol Theatre Board Board Meeting Bristol Capitol Theatre eetin Tue. Mar. 27 10 00 a m. Council Study Session with Scheduled Meeting Council Council Chambers Department Directors 12 00 p m Miscellaneous Issues Scheduled Meeting Cawley, Adkison TBD Wed. Mar. 28 12 00 p m YWCB Board Meeting Board Meeting Adkison Yakima Convention Center Room F 4 p m Arts Commission Scheduled Meeting Adkison CED Conference Room 5 30 p m Historic Preservation Scheduled Meeting Bristol Council Chambers Commission MEMORANDUM March 8, 2012 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael Morales, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Weekly Issues Report • 2011 ELECTION COSTS: We received an $186,750 bill from the County for the 2011 election costs. There was $150,000 in the budget so finance will be submitting an appropriation ordinance to cover the remaining $36,750. Finance is putting together an historical overview of election costs that will be sent out as soon as it's ready. • DYBID UPDATE: Earlier this week a postcard was mailed to all property and business owners in the DYBID notifying them that the City is looking for members to serve on the Advisory Committee. Applications are due on March 21. The Election Committee will be meeting on March 22 to review the applications that were received. • STATE BUDGET: We are analyzing the various reductions in shared revenues from the State. While we did budget for significant reductions, they may be more severe in criminal justice assistance then anticipated. A complete, report will be provided for the April 3 Council meeting. • STREET LIGHTING UPDATE: The targeted safety street lights have been installed PPL has been unable to energize the circuits due to new regulations by L &I. We are requesting a waiver to these additional requirements and associated costs. As soon as a determination is made, the lights will be turned on or the required modifications will be made. • NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: I will be joining Mayor Cawley and Councilman Dave Ettl in Washington DC next week. City Attorney Jeff Cutter will be the Acting City Manager during my absence. If you need to reach me I will have my cell phone and Cally will know how to get in contact with me. PRELIMINARY FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA March 20 4 p.m. Executive Session Council Chambers • Prospective litigation • Land and property issues • Pending litigation • Qualifications of a public official 6:00 p m Business Meeting — Council Chambers • Recognize City Employees Wayne Parsley and Lynn Miller for 30 years of service • Cesar Chavez Month Proclamation — Alex Santillanes accepting • Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Huibregtse, Louman Associates for the extension of the City's Industrial Wastewater Collection System in the vicinity of 23 Avenue and River Road • Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute and approve Yakima Police Patrolman's Association (YPPA) Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2012- 2013 • Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute and approve International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Battalion Chiefs Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2012 -2014 • Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute and approve International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2012- 2013 • First reading of ordinance approving 2011 encumbrance appropriations • Resolution accepting $275,000 Salmon Recovery Grant • Yakima Resources resolution • Ordinance changing the downtown public parking fee from two free hours to $1.00 for 3 hours of parking 7:00 p.m. Public Hearings 3/8/2012 11:38 AM 1 T c ° ` 4 'o Yakima County Auditor - Elections Divis r' l F D , ,Er • e',11,0 e x+ 128 N 2 St Rm 117; Yakima WA 98901 509.574.1340 •12 h�AR -g iv @ yakima.wa.us 1 � °Oa o, -r'd PO Box 12570; Yakima WA 98909 1.800.833.0569 www.yEk1macounty.us/vote YAKIMA CITY CLi March 4, 2012 City of Yakima Attn: Sonya Claar Tea, Clerk 129N 2 St Yakima WA 98901 Enclosed are your jurisdiction's 2011 election costs. Election costs are calculated in compliance with the mandatory uniform procedures established by the Washington State Auditor. This billing complies with the procedures in allocating election costs. If you have any questions please contact Kathy Fisher, Elections Manager, at 574.1343. Sincerely, 0 t..A - Corky Mattingly Yakima County Auditor Yakima County Election Division y 2011 Election Cost Invoice FR .g -,, City of Yakima 4p;'a 2011 February Special Election costs $47,921.59 Your share of the Primary $51,534.28 Your share of the General Election $11,091.03 Your share of voter pamphlet costs $2,970.10 Your share of voter registration costs $80,545.65 Your share of miscellaneous election costs $40,609.19 Less payments received $ (47,921.59) Total Amount Due $186,750.25 Yakima County Elections Primary Election Costs August 16, 2011 PERSONNEL SERVICES Salaries & Wages $8,510.77 Personnel Benefits 2,071.37 Total Personnel Services $10,582.14 SUPPLIES Materials and Supplies 16,404.80 COMMUNICATIONS Postage and Telephone 7,383.87 TRANSPORTATION Staff & Voting Center Personnel Travel 77.87 ADVERTISING Newspaper Costs 406.20 RENTALS Voting Center Rental, Equipment Rental 0.00 OTHER CHARGES Misc. Charges 22,213.22 SUB -TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 57,068.10 ADD: OVERHEAD @ 15% 8,560.22 TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 65,628.32 SUBTRACT: TOTAL MINIMUM FEES - 200.00 ELECTION COSTS TO BE ALLOCATED $65,428.32 Yakima County Elections Primary Election Cost Allocation August 16, 2011 Number of Weighted Percentage Allocation Total Registered Issues and Registration Cost of Primary Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Election Jurisdiction Voters Offices Factor Factor Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs City of Union Gap 2,294 3 3,211.6000 0.047866 3,131.77 50.00 0.00 0.00 3,181.77 Sunnyside School District No. 201 7,040 1 7,040.0000 0.104924 6,865.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 6,915.00 Wapato School District No. 207 4,381 1 4,381.0000 0.065294 4,272.10 50.00 0.00 0.00 4,322.10 Totals 67096.2000 100.00% $65.428.32 $200.00 $282.46 $42.37 $65.953.15 Yakima County Elections General Election Costs November 8, 2011 PERSONNEL SERVICES Salaries & Wages $22,213.38 Personnel Benefits 5,622.17 Total Personnel Services $27,835.55 SUPPLIES Materials and Supplies 54,362.16 COMMUNICATIONS Postage and Telephone 14,317.33 TRANSPORTATION Staff & Voting Center Personnel Travel 119.50 ADVERTISING Newspaper Costs 608.20 RENTALS Voting Center Rental, Equipment Rental 0.00 OTHER CHARGES Misc. Charges 55,157.94 SUB -TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 152,400.68 ADD: OVERHEAD @ 15% 22,860.10 TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 175,260.78 SUBTRACT: TOTAL MINIMUM FEES - 2,500.00 ELECTION COSTS TO BE ALLOCATED $172,760.78 Yakima County Elections General Election Cost Allocation November 8, 2011 Number of Weighted Percentage Allocation of Registered Issues and Registration Cost General Election Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Total Jurisdiction Voters Offices Factor Factor Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs State of Washington 101,289 5 182,320.2000 0.197448 34,111.30 50.00 0.00 0.00 34,161.30 Yakima County 101,289 18 445,671.6000 0.482651 83,383.18 50.00 5,017.85 752.68 89,203.71 City of Grandview 2,974 5 5,353.2000 0.005797 1,001.56 50.00 0,00 0.00 1,051.56 I City of Granger 715 4 1,144.0000 0.001239 214.04 50.00 0.00 0.00 264.04 Town of Harrah 232 4 371.2000 0.000402 69.45 50.00 0.00 0.00 119.45 City of Mabton 567 2 680.4000 0.000737 127.30 50.00 0.00 0.00 177.30 City of Moxee 1,338 5 2,408.4000 0.002608 450.60 50.00 0.00 0.00 500.60 Town of Naches 426 4 681.6000 0.000738 127.52 50.00 0.00 0.00 177.52 City of Selah 3,427 5 6,168.6000 0.006680 1,154.12 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,204.12 City of Sunnyside 3,868 3 5,415.2000 0.005865 1,013.16 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,063.16 City of Tieton 350 3 490.0000 0.000531 91.68 50.00 0.00 0.00 141.68 City of Toppenish 2,37.5 4 3,800.0000 0.004115 710.96 50.00 0.00 0.00 760.96 City of Union Gap 2,261 4 3,617.6000 0.003918 676.84 50.00 0.00 0.00 726.84 City of Wapato 1.114 6 2,228.0000 0.002413 416.85 50.00 0.00 0.00 466.85 qty of Valdese 36,883 4 59.012.8000 00 1144143 5040 000 0A0 1109103 City of Zillah 1,302 3 1,822.8000 0.001974 341.04 50.00 0.00 0.00 391.04 Union Gap School District No. 2 1,350 3 1,890.0000 0.002047 353.61 50.00 0.00 0.00 403.61 Naches Valley School District No. Jt3 5,141 2 6,169.2000 0.006681 1,154.23 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,204.23 Page 1 of 3 Yakima County Elections General Election Cost Allocation November 8, 2011 Number of Weighted Percentage Allocation of Registered Issues and Registration Cost General Election Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Total Jurisdiction Voters Offices Factor Factor Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Yakima School District No. 7 27,819 3 38,946.6000 0.042178 7,286.74 50.00 0.00 0.00 7,336.74 Wahluke School District No. 73 6 5 10.8000 0.000012 2.02 50.00 0.00 0.00 52.02 East Valley School District No. 90 8,629 3 12,080.6000 0.013083 2,260.23 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,310.23 Grandview School District No. 116/200 4,586 3 6,420.4000 0.006953 1,201.23 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,251.23 Selah School District No. 119 10,425 3 14,595.0000 0.015806 2.730.66 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,780.66 Mabton School District No. 120 1,010 2 1,212.0000 0.001313 226.76 50.00 0.00 0.00 276.76 Sunnyside School District No. 201 6,997 3 9,795.8000 0.010609 1,832.75 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,882.75 Toppenish School District No. 202 4,362 3 6,106.8000 0.006614 1,142.56 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,192.56 Highland School District No. 203 2,518 3 3,525.2000 0.003818 659.55 50.00 0.00 0.00 709.55 Bickleton School District No. 203 20 3 28.0000 0.000030 5.24 50.00 0.00 0.00 55.24 Granger School District No. 204 1,745 3 2,443.0000 0.002646 457,07 50.00 0.00 0.00 507.07 Zillah School District No. 205 2,514 2 3,016.8000 0.003267 564.43 50.00 0.00 0.00 614.43 Wapato School District No. 207 4,380 3 6,132.0000 0.006641 1,147.27 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,197.27 West Valley School District No. 208 18,037 3 25,251.8000 0.027347 4,724.50 50.00 0.00 0.00 4,774.50 Mt. Adams School District No. 209 1,737 2 2,084.4000 0.002257 389.98 50.00 0.00 0.00 439.98 Fire Protection District No. 1 1,966 1 1,966.0000 0.002129 367.83 50.00 0.00 0.00 417.83 Fire Protection District No. 2 7,233 1 7,233.0000 0.007833 1,353.26 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,403.26 Fire Protection District No. 3 790 I 790.0000 0.000856 147.81 50.00 0.00 0.00 197.81 Page 2 of 3 Yakima County Elections General Election Cost Allocation November 8, 2011 Number of Weighted Percentage Allocation of Registered Issues and Registration Cost General Election Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Total Jurisdiction Voters Offices Factor Factor Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Fire Protection District No. 4 8,684 I 8,684.0000 0.009405 1,624.74 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,674.74 Fire Protection District No. 5 13,860 I 13,860.0000 0.015010 2,593.14 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,643.14 Fire Protection District No. 6 2,527 1 2,527.0000 0.002737 472.79 50.00 0.00 0.00 522.79 Fire Protection District No. 7 58 2 69.6000 0.000075 13.02 50.00 0.00 0.00 63.02 Fire Protection District No. 9 716 1 716.0000 0.000775 133.96 50.00 0.00 0.00 183.96 Fire Protection District No. 10 405 I 405.0000 0.000439 75.77 50.00 0.00 0.00 125.77 Fire Protection District No. 11 359 1 359.0000 0.000389 67.17 50.00 0.00 0.00 117.17 Fire Protection District No. 12 7,490 1 7,490.0000 0.008111 1,401.35 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,451.35 Fire Protection District No. 14 656 I 656.0000 0.000710 122.73 50.00 0.00 0.00 172.73 Port of Grandview 4,803 l 4,803.0000 0.005202 898.62 50.00 0.00 0.00 948.62 Port of Sunnyside 7,301 1 7,301.0000 0.007907 1,365.98 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,415.98 Cowiche Sewer District 107 2 128.4000 0.000139 24.02 50.00 0.00 0.00 74.02 Terrace Heights Sewer District 3,555 1 3,555.0000 0.003850 665.12 50.00 0.00 0.00 715.12 Naches Park & Recreation District 1,216 4 1,945.6000 0.002107 364.01 50.00 43.01 6.45 463.47 Totals 923,382.6000 100.00 % -$172.760.7S $2.500.00 $5,060.86 $759.13 $181,080.77 Page 3 of 3 Yakima County Elections Voter Pamphlet Costs November 2011 PERSONNEL SERVICES Salaries & Wages $8,652.36 Personnel Benefits 2,210.69 Total Personnel Services $10,863.05 SUPPLIES Materials and Supplies 17,248.54 COMMUNICATIONS Postage and Telephone 14,060.60 TRANSPORTATION Staff & Voting Center Personnel Travel 62.16 ADVERTISING Newspaper Legal Ad Costs 219.21 RENTALS Voting Center Rental, Equipment Rental 0.00 OTHER CHARGES Misc. Charges 0.00 SUB -TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 42,453.56 ADD: OVERHEAD @ 15% 6,368.03 TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 48,821.59 SUBTRACT: TOTAL MINIMUM FEES - 1,350.00 ELECTION COSTS TO BE ALLOCATED $47,471.59 Yakima County Elections Voter Pamphlet Cost Allocation November 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation of Registered Number of Registration Cost General Election Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Total Jurisdiction Voters Statements Factor Factor Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Yakima County 101,289 45 992,632.2000 0.827916 39,302.52 50.00 0.00 0.00 39,352.52 City of Grandview 2,974 4 4,758.4000 0.003969 188.41 50.00 0.00 0.00 238.41 City of Granger 715 3 1,001.0000 0.000835 39.63 50.00 0.00 0.00 89.63 Cit y of Mabton 567 I 567.0000 0.000473 22.45 50.00 0.00 0.00 72.45 City of Moxee 1,338 2 1,605.6000 0.001339 63.57 50.00 0.00 0.00 113.57 Town of Naches 426 I 426.0000 0.000355 16.87 50.00 0.00 0.00 66.87 City of Selah 3,427 4 5,483.2000 0.004573 217.10 50.00 0.00 0.00 267,10 City of Sunnyside 3,868 5 6,962.4000 0.005807 275.67 50.00 0.00 0.00 325.67 City of Tieton 350 2 420.0000 0.000350 16.63 50.00 0.00 0.00 66.63 City of Toppenish 2,375 2 2,850.0000 0.002377 112.84 50.00 0.00 0.00 162.84 City of Union Gap 2,261 7 4,974.2000 0.004149 196.95 50.00 0.00 0.00 246.95 City of Wapato 1,114 1 1,114.0000 0.000929 44.11 50.00 0.00 0.00 94.11 City of Zillah 1,302 1 1,302.0000 0.001086 51.55 50.00 0.00 0.00 101.55 Union Gap School District No. 2 1,350 2 1,620.0000 0,001351 64.14 50.00 0.00 0.00 114.14 Yakima School District No. 7 27,819 1 27,819.0000 0.023203 1,101.47 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,151.47 Selah School District No. 119 10,425 4 16,680.0000 0.013912 660.43 50.00 0.00 0.00 710.43 Page 1 of 2 Yakima County Elections Voter Pamphlet Cost Allocation November 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation of Registered Number of Registration Cost General Election Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Total Jurisdiction _ Voters Statements Factor Factor Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Mabton School District No. 120 1,010 1 1.010.0000 0.000842 39.99 50.00 _ 0.00 0.00 89.99 Sunnyside School District No. 201 6,997 2 8,396.4000 0.007003 332.45 50.00 0.00 0.00 382.45 Toppenish School District No. 202 4,362 1 4,362.0000 0.003638 172.71 50.00 0.00 0.00 222.71 Highland School District No. 203 2.518 3 3,525.2000 0.002940 139.58 50.00 0.00 0.00 189.58 Wapato School District No. 207 4,380 4 7,008.0000 0.005845 277.48 50.00 0.00 0.00 327.48 %%est Valley School District No. 208 18,037 1 18,037.0000 0.015044 714.16 50.00 0.00 0.00 764.16 Fire Protection District No. 6 2,527 I 2,527.0000 0.002108 100.05 50.00 0.00 0.00 150.05 Port of Sunnyside 7,301 2 8,761.2000 0.007307 346.89 50.00 0.00 0.00 396.89 Cowiche Sewer District 107 2 128.4000 0.000107 5.08 50.00 0.00 0.00 55.08 Naches Park & Recreation District 1,216 1 1,216.0000 0.001014 48.15 50.00 0.00 0.00 98.15 1,198,952.2000 100.00% 7 $47,471.59 1 350.00 $0.00 $0.00 48 821.E Totals $4 , $ , $ $ $ .9 Page 2 of 2 Yakima County Elections Voter Registration Costs 2011 PERSONNEL SERVICES Salaries & Wages $126,784.90 Personnel Benefits 10,541.51 Total Personnel Services $137,326.41 SUPPLIES Materials and Supplies 7,860.35 COMMUNICATIONS Postage and Telephone 9,924.81 TRANSPORTATION Staff & Voting Center Personnel Travel 1,059.27 ADVERTISING Newspaper Costs 113.08 RENTALS Voting Center Rental, Equipment Rental 249.29 OTHER CHARGES Misc. Charges 31,615.74 SUB -TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 188,148.95 ADD: OVERHEAD @ 15% 28,222.34 TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 216,371.29 SUBTRACT: TOTAL MINIMUM FEES - 750.00 ELECTION COSTS TO BE ALLOCATED $215,621.29 Yakima County Elections Voter Registration Cost Allocation 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation Total Registered Registration Cost of Voter Minimum Direct Total Jurisdiction Active Inactive Voters Factor Factor Registration Fee Costs Costs Rural Yakima County 43,457 1,779 45,236 45,236.0000 0.420264 90,617.97 50.00 0.00 90,667.97 City of Grandview 2,974 160 3,134 3,134.0000 0.029116 6,278.11 50.00 0.00 6,328.11 City of Granger 716 50 766 766.0000 0.007117 1,534.47 50.00 0.00 1,584.47 Town of Harrah 232 6 238 238.0000 0.002211 476.77 50.00 0.00 526.77 City of Mabton 567 33 600 600.0000 0.005574 1,201.94 50.00 0.00 1,251.94 City of Moxee 1,338 58 1,396 1,396.0000 0.012970 2,796.50 50.00 0.00 2,846.50 Town of Naches 426 21 447 447.0000 0.004153 895.44 50.00 0.00 945.44 City of Selah 3,427 268 3,695 3,695.0000 0.034328 7,401.92 50.00 0.00 7,451.92 City of Sunnyside 3,869 243 4,112 4,112.0000 0.038202 8,237.27 50.00 0.00 8,287.27 City of Tieton 350 17 367 367.0000 0.003410 735.18 50.00 0.00 785.18 City of Toppenish 2,375 108 2,483 2,483.0000 0.023068 4,974.01 50.00 0.00 5,024.01 City of Union Gap 2,261 173 2,434 2,434.0000 0.022613 4,875.85 50.00 0.00 4,925.85 City of Wapato 1,114 74 1,188 1,188.0000 0.011037 2,379.83 50.00 0.00 2,429.83 City of Yakitna 36.885 3.298 40.163 40,183.0000 0.373320 80,495.65 5O.00 0,O0 80,545.65` City of Zillah 1,302 56 1,358 1,358.0000 0.012616 2,720.38 50.00 0.00 2,770.38 107,637 100.00% 215,621.29 $750.00 $0.00 $216,371.29 Yakima County Elections Miscellaneous Election Costs 2011 PERSONNEL SERVICES Salaries & Wages $136,596.51 Personnel Benefits 1,495.73 Total Personnel Services $138,092.24 SUPPLIES Materials and Supplies 71,577.42 COMMUNICATIONS Postage and Telephone 1,213.22 TRANSPORTATION Staff & Voting Center Personnel Travel 600.57 ADVERTISING Newspaper Costs 288.65 RENTALS Voting Center Rental, Equipment Rental 213.18 OTHER CHARGES Misc. Charges 95,950.89 SUB -TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 307,936.17 ADD: OVERHEAD @ 15% 46,190.43 TOTAL ELECTION COSTS 354,126.60 SUBTRACT: TOTAL MINIMUM FEES - 2,500.00 ELECTION COSTS TO BE ALLOCATED $351,626.60 Yakima County Elections Miscellaneous Election Cost Allocation 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation Total Registered Number of Registration Cost of Special Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Election Jurisdiction Voters Elections Factor Factor Election Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs State of Washington 101,293 1 101,293.0000 0.226261 79,559.30 50.00 0.00 0.00 79,609.30 Yakima County 101,293 1 101,293.0000 0.226261 79,559.29 50.00 0.00 0.00 79,609.29 City of Grandview 2,974 1 2,974.0000 0.006643 2,335.89 50.00 • 0.00 0.00 2,385.89 City of Granger 716 1 716.0000 0.001599 562.37 50.00 0.00 0.00 61237 Town of Harrah 232 1 232.0000 0.000518 182.22 50.00 0.00 0.00 232.22 City of Mabton 567 1 567.0000 0.001267 445.34 50.00 0.00 0.00 495.34 City of Moxee 1,338 I 1,338.0000 0.002989 1,050.92 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,100.92 Town of Naches 426 1 426.0000 0.000952 334.60 50.00 0.00 0.00 384.60 City of Selah 3,427 1 3,427.0000 0.007655 2,691.69 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,741.69 City of Sunnyside 3,869 1 3,869.0000 0.008642 3,038.86 50.00 0.00 0.00 3,088.86 City of Tieton 350 1 350.0000 0.000782 274.90 50.00 0.00 0.00 324.90 City of Toppenish 2,375 I 2,375.0000 0.005305 1,865.41 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,915.41 City of Union Gap 2,261 2 2,713.2000 0.006061 2,131.05 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,181.05 City of Wapato 1,114 1 1,114.0000 0.002488 874.98 50.00 0.00 0.00 924.98 City of Yakima 16485 ? S 1.039 ()0tl () 1153-V: )t) Ssa 19 SO).(X) City of Zillah 1,302 1 1,302.0000 0.002908 1,022.64 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,072.64 Page 1 of 4 Yakima County Elections Miscellaneous Election Cost Allocation 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation Total Registered Number of Registration Cost of Special Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Election Jurisdiction Voters Elections Factor Factor Election Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Union Gap School District No. 2 1,350 1 1,350.0000 0.003016 1,060.34 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,110.34 Naches Valley School District No. Jt3 5,141 1 5,141.0000 0.011484 4,037.93 50.00 0.00 0.00 4,087.93 Yakima School District No. 7 27,820 1 27,820.0000 0.062142 21,850.86 50.00 0.00 0.00 21,900.86 Wahluke School District No. 73 6 1 6.0000 0.000013 4.71 50.00 0.00 0.00 54.71 East Valley School District No. 90 8,629 2 10,354.8000 0.023130 8,133.05 50,00 0.00 0.00 8,183.05 Grandview School District No. 116/200 4,586 1 4,586.0000 0.010244 3,602.02 50.00 0.00 0.00 3,652.02 Selah School District No. 119 10,425 3 14,595.0000 0.032601 11,463.46 50.00 0.00 0.00 11,513.46 Mabton School District No. 120 1,010 1 1,010.0000 0.002256 793.29 50.00 0.00 0.00 843.29 Sunnyside School District No. 201 6,998 2 8,397.6000 0.018758 6,595.79 50.00 0.00 0.00 6,645.79 Toppenish School District No. 202 4,362 1 4,362.0000 0.009744 3,426.08 50.00 0.00 0.00 3,476.08 Highland School District No. 203 2,518 1 2,518.0000 0.005625 1,977.73 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,027.73 Bickleton School District No. 203 20 1 20.0000 0.000045 15.71 50.00 0.00 0.00 65.71 Granger School District No. 204 1,746 I 1,746.0000 0.003900 1,371.37 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,421.37 Zillah School District No. 205 2,514 1 2,514.0000 0.005616 1,974.59 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,024.59 Wapato School District No. 207 4,380 3 6,132.0000 0.013697 4,816.30 50.00 0.00 0.00 4,866.30 West Valley School District No. 208 18,038 I 18,038.0000 0.040292 14,167.72 50.00 0.00 0.00 14,217.72 Page 2 of 4 Yakima County Elections Miscellaneous Election Cost Allocation 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation Total Registered Number of Registration Cost of Special Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Election Jurisdiction Voters Elections Factor Factor Election Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Mt. Adams School District No. 209 1,737 1 1,737.0000 0.003880 1,364.30 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,414.30 Fire Protection District No. 1 1,966 I 1,966.0000 0.004392 1,544.17 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,594.17 Fire Protection District No. 2 7,233 1 7,233.0000 0.016157 5,681.07 50.00 0.00 0.00 5,731.07 Fire Protection District No. 3 790 1 790.0000 0.001765 620.50 50.00 0.00 0.00 670.50 Fire Protection District No. 4 8,684 1 8,684.0000 0.019398 6,820.74 50.00 0.00 0.00 6,870.74 Fire Protection District No. 5 13,860 1 13,860.0000 0.030959 10,886.16 50.00 0.00 0.00 10,936.16 Fire Protection District No. 6 2,527 1 2,527.0000 0.005645 1,984.80 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,034.80 Fire Protection District No. 7 58 1 58.0000 0.000130 45.56 50.00 0.00 0.00 95.56 Fire Protection District No. 9 716 1 716.0000 0.001599 562.37 50.00 0.00 0.00 612.37 Fire Protection District No. 10 405 I 405.0000 0.000905 318.10 50.00 0.00 0.00 368.10 Fire Protection District No.11 359 I 359.0000 0.000802 281,97 50.00 0.00 0.00 331.97 Fire Protection District No. 12 7,490 1 7,490.0000 0.016731 5,882.93 50.00 0.00 0.00 5,932.93 Fire Protection District No. 656 1 656.0000 0.001465 515.25 50.00 0.00 0.00 565.25 Port of Grandview 4,803 1 4,803.0000 0.010729 3,772.46 50.00 0.00 0.00 3,822.46 Port of Sunnyside 7,302 1 7,302.0000 0.016311 5,735.26 50.00 0.00 0.00 5,785.26 Cowiche Sewer District 107 1 107.0000 0.000239 84.04 50.00 0.00 0.00 134.04 Page 3 of 4 Yakima County Elections Miscellaneous Election Cost Allocation 2011 Weighted Percentage Allocation Total Registered Number of Registration Cost of Special Minimum Direct 15% Overhead Election Jurisdiction Voters Elections Factor Factor Election Costs Fee Costs On Direct Costs Costs Terrace Heights Sewer District 3,555 1 3,555.0000 0.007941 2.792.23 50.00 0.00 0.00 2,842.23 Naches Park & Recreation District 1,216 I 1.216.0000 0.002716 955.09 50.00 0.00 0.00 1,005.09 Totals 447682.6000 100.00% $351.626.60 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $354,126.60 Page 4 of 4 Majors' Restaurant, Inc. • P.0 Box 10056 Yakima, WA 98909 RECEIV OF YAK D CITY IMA Phone: 509 - 225 -6445 Fax: 509 - 225 -6376 FEB 2 2012 Yakima City Council OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL February 28, 2012 Thank you Yakima City Council for all that you do. I know you do many great things in our community. However, I'm not sure if I can survive the important work that you dealt with at your Yakima City Council meeting involving a decision to ban Yakima City employees from taking their breaks at Major's. I know you understand what makes a good city an even greater city. Small business is an important ingredient that keeps us all working. The people who own small businesses pay taxes as well as the people who simply hold a job, meaning those who work for small businesses. My guess is I pay more taxes than the individual or individuals that wrote the letter informing you of a few city employees that frequent our business within the correct parameters of their contract. If they are in violation then why not just say so? How many letters did you receive? One, two what if it were ten? The question remains, were those employees violating their labor agreement? I believe their jobs are more important to them and their families than to take that risk. However, I can assure you your decision will cost my small business a minimum of $10,400 in 2012 alone and I have to ask why? Because some busy body, who probably is a customer, has nothing better to do than moan and groan about something they know nothing about. Yet you appease them at a cost of $10,400 to someone who really doesn't have time to write this letter in the first place because I am busy trying to offset the costs of doing business in an economy where rampant inflation, increased taxes, the cost of health care and the cost of . city /county imposed regulations makes it difficult to stay in business. And now... you ban customers from my business, which by the way generates thousands of dollars in local and state revenues. I apologize if it makes little sense to me, maybe one of you can explain it. However, I am asking you to reverse your decision so I can make a living and pay taxes, which I do understand ....but then what do I know. (.7 Restaurant, Inc. ct i t, t" -- ).....- Robert Lockbeam President �y ,��4 0 j i 1'' ' CITY OF YAKIMA ' . l' `, , WASTEWATER DIVISION 3 - 6 2220 East Vtola March 7 2012 ;,t ' ,, Y aki»ia,,Wasliington 98901 ' 4 , " F" ' Phone: 575 -6077 ,, Fax _(509) 575- 61.16 . " 11'.'Q P @ATEV �9� VIA U.S: Mail, First Class, and CERTIFIED MAIL 7009 1680 0001 2377 9675 Mr. Norm Alderson Manager Terrace Heights Sewer District 186 Iron Horse Court, Suite 100 Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Mr. Alderson, This letter is an explanation as to the reason a FINAL Notice of Violation is being issued to. Terrace Heights Sewer District by the City of Yakima (City): At approximately 10 AM on March 1, 2012, . slugloads of a yellow substance .and a black substance entered the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant causing increased testing and monitoring, clean -up activity and an increased electrical demand to provide additional oxygen for microbial.metabolism of organic" compounds in the slugload. Wastewater personnel traced the discharge. to the Terrace Heights sewer system. After contacting a. Terrace Heights Sewer District representative, it Was established that the yellow substance was from an Idaho Milk discharge and the black substance originated from a winery located in Moxee. In accordance with Part V.A. of the Special Agreement between the City of Yakima and Terrace Heights Sewer District, the City shall have all enforcement remedies available to it under the City Sewer Use Ordinance in the event that "the City finds that wastewater discharged from Terrace Heights sewer system. has violated or is violating the Pretreatment Standards and requirements of the City Sewer Use Ordinance. In accordance with § 7.65.080 C of the. City of Yakima Municipal Code, Terrace Heights Sewer District shall be liable for any .expense, labor equipment repair /replacement caused by the discharge of a slugload of prohibited materials The City will invoice Terrace Heights Sewer District for the labor and expenses that were incurred due to this incident. In 2007, a similar event occurred in which a slugload of yellow substance from the Terrace Heights sewer system was traced back to 'Idaho 'Milk. It is the responsibility of Terrace Heights Sewer District to ensure that slugloads of prohibited :materials from Terrace Heights Sewer Distsrict's industrial users are not discharged to the City's= wastewater system. The dischargers Must provide and maintain facilities and operating procedures to prevent slugloads that cause interference with the City's wastewater system. Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Arlene Carter Pretreatment Supervisor Yakima: Wastewater Division A ,.,, , t.''I a:. '994 __,..„.4„....c.,,,,,,„,„ C"T' , , CITY OFYAKIMA (--- • ;, �'� WASTEWATER DIVISION 2220 Fast Viola i , _ ; � % Yakima, Washington 98901 'r O .44 "'°' ' ' Phone: 575 -6077. Fax (509) 575 -6116 FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION March 7, 2012 Mr. Norm Alderson Manager Terrace Heights Sewer District 186 Iron Horse. Court, Suite 100 Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Mr. Alderson, This letter constitutes written notice to Terrace Heights Sewer District, 186 Iron Horse Court, pursuant to Yakima Municipal Code § 7.65.200, of a violation of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) by Terrace Heights Sewer District Terrace Heights has violated the requirement of the City of Yakima's (City) Sewer Use and Pretreatment Regulations § 7.65.060 and § 7.65 080 of the YMC. § 7.65.060 B. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged to the POTW, directly or Indirectly, any pollutant or wastewater which will cause interference or pass through.... 8. Any wastewater containing pollutants in sufficient quantity or concentration, either singly or by interaction, to injure `or interfere with any wastewater treatment process... 14. Any slugload; 16: Any sludges, screenings or other residues from the pretreatment of industrial wastewater discharges: At approximately 10 AM on March 1, 2012, slugloads of a yellow substance and a black substance entered the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant causing increased testing and monitoring, clean -up activity and an increased electrical demand to provide additional oxygen - for microbial metabolism of organic compounds in the slugload. Wastewater personnel traced the discharge to the Terrace Heights sewer system. After contacting a Terrace Heights Sewer District representative, 'it was verified that the yellow substance was an Idaho Milk discharge and the black substance originated from. a winery located in Moxee. In accordance with § 7.65.080 A. of the YMC - , Terrace Heights Sewer District has the responsibility and obligation to ensure that slugloads are not discharged to the City's wastewater system. Yakima St Al Aitatcs Dry 11 194• § 7.65.080 4. Each discharger shall provide protection from a.slugload or accidental..discharge of prohibited or regulated .materialsor substances established by this chapter.: Where the City deems it necessary., a discharger shall provide and maintain, at the discharger's own cost and expense, facilities and operating procedures to prevent a slug load or accidental discharge of prohibited materials..... In accordance with § 7.65.080 C., Terrace Height's Sewer District.shall be liable for any expense, loss or damage to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). 7.65.080 C. ...Any discharger who discharges a slugload .of prohibited materials shall be liable for any expense, loss or damage to the POTW, in addition to any other liabilities established by this chapter brother City ordinance and the amount:of any fines, penalties,. damages or costs assessed against the .City by any state or federal agency, court of law or private in.dividual,. as a result of the slug load or accidental:discharge. The City ie. now taking action in accordance with § 7.65:200 of the YMC to ensure that. Terrace Heights Sewer District provides additional protection. to prevent future slugloads or accidental discharges of prohibited materials to the City's sewer system. Please refer to the YMC § 7.65.200 regarding the requirement that Terrace Heights Sewer District respond to this notice within ten days:. § 7.65.200 - Wh.ene.verthe Wastewater Manager finds that any discharger has violated' or is violating this chapter, or an order issued hereunder, the Wastewater Manager may serve upon said discharger written notice of'violation. Within ten days of receipt date ofthisnotice, an explanation of violation anda plan for the satisfactory correction and prevention thereof, to include specific required actions, shall be submitted to the Wastewater Manager. Submission of this plan in no way relieves the discharger of liability for any violations occurring before or after receipt of the notice of violation. Nothing in this section shall limit the authorltyof the City to take any action, including emergency actions or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a notice of violation. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter Sincerely, Arlene Carter Pretreatment Supervisor Wastewater Division cc:. Michael Morales, .interim City Manager Jeff Cutter City Attorney, City of 'Yakima Joan Davenport, Acting .Director of Community & Economic Development Scott Schafer;. Wastewater Division Manager Byron Adams, Public Works Director, City of Moxee :Donna Smith Water. Quality Program, Department of Ecology RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA MAR - Ike's Food and Cocktails OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL 17805 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55435 February 27, 2012 The Honorable Micah Cawley City of Yakima 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Mayor Cawley, While researching food and dining concepts for a new restaurant venture in Minnetonka, Minnesota, our travels brought us to Yakima. Obviously, there's a wealth of wisdom, knowledge and history in the food and culture of Yakima - and throughout the state of Washington - it only made sense for us to experience it for ourselves. We were so impressed by the incredible hospitality we encountered along the way, particularly in Yakima. And when we told people about what we were doing, they responded with great respect, kindness and generosity — a few chefs even shared some of their recipes with us! Such a warm welcome is a testament to you, the citizens of Yakima, and the great state of Washington. We won't forget it as we put our concept into play. Thank you for a great experience in Yakima. We look forward to our next visit! Bes t\ II r P � �f Carl "Chip" Isaacson, Founder ,- t •, 1 -� r 1 1 / r 1 1 - ..I et ti 7 I - r f =J Jr j f . •• i • r 1 a 1 .. . ••• • Nile Creek Summer Steelhead, March 2011 2011 Returns of Yakima River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Trout Report Provided March 2012 to Yakima Basin Irrigators Report Provided By: DC Consulting. LLC .. _ _ Envirornental Research •"& Natural Resource Management N. " David Child ii '` -, lotogiet /Own.r • 28(17 4J. 'Was hington, _ AIIIIPoR Yak 1rnd WA IA ( 10 ' PI ,pc 5t) -60. Fox. r( - 965 -16 dcconsultr-'dre it I fti David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 Spring Chinook Salmon Spring Chinook salmon return to the Yakima River between April and July each year. Most adults return as 4 year old fish, although the American River, near Chinook Pass, supports a run of mostly 5 year old fish. The Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Hatchery, operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Yakama Indian Nation (YN), had its first return of adult salmon in 2001. In 2010, 12,675 spring Chinook returned (as counted at Prosser Dam), and last year, in 2011, 15,374; both counts include jacks 14% and 23% of runs, respectively. Yakima spring Chinook are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are among the most productive spring Chinook salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin. Tribal, sport, and commercial fishers have all had the opportunity to enjoy catching wild and hatchery Yakima spring Chinook in recent years. I've recently reviewed the Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project's forecast for the 2012 spring Chinook return. Bill Bosch shared, "In 2011 the forecast was for a return of 10,320 adult (age -4 and age -5) spring Chinook to the mouth of the Yakima River. The actual return in 2011 was estimated to be 13,400 adult spring Chinook (130% of forecast)." The 2012 forecast is for 12,040 adult spring Chinook to pass Prosser Dam, which would still be 135% of the recent 10 year average of 8,890. Spring Chinook Salmon Returns, Counted at Prosser Dam 25000 O „- O 20000 °' M T u) 0 15000 - — - `'' c U c O r r CO I 111111 II- r Q 10000 co r M co ON " O � O CO M OCD 5000 i i I 11i 1 1 i tji 1 1 i M g coN §0R\ cb °h 0 0 03\cbg'c i 00 cb O 01'00 O) QCO 01 0130: NC) N\ \<:b Ncb '` N 1:7) 00 \ N N N \ \ N N `p,70`10 QC) 90`1,0 `2 0 9 , 00 X 0 2 0 Year Figure 1. Annual spring Chinook returns measured for the Yakima River at Prosser, Washington, *my counts do not account for jacks (Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project unpublished data, source, www.ykfp.org). 2 David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 Fall Chinook Salmon Fall Chinook spawn in the lower Yakima River and some tributaries. This is a mixed hatchery and wild run, with mostly hatchery fish returning above Prosser Dam. At times 70% of the spawning occurred below Prosser Dam, but based on my familiarity from the aerial flight surveys over the last 3 year's, I believe that a majority of the spawning now occurs between Mabton and Union Gap, especially in the reach between Granger and Zillah. Of note though, is the high numbers of redds observed from the air and via boat based surveys in the fall of 2011 near Benton City and below Horn Rapids Dam. The non ESA listed fall Chinook (also none as up river brights) runs to the Yakima River are considered stable, and they are the subjects of Tribal, sport, and commercial fisheries in the ocean, Columbia, and Yakima Rivers. Fall Chinook Salmon Returns to the Yakima River, Counted at Prosser Dam 7000 NCD °o CD 6000 CD CD 5000 a c 0 4000 - M U r co 3000 e , N °D ,, — cv _ N EV) N O d' N Lf i 2000 CO � ' ^ CO r CO LO r M ,000 " i� : � � r t 4,°) 4 4 h (b C° 41 4 4b 0 0 cbR' � 0 O� O O� � c O 0 0 0 0 O O O\ O� O°b \c) '''\ \ \ \ \ N om' N om' \ \ \ N 000000000000 0 `l, ( 1, Year Figure 2. Fall Chinook salmon runs to the Yakima River measured at Prosser, Washington, *my counts do not account for jacks (Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project unpublished data, source, www.ykfp.org). Coho Salmon Coho in the Yakima River were nearly extinct due primarily to commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia River, which over - harvested wild salmon runs in order to maximize the capture of hatchery fish. In recent years hatchery re- introduction programs, harvest limitations, and improved ocean conditions have dramatically increased coho returns to the Yakima River. This is a mixed hatchery and wild run, but until recently hatchery fish were not marked, making it difficult to distinguish the two stocks. YN hatchery programs and reintroductions efforts seem to grow, each year. The non ESA listed coho runs to the Yakima River are harvested by Tribal, sport, and commercial fisheries in the ocean, Columbia, and Yakima Rivers. 3 David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 Coho Salmon Returns to the Yakima River, Counted at Prosser Dam 9000 co 8000 N 7000 - °Q co c 6000 h CO 5000 •zr v Q M rn M T W g 4000 - N M� �r) a 3000 co N �NN N 2000 - r, T N Q T V/ VJ Q N T T if) g 1000 QL� _ rn cO -- • 7. I Rp cb c g° R P 0\ 0 00 0�'0 00 \ 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 \ ) \� '\� \°' \C ) \ �\�\� \ \ \�'\ NC \C6 ti /090 tie0(t ,0tipti0rp /0ti /0ti 9/ 0 g o Year Figure 3. Coho salmon returns to the Yakima River are predominantly hatchery fish, *my counts do not account for jacks (Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project unpublished data, source, www.ykfp.org). Steelhead Trout Recent improvements in steelhead returns to the Yakima River probably reflect improved ocean conditions. Steelhead return to the Yakima River from late August through February, and spawn from February to June throughout the basin. During the 2009 -2010 run, steelhead counted at Prosser Dam on the lower Yakima River exceeded all counts from recorded runs (6,793). The 2010 -2011 run demonstrated the second highest adult return, that we have record of (6,197). The 2011 -2012 return of steelhead is currently occurring, and a yearly total run size will be available late this spring, but with a count of 4,900 (last updated number, 2/27/2011) the return is tracking similarly in size to the last few high runs. This is a wild run with no significant hatchery influences. It's a success story for the Columbia River basin. Although steelhead are listed as a threatened species in the Mid - Columbia region, recent analyses suggest Yakima River steelhead runs are relatively stable and productive compared to other Columbia River steelhead runs. Sport and commercial harvest is not allowed on wild steelhead in the Columbia Basin, although harvest of hatchery fish continues outside the Yakima River Basin. Continuing to be involved in research, monitoring and evaluation studies and programs in the Yakima River Basin is, in my opinion, a priority for irrigation interests. The Mid - Columbia distinct population segment of summer steelhead may, in the near future, demonstrate adult returns that warrant ESA delisting, plus studies continue to inform 4 David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 policy decisions, so the momentum seems to be heading in that direction. This is something to continue to keep informed about. Steelhead Returns to the Yakima River, Counted at Prosser Dam 8000 M 7000 CO ,To- W 3000 _ ._ .._ O "5 N O O 5000 _ - - - - - -- o v r- o rn co 4000 , M - co co m m ,n m (Ni rn ,- co co -0 3000 — cn N N ___ co N Q N V �. N N N N 1 N M _ T T 0 C h C C C 5 C cb cb`bC°`C c w c b o ° 0 C5 C 5 C C) C 5 o 0 0 I ° N N CO C5 C5 C5 c5 C5 C5 Figure 4. Steelhead trout returns to the Yakima River basin as counted at Prosser Dam (Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project unpublished data, source, www.ykfp.org). Video Fish Counting The fish are counted at one of the 3 fish ladders at Prosser Dam with an enumeration method called video fish counting. Yakama Nation staff can play, pause, and fast forward through video footage to count the fish species. I'll provide a few pictures from my graduate school colleague, Jeff Trammell, who leads the tribal counting program. IPlli ll . PittPihlr — Spring Chinook 5 David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 Fall Chinook Coho oda Steelhead �.. Sockeye, 11 sockeye returned in 2011 Other Species and Summary In future year's I'll report on sockeye, summer Chinook, and Pacific lamprey returns, as programs are being developed by the YN and WDFW to enumerate and supplement, or reintroduce the respective stocks. Of those species, I have been very involved in discussions with the YN, Bureau of Reclamation, US Fish and Wildlife Service and various other entities about plans to reintroduce Pacific lamprey. The irrigators will likely be engaged in fish screen improvements, fish passage alterations and in monitoring efforts. I'll continue to keep you informed on these topics. In summary, I'll provide this final table, which demonstrates over the last 27 years the recorded adult salmon and steelhead, combined returns, for reference. 6 David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 Adult Salmon Returns to the Yakima Basin 35000 ___ 30000 _. -_-. -. 25000 20000 111. 15000 10000 - - -_ 5000 II iT L II Q i T : I - � 0 1 984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 • SPC a FCK • COH Figure 5. Adult spring Chinook (SPC), fall Chinook (FCK), and coho (COH) returns to the Yakima River basin as counted at Prosser Dam. *my counts do not account for jacks, which at times can be 30% of run, especially in spring Chinook returns (Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project unpublished data, source, www.ykfp.org). 7 David Child, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Biologist, Fish Count Report, Mar. 2012 DEPARTMENT OF N ews R e l ease ECOLOGY State of Washington Washington Department of Ecology news FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — March 2, 2012 12 -074 Time is right to move Yakima water program forward YAKIMA — Gov. Chris Gregoire is urging Congressional and state support for a plan that bolsters water supplies in the Yakima basin and implements one of the most significant ecological restoration projects undertaken in the West. "Water is the lifeblood of our state," Gregoire said. "Our communities, our $1 billion agricultural industry and our fish all depend on a reliable source of water to survive and to thrive.'I'm very pleased with the progress made by the Department of Ecology and the Bureau of Reclamation to reach agreement on the future of water in the Yakima River Basin. I urge that we move forward and implement this new program — the sooner we're able to provide a constant source of water, the sooner our entire region will benefit." Last fall, Gregoire joined Rep. Doc Hastings and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in Yakima to garner support for the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan endorsed by a diverse group of water interests. The plan calls for improving water supplies for the Yakima Basin Irrigation Project and providing fish passage at 100 - year -old reservoirs in addition to other fish and habitat enhancements. Today, the Bureau of Reclamation and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) announced the release of a final programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates the impacts associated with an integrated plan designed to meet the basin's water and aquatic resource needs. The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan provides a balanced approach to addressing water shortages through additional surface water and underground water storage, enhanced water conservation, market -based water reallocation, and structural and operational improvements. The plan also improves the Yakima basin's environmental health by protecting and enhancing habitat, providing fish passage at reservoirs, and making targeted land acquisitions on a willing - seller basis. The Yakima River Basin stretches from the crest of Snoqualmie Pass to Benton City, where the river drains into the Columbia River. It supports a rich farming base with crops ranging from timothy hay and mint, to perennial apple and cherry and peach orchards, and annual crops of asparagus, potatoes, and row vegetables relying on irrigation. Office of Communication and Education, P O Box 47600; Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 O printed on recycled paper If you have trouble receiving this document or have a change in your contact information, email sender or call (360) 407 -7006. Gov on Yakima Basin Plan - 2 of 2 Increasingly frequent water shortages, coupled with predictions of reduced snowpack due to our changing climate, have brought once conflicting water interests to a common table in support of the plan. In June 2009, Ecology and Reclamation brought representatives from the Yakama Nation, irrigation districts, environmental organizations, and federal, state, county, and city governments together to form the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) Working Group to help develop a consensus -based solution to the basin's water problems. The goal is to seek authorization and funding from both the U.S. Congress and the Washington State Legislature to begin implementing projects outlined in the integrated plan. The work group adopted the plan in 2011 that led to the preparation of the EIS released today. Individual projects will each receive specific environmental review. The document serves as an umbrella framework for the entire plan. The plan will be further refined based on the comments received during the programmatic environmental review and forwarded to the U.S. Department of Interior for authorization and policy consideration by Congress and the state Legislature in 2013. Last summer, Gregoire joined state and federal leaders in Moses Lake to celebrate the construction of the Weber Siphon that will deliver water to the parched Odessa Subarea of the Columbia Basin Project. During that event, Gregoire directed Ecology to accelerate work to also provide a reliable water supply to the Yakima Basin, a long -time priority of hers. More information available online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cvvp/YBIP.html # ## Media Contact: Joye Redfield- Wilder, communications manager, 509 -575 -2610, jred461 n,ecy.wa.gov Pacific Northwest Region Boise, Idaho Media Contact: Venetia Gempler, Reclamation Joye Redfield- Wilder, Ecology (208) 378 -5020 (509) 575 -2610 For Release: March 2, 2012 Final Programmatic EIS for Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Released The Bureau of Reclamation and Washington State Department of Ecology today released the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (Integrated Plan). The Final PEIS evaluates two alternatives to meet the water supply and ecosystem restoration needs in the Yakima River Basin: 1) the No Action Alternative; and 2) the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Alternative. The Integrated Plan's seven elements include: reservoir fish passage; structural and operational changes to existing facilities; surface water storage; groundwater storage; habitat /watershed protection and enhancement; enhanced water conservation; and market reallocation of water. The Integrated Plan Alternative is identified as the Preferred Alternative. "This environmental impact statement provides a framework for addressing the basin's water needs holistically by balancing those needs," said Derek Sandison, Ecology director of the Office of Columbia River. "Now we have a real opportunity to achieve success where in the past water management has been historically contentious." A programmatic EIS evaluates the effects of broad proposals or planning -level decisions that may include a wide range of individual projects; implementation over a long timeframe; and /or implementation across a large geographic area. A PEIS does not evaluate site - specific issues such as precise project footprints or specific design details that are not yet ready for decision at the planning level; therefore, any projects selected for implementation will require subsequent project - level, or site - specific environmental reviews. The PEIS satisfies National Environmental Policy Act and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act requirements. The Final PEIS will be faunally filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 2, 2012. Questions regarding the Integrated Plan Final PEIS may be sent by email to vrbwep(ci)usbnizov or by mail to the Bureau of Reclamation, Attn: Ms. Candace McKinley, Environmental Program Manager, at 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, Washington, 98901; (509) 575 -5848, ext. 613; Fax: (509) 454 -5650. Hearing impaired persons may dial 711 to obtain a toll free TTY relay. (More) Reclamation and Ecology offices and local libraries will have copies available for viewing; the document is also posted online at: http: / /on.doi.gov /wt7aRz. Also, interpretative maps and graphics showing the impact area of the plan can be seen here: http: / /on.doi.gov /xKN3cE # ## Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov. Relevant Links: http://www. usbr. zov http: / /wvvw. usbr .gov /pn /programs /yrbwep /2011 integratedplan /index.htnii. http: / /www. usbr. gov /pn/ programs /yrbwep /2011integratedplan /meetings /scoping /110513 -IP- Boards.pdf COVER STORY: SPECIAL REPORT I By Victoria K. Sicaras r The urge . to merge .4.., As local tax bases shrink, a handful of , states are leading the way in pushing the hit, consolidation envelope. ome say it was a long time coming. In November, more than a cen- tury after New Jersey's Princeton Borough seceded from Princeton Township over a school tax dispute, residents voted to bring the goy- t ' ernments back together effective Jan. 1, 2013. The new Princeton will 1 :' serve a combined population of roughly 29,000. The move makes sense. The borough is completely surrounded by the town - ship. Residents reached a resolution long ago about the 1894 tax dispute and combined schools. Today, the two communities share more than a dozen pub- ► lic services, including animal control and fire. Nevertheless, it took four tries since 1953 to get voters to approve a merger. Even with shared services, the effort will encounter headaches. The one- . time cost of the consolidation, as estimated by a joint commission, is S1.7 mil - With the pending merger of their respective lion. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reportedly offered to pay 20 %. As the two fleet operations, San Benito County Public Princetons become one, police, public works, and other departments will hate I ) Works Administrator Steve Wittry (left) to be merged with some anticipated, to remove redundancies. and City of Hollister, Calif., Public Works I Director Clay Lee will provide for the (continued) ', , the county, heavy equipment; the city, WEB EXTRA passenger vehicles. The transition is also : ' made easier because of proximity: both R operations are located in Hollister, the For more examples of consolidation efforts, look for this logo at www.pwmag.com. - , county seat. Photos Nick Lo'.epy PhotejrJ0, . ,. 1 :•,r 1 ■ •,) r.• , ‘ Public Works 29 r COVER STORY Services such as trash, leaf, and brush Two years later, New York State leg - STREAMLINING EFFORTS collection will have to be readjusted. islators passed The New N.Y. Gov - ON THE RISE And laws and ordinances will have to ernment Reorganization and Citizen Many of our largest cities, be reworked. But the annual savings Empowerment Act, which took ef- including Boston, Philadelphia, created by the union is estimated to be fect March 2010. The law's provisions San Francisco, and St. Louis, $3.2 million. make it easier for local government were defined — or redefined — by At the state level, the unification of the entities to be abolished by their gov- consolidation. The first occurred in Ivy League community is a milestone for erning body or citizens. It reduces the 1805 1805 when the City of New Orleans g Y merged with Orleans Parish; in the governor's office. This is the first mu- number of petitions needed for a res- I 1898, New York City absorbed what ru�pal merger since Christie took office ident to propose dissolution on a bal was then one of the nation's 15 in 2010 and began urging New Jersey's lot — from about 33% of a population, I largest cities: Brooklyn. 566 municipalities to combine opera- depending on type of jurisdiction, to a Since New Orleans, less than 40 lions to help cut government costs and unified 10% no matter the jurisdiction. city - county consolidations have hold down increases in property taxes, Other states "nudging" local units been implemented, according to the which are the nation's highest. As part to share services or merge include II- National Association of Counties. of his initiative, Christie has cut aid to linois, Ohio, Maine, and Pennsylva- But more than one quarter of those towns and capped annual increases in nia. Last year, Illinois Gov. Pat have occurred since 1990. Y Quinn local taxes at 2 %, forcing local decision- signed bills allowing Chicago area road Most fail at the ballot. The most makers to consider consolidation in lieu districts to be abolished in certain cir- recent attempt was in November 2010, when voters were asked of eliminating services. cumstances (i.e., referendum) and es II to decide on a proposed merger tablishing a committee to examine the between the City of Memphis A trend among states state's nearly 7,000 local governments and suburban Shelby County in Christie is among a small but grow- and recommend what can be merged. Tennessee. The proposal narrowly ing list of governors taking action to Other states' tactics include: won in Memphis, but was crushed restructure or consolidate local gov- • Reducing general aid to smaller by the county. ernments. The idea behind the push: municipalities The number of city mergers Local governments can operate with • Passing legislation to transfer select is more difficult to tally. It's easier fewer workers and smaller budgets if responsibilities from municipalities for small communities that are P more dependent than big cities on they combine services and operate re- to counties state aid to gain voter support and gionally by folding towns into cities • Amending laws and codes to en- successfully integrate. and cities into counties. courage greater intermunicipal co- Forexample, before voters The states leading the reforming ordination and regional planning approved last November's proposal trend are New York and New Jersey, • Restructuring nonmunicipal entities to merge Princeton Township and although there have also been efforts such as school districts and library Princeton Borough into "Princeton" in Indiana and Michigan and stirrings systems to set minimum population (see page 34), the most recent elsewhere, says Mayraj Fahim, a Con- or enrollment numbers municipal merger in New Jersey was in necticut based reorganization consul •Creating public awareness programs absorbed when Hardwick Township ab ta ut and local government adviser for • Offerin ants and aid to localities sorbed Pahaquarry Township, g !;� which had dwindled to fewer than a The City Mayors Foundation, an inter- sharing services or choosing dozen residents. national think tank on urban affairs. consolidation. In Minnesota, rural jurisdictions also The governors of all four states have, in The fledgling trend, however, still has are giving up home rule to merge with recent years, criticized the fragment- a way to go. In an exclusive survey ad- neighboring cities and pool resources. ed structure of their local government ministered in January, we asked if your The most recent occurred Jan. system — the multitudes of cities, state is pushing for consolidation of lo- 1 when Hennepin County's final towns /townships, villages, and special cal governments and /or services. Of remaining township, Hassan, was districts operating independently of the 539 Public Works readers who an- annexed by the City of Rogers. The each other — and proposed that legis- swered the question, half said no. Barely city's outward development and lators enact bills to eliminate nonviable more than a quarter of respondents said growing population combined with the township's need for infrastructure units, reduce state aid to these units, or their state is either taking steps to foster (Rogers has sewer and water utilities strengthen and streamline counties. consolidation or is considering that op and Hassan doesn't) was a big In 2007, before Christie took office, tion (see chart on page 31). motivator. According to the city's New Jersey established the Local Unit website, the combined jurisdictions Alignment, Reorganization, and Con- Alternatives: sharing services also will have a "louder voice" in solidation Commission to examine re- If a complete merger isn't feasible or regional and state government. aligning the state's local governments desired, there are other ways to main - and the services they provide. tarn services for less taxpayer cost. 30 PublicWorks February 2012 www.pwrnag.com © share this article at http: / /go.hw.net/pwmerge i t: it Ij` ; A F t• -fir - IP . . .1 Y � 1 Hollister, Calif., Equipment Mechanic Ernie Castillo's job will become more specialized WHO'S GOT THE URGE TO MERGE? after his city and the county merge services. To save money, some states want to merge local governments or have them In California, San Benito Coun share management of select services. Has your state consolidated local ty and the City of Hollister are taking governments and /or services? steps to merge fire protection, sheriff/ 13% • Yes police, and fleet maintenance services. 51% • No il ■ "Both agencies are trying to minimize 11 Not yet, but it's being considered general fund expenditures as much as possible;' explains Steve Wittry, the 2% ■ We're in the process of consolidation Il■--- county's public works administrator. 19% ■ Don't know Fleet services came into consid- 5% • Does not apply Vr eration because county seat Hollis- Source: Pueuc WORKS ter and San Benito County both have similar fleet maintenance facilities. / But while the county's is set up pri- marily to service large trucks and If your agency is considering consolidating equipment, the city's is set up for pas- with another, sharing services, or signing an senger vehicles. The consolidation will keep both facilities open by al- intergovernmental agreement, one of the best lowing each to specialize. With the pieces of advice comes from Tad Blanton field Cf ' ° �- `� " '� "_ — operations supervisor with the Medford Public city emp working on passenger cars and emergencyvehicles ,vehicles Works Department in Oregon: "There has to be can be serviced and placed back on a willingness on the operational level to do this, the street more quickly. (continued) and it has to make sense." www.pwmag.com February 2012 PublicWorks 31 COVER STORY j Wittry also doesn't anticipate any re- i "" - duction in staff. 1 , But first thing's first. To consolidate ,ea--* ` services, Wittry says identifying and 111, I evaluating costs is key. "We need to an- i alyze the age of the respective fleets, - , annual maintenance requirements, expected service turn - around, cost - - comparison to private firms, and then =�"'� 'r package the information for elected ,� officials" The evaluation will be corn • pleted in time for the county's fiscal i year budget process to begin in June. – Another way to share services is -,t ! - through intergovernmental agree- ments (fGAs). In Oregon, the state DQ. � Ir' DOT, Jackson County, and a handful ? , i ,;,,,.,,,,..,,, '_ , ,. of cities have been working together ♦ ''' both informally and under IGA con - � � i t , � c tracts for at least a decade. 0 r "Different jurisdictions have dif- ' `, . \ ferent specialties. By combining our efforts, we've made all of our orga- ,. 1J nizations more efficient:' says Tad joy Blanton, field operations supervi- 1 In California, San Benito County and the City of Hollister plan to merge fleet services because Blanton, with the City of Medford Public continuing statewide budgetary issues T like a deficit of around $13 billion — are trickling Works rks Department. down to city and county agencies. (continued) ®1 • THE CASE FOR CONSOLIDATION Mayra Fah is a local government reorganization consultant based in Connecticut. She is als the local government adviser for The City Mayors Foundation, an international think tank dedicated to urban affairs. In her early career, she was a municipal finance specialist, Now she's a living encyclopedia on "intergovernmental cooperation" efforts, both past and present, here and abroad. She Irli.,. supports integration of local governments, citing France (the first country to integrate local governments due to fragmentation) and Canada's British Columbia and Ontario as best - practice examples. I Our system of towns, villages, and — in particular — special districts, Fahim says, economically and demographically segregates citizens. She fears that if left unchecked, the system could produce a - developing- country profile in which the upcoming majority- minority class of citizens (born last year) The rich are getting richer won't be able to provide enough tax revenue to support government funded public aid programs. and the poor, poorer. Consolidation ensures "Fragmented governance has meant poor education and poor job prospects," Fahim explains. equal access to public "To me, this is the greatest consequence of America's avoidance of integrated local governance. services for citizens of all What's needed is more service integrations, interlocal cooperation for economic development, and economic means, says local small consolidations." government consultant Enlarging a service area produces a more economically diverse constituency, ensuring the most Mayraj Fahim, vulnerable residents don't experience the degradation in public services or educational institutions that they might in smaller jurisdictions with more limited revenues. Fahim also stresses the importance of local units working together not just to save money, but also to build their respective economies. "When we look past the current financial challenges, we shouldn't lose sight of what lies on the horizon," Fahim says. "Maybe the federal government needs to encourage this if the states do not." The federal government is already poised to set an example. In January, President Barack Obama proposed consolidating the Commerce Department's core business - related functions with five smaller agencies: the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export- Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp., and the Trade and Development Agency. The proposal, which aims to reduce duplicative programs and shrink federal bureaucracy, requires congressional approval. 1 32 PublicWorks February 2012 www,pwmag.com COVER STORY .o f d, II For example, Medford has its own paving 1 �� I 1IrrI c rew with a full -size highway paver, the coun- l ik ty doesn't but can provide chip- sealing, and �the DOT performs deicing and has its own + 4 chemical storage facility. B.y working together, p I Q � � + elOrylr.ii � o ne entity can access all three services — and � � trained personnel — without having to hire 10° i , �� •N,: f a contractor or buy additional equipment. ..... .` j i�!�� "We don't have to invest in equipment we • �,�;* 1 �Ir�r don't use all the time, and neither do they;' 1 �� • t �''ott0 1 . •��VA s Blanton. s , A ♦, - 1 4� � ,`„ Another benefit of IGAs is that, by pro - • V 4 1 'v . go o viding regional services, Medford's Equip - 1 / � � me Maintenance Division brings in rev- ' `� ` enue to help offset costs. And when paying � i for services from governmental agencies s IP % if TWO BECOME ONE. Some say next year's merger of New Jersey's Princeton wip o "Princeton" works only because the two , IPrince Borough .... communities Borough and had Princeton similar To popul int and tax rates and that, b ecause they'd shared 13 services, estimates of $3.2 million in annual savings are overoptimistic. But in a state with the most municipal bond downgradings, at least one financial Princeton Township analyst, Moody's Investors Service Inc., terms the move "credit positive." The new 44 Princeton will have about $112 million in combined debt, which is about 16% of r ✓ the operating expenses of each. Map: Center for Govemmentai Research Inc. HOW WOULD YOU SPEND I •••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••• • • • •••••• • • III •• • • • • ••• ••• • •• ••• • • • • •• • • • •• • ••• • ••••••• • Cilli ••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••• ••• •••••••••••••••••••••••• ' •• Each of these dots represents 10,000 jobs that could be created with the $423 billion currently spent on metallic ' -- corrosion annually. uwiztng not -arp gaivanizea steel provuies maur[enance - Tree corrosion protection ror tai- years, allowing you. to invest in the future. How would you spend the savings? . 40 Erw:IeM Ar �■ alvanizeit.or /buildafuturel A" m n A m e ric an Gal va nize r Ass American Galvanizers Association Circle 337 on reader service card 34 PublicWorks February 2012 www.pwrnag.com I that aren't profit - oriented, the fee isn't ities will consider merging with their local governments that have exhausted Is high as a contractor's. neighbors. Stenberg predicts the next their downsizing options to seriously Blanton adds that because there aren't few years will bring a perfect storm consider consolidation. lot of contractors who do specialized of continued softness in housing val- Local government reorganization municipal work in the area (i.e., pre- ues leading to lower property tax rev- consultant Fahim agrees: "We're going ventive pavement maintenance), part- enues, more state budget cuts to lo- to see a greatly reduced tax base, so its Hering with other agencies is benefi- cal programs, and further reductions clear that fragmented local governance vial for his city. "In our case, isolation in federal discretionary grant pro- of the order currently in place will not breeds jurisdictional interdependence grams. This may force cash- strapped be able to be maintained." Pw because we just don't have a lot of op- dons," he says. Why localities say no En December 2011, the International City/County Management Association published Coping with Crisis: How Are 4 Local Governments Reinventing Them- selves in the Wake of the Great Recession? ., By reviewing more than 246 articles in . the association's newsletters from April 2009 to April 2011, author Carl Sten- berg, professor of public administra- don and government at the School of Government, University of North Car- olina at Chapel Hill, determined that local governments have weathered the economic downturn by reducing staff and services. But they've refrained from consolidating functions or governmen- tal units with neighboring jurisdictions, and have been reluctant to form collab- orative partnerships. One reason is lack of trust. As Med- - ford's Blanton explains, "There can be rivalries, and a wariness in working - My with larger agencies that may want to �1p dictate work. Smaller agencies want to keep their authority" As one of our survey respondents wrote: "I don't feel [the concerns of] the residents of our township would get Brooke Davies the attention they deserve:' •, F _ ., Ourliry and Process Engineer Another reason is that while consol- e - idation eases financial burdens in the short term, costs may creep back. "In PRODUCT' the past, any such reorganization cost DRIVEN the state even more money while the waste continues:' says a surveyrespon Service and integrity distinguishes Inlmer as a leader dent from the Western region. in CIPP pipe renewal. Along with superior in-the-field Then there are the constituents, who customer service, Inlmer brings innovative products ,. have final say on such proposals (see and technical expertise to your job. Experience the l iner sidebar on page 30). Even with high difference exceptional service and products can make on your project. technologies 7es unemployment rates, they're willing to pay higher taxes to keep their commu- 812/723-0704 IN LIN ER. NET nity identity and autonomy. Taxes, however, are why more local- Circle 341 on reader service card www.pwmag.com February 2012 PublicWorks 35 Current Issue I icma.org Page 1 of 7 ICMA Press / PM Magazine / Current Issue MARCH 2012 VOLUME 94 • NUMBER 2 COVER STORY Do y ou '4 PO Harnessing the Power of Community Collaborations Use Seven Tools to Get Results by Lyle Wray and Paul Epstein A Midwestern county with approximately 400,000 residents was concerned about a high number of high school students dropping out. Members of the county board and staff joined local mayors and school superintendents over several working sessions with teachers, parents, and students to review the facts about who dropped out, explore likely strategies that would be successful in reducing dropout rates, and develop an action plan. Later, in regular meetings, the working group looked at data on dropouts and developed ways to further reduce dropouts, including reaching out to new partners in various communities to help with the task. This real -life example won't seem unusual to local government managers. It is hardly new for a manager to lead or be part of a process of partnering with residents and other stakeholders to respond to an important community challenge or aspiration —from reducing high school student dropouts, to increasing community safety, to reducing childhood obesity—and spearhead action toward results. Many challenges faced by communities are complex and resist easy solutions. Across the nation, communities of all sizes are grappling with challenges that fit neither a single solution nor a single organization. Too often, we try to assign to a single organization the burden of developing and implementing solutions that are beyond its grasp alone. Making a single agency solely responsible for a complex, hot issue is often a sure -fire way to dissipate community energy or to unite community energy against that organization. Local governments, of course, have been coming together for a long time to address important issues and get results. What is different today is that the traditional impulses to work together as a community can be strengthened by complementary tools that should make these efforts more successful. Most of the tools themselves are not new, but they emerged from different disciplines and thus are rarely used together. In this article, they are arranged into a community results toolkit, which is intended to help managers pull together community collaborations and solve complex problems. The toolkit can also help assure that action plans become reality and produce measurable community improvements. In a 2006 book, Results That Matter: Improving Communities by Engaging Citizens, Measuring Performance, and Getting Things Done, the authors of this article along with Paul Coates and David Swain identified ways to improve community governance through collaboration between residents and organizations. Collaborations bring more http: / /webapps.icma.org /pm/9402 /public /cover.cfm? author = Lyle% 20Wray %20and %20Paul %20Epstein &t... 3/5/2012 Current Issue 1 icma.org Page 2 of 7 assets to address community issues than , organizations working in isolation, with some of the .-<„„,,,,,, most effective collaborations involving measurable results that the collaborators want to achieve. - :,,-,, , ,- 4401 In a 2011 article for the Stanford Social Innovation ; - Review, authors John Kania and Mark Kramer used F 4 ' .- ,; . the term "collective impact" to refer to the commitment of a group of important actors from 4-4., �� different sectors to a common agenda for solving a , ,,,,s specific social problem. Successful collective action =a _ ''.-- involves a common agenda, a common [performance] measurement, a continuous and amt 11 reinforcing i �� communication, d u ua y act on ..* . : , 4 . among the parties. A The bottom line in the authors' experience is that "'" , s successful change often comes from better cross- "= east , ,,- , -° " sector coordination rather than from isolated 'i I w " ii interventions of individual organizations. "� �� ` -* The community results toolkit brings together these � 1, seven tools to help make community collaborations more manageable, more responsive to community needs, and more accountable to the community for . , : results: , ` ---Q,„..,,, ' � n Robust engagement of residents as partners in multiple , roles. e . . ® Causal diagrams to diagnose the problem. •-. � �.' . . '' ..,,!:t . o Evidence -based practices. , Z; o Strategy maps. >'" o Performance measurement of drivers and outcomes. o Detailed action plans keyed to strategy, performance, and partners. o Community results compacts. 1. ENGAGING RESIDENTS IN MULTIPLE ROLES Too often we think of residents only as stakeholders in an issue or customers of a service, and we forget that they can play other powerful roles as partners in community problem solving. You can channel their energy constructively by supporting their efforts in multiple roles. This idea has been explored in previous PM articles and in Results That Matter, which includes a quick guide to supporting citizens in multiple roles (Table 1). Resident engagement should not stop with building consensus to address a problem; instead, it should be used throughout the problem - solving process, as Table 1 suggests. Potentially, residents can be involved in using any of the tools outlined in this article. 2. CAUSAL DIAGRAMS TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM Stakeholders often come to the problem - solving table with different definitions of an issue and with different solutions in mind. To become productive partners, it is important that they reach a common understanding of the problem. http: / /webapps.icma.org /pm/ 9402 /public /cover.cfm? author = Lyle% 20Wray %20and %20Paul %20Epstein &t... 3/5/2012 Current Issue I icma.org Page 3 of 7 They need to define the problem in a way TABLE 1: Quick Guide to Supporting Residents in Multiple Roles of Resident Engagement. that sorts the complexities into root causes MAJOR ROLES HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT OR STRENGTHEN THE ROLE of the problem and other causal drivers of Residents as Stakeholders ` Help residents organize and associate with each other close to home. desirable or undesirable results so they can • Customers find where they can best leverage • Owners Ensure residents have an opportunity to influence things they care • Interested parties about as stakeholders, improvement efforts. Fishbone diagramming Help residents get technical and political help and find the from the field of quality improvement is a I "leverage" they need. reliable causal diagramming tool, as in the R esidents as Advocates Help residents "learn the way things work" in the community, and child obesity example shown in Figure 1. _______— _- _____._., help them learn from each other to be effective advocates. Residents as issue Framers Foster deliberative processes in which people listen to each other An effective fishbone diagram can be created . F oun dation b and make hard c hoices. in a group exercise that will strengthen (e.g., vision, strategic g ' goals) •Agenda setters , Ensure residents are engaged early to set agendas, define prob- collaboration by generating a common (issues, budgets) terns. and identify solutions. definition of the problem. Once a causal • Problem definers • Solution identifiers Encourage community-centered, boundary -crossing problem solving. diagram is developed, partners then can identify which root causes and causal Provide support to make residents' assessments rigorous. 1 credible, and useful. drivers are most actionable, to help them R esidents as Evaluators p ' Provide residents with periodic reports of performance data on find practical solutions. _ issues and services of concern to them. Help residents voice their opposition to get attention needed for 3. EVIDENCED -BASED PRACTICES compromise that respects their interest. TO GET RESULTS I Help residents recognize different stakeholder interests and to think beyond opposition to forge effective compromises needed to solve problems. Using evidence -based practices for problem Residents as Collaborators Organize opportunities for residents to contribute to their comma- solving increases the chance of success. • C ompromisers l nity as co-producers. • Co- producers Solutions offered from a variety of • Asset leveragers I Help residents identify and leverage community assets (including viewpoints can be put to the test of whether themselves) to make limited investments go further and get big ) things done. there has been research or practice -based i Identify " sparkplugs" to energize community co production projects, evidence to show that they in fact do work. i and support them in organizing the community. That can help a community partnership Source: rpetein el. al (200e), Results That Matte,. (San Frnecisco. lossey flaw). p. 21 I lsed with psi nasnn avoid wasting resources on fashionable but ineffective solutions. For some issues, there are evidenced -based guides available. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, has developed "The Community Guide," an online resource (www.thecommunityguide.org) used across the country by local public health departments and their community partners that describes practices that have been subject to research and have been found to be effective in addressing a wide range of community health issues. There is also research to be tapped for evidence -based practices on youth and education issues among many other fields; see "Developmental Asset Tools," on the website of the Search Institute at www .search- institute.ot•g /assets. Searches of research in appropriate fields— perhaps guided by academic partners —can help identify potential tested solutions for the problem at hand. Also, city and county managers can draw on such benchmarking with other jurisdictions as that promoted by ICMA's Center for Performance Measurement to identify communities with better results on issues or services of concern and find out which practices they are using. 4. STRATEGY MAPS TO STRUCTURE THE COMMUNITY RESPONSE AND IMPROVE COMMUNICATION AMONG PARTNERS Complex community problems rarely lend themselves to a one - dimensional solution. After identifying evidenced - based practices, a community partnership has to view those practices through the lens of its own community to determine a combination of solutions that will be effective. http: / /webapps. icma.org /pm/9402 /publis /cover. cfm ?author= Ly1e %20 Wray %20and %20Paul %20Epstein &t... 3/5/2012 Current Issue! icma.org Page 4 of 7 The partners need to consider driver FIGURE 1: Childhold Obesity: Fishbone Diagram "Casual Map" relationships among the different community actions they are considering, so EARLY they will implement them in a way that some PRE RACTICES PRACTICES LIFE STYLE actions will drive the success of others, ,, eau Boltla Peafer I tom gleeful freihou No ire In .4_ ultimately driving achievement of desired vrteje We less Ruh and ee Food Pee • community outcomes. A strategy map is an Dwell "" .'. � � `'d` 4 � excellent tool for mapping out these driver ""b n / less Adalaal ,cpne / Qem Unnge relationships. For an example of a strategy I I cOUSE 4 map, visit icma.or osceolacount . BdeFn:rornen "" p g / y Sealers Nol TodbW 0. • Uelellmr Food Duos ► tamer! Gees ` • Strategy maps don't have to use balanced- "o SIdew*s ■ fe Recall:cal Ares a ' Na bald' repponme scorecard perspectives. They do need to so. .;' less indoor !Atilt ayrmas "'ad"d le show driver relationships in the : TVPafret/4 ; / IleireildRmSdod ""a°E° community's improvement plans. A strategy " map not only structures the community's NENETICE ENVIRONMENT POLICIES approach to a complex issue; it also is a powerful communication tool to help Source: Public Health Foundation partners find their roles in the strategy, and it shows how their efforts relate to efforts of others. A map can be used to break down silos between existing partners and to help recruit more partners to the cause. 5. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OF DRIVERS AND OUTCOMES TO SHARPEN THE STRATEGY Once drivers and outcomes are identified, they can be used to develop performance measures that reflect those driver relationships and become an integral part of managing the strategy to improve outcomes. If you are looking to reduce childhood obesity, for example, you might track after- school recreational programs and improved school nutrition programs. 6. DETAILED ACTION PLANS TO ADD DISCIPLINE TO THE STRATEGY AND Resources PARTNERSHIP Epstein, P., P. Coates, and L. Wray, with D. Swain. Results that The use of detailed action plans is certainly not Matter: Improving Communities by Engaging Citizens, new to managers. Most probably have their Measuring Performance, and Getting Things Done. San own favorite formats for detailing tasks, Francisco: Jossey -Bass, 2006. timelines, and responsibilities. Action plans will Epstein, P., L. Wray, and C. Harding. "Citizens as Partners in be stronger, however, and more likely to lead to Performance Management." Public Management, November desired community outcomes if they are linked 2006. to a well focused strategy, targeted Kania, J., and M. Kramer. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social performance measures, and community Innovation Review, Winter 2011. partners. Search Institute. "Developmental Asset Tools." No date. A key issue for developing plans for www.search-institute.org/assets. collaborative action is deciding who should be on the action planning team. Teams working on Sirgy, M. Joseph, Don Rahtz, and Dong -jin Lee, eds. Community developing and implementing action plans Quality-of -Life Indicators: Best Cases. Social Indicators ideally should be composed of contributors who Research Series 22. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, can provide content expertise, community 2004. connection, and general support for the overall Truckee Meadows Tomorrow. "Community collaborations." process. Composing teams is an art and one that No date. www.truckeemeadowstomorrow .org /cornmunity- will vary depending upon the issue addressed collaborations. and the community involved. http: / /webapps.icma.org /pm/9402 /public /cover. cfm? author = Lyle %20 Wray %20and %20Paul %20Epstein &t... 3/5/2012 Currefit Issue icma.org Page 5 of 7 •In theory, performance measures and targets U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "The should be developed first, and then action plans Community Guide: The Guide to Community Preventive developed for specific initiatives to hit the Services: What Works to Promote Health." No date. targets. In reality, performance measures and www.thecommunityguide.org. targets that are developed before action plans are often best guesses. You need some idea of Wray, L. D., and J. A. Hauer. "Best Practices Reviews for Local how you will improve performance before Government." Public Management, January 1996. targeting improvement. So, although it helps to Wray, L. D., and J. Hauer. "Performance Measurement to have some critical performance measures and Achieve Quality of Life: Adding Value Through Citizens." Public baseline data identified first, most measures Management, August 1997. and targets are set while action plans are developed. 7. COMMUNITY RESULTS COMPACTS FOR PARTNER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RESULTS Community compacts were used in the early days of the United States to pull together local governments, community members, and civic groups around common principles and efforts. In the past 10 to 15 years, several organizations around the country have revived the idea of compacts, involving organizations from any sector that commit to achieving a desired community outcome. They are community results compacts if they are tied to improvement in performance measures that are drivers of desired community outcomes. A pioneer in results- oriented compacts is the nonprofit Truckee Meadows Tomorrow (TMT), whose Quality of Life Compacts have involved organizations from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors in addressing a wide range of community challenges in the region of Washoe County and Reno, Nevada. These include increasing voter turnout, improving the natural environment, protecting open space, increasing parental involvement in K -12 education, and increasing affordable housing (www.truckeemeadowstomorrow.org /community - collaborations). The Healthy Eating, Active Communities (HEAC) program offers a comprehensive approach to obesity prevention that is place based. HEAC works to prevent childhood obesity by changing the environments children inhabit so these environments encourage healthy choices. To achieve lasting change, HEAC focuses on improving policies and institutional practices. To ensure changes that work on the ground, HEAC pursues these goals through fostering partnerships within local communities and through linking the local work to statewide and national efforts. Six California communities have implemented the HEAC model —each community in its own way —with place -based change and multisector collaborative partnerships, including neighbors, schools, public health departments, and the medical community. Community results compacts can be even more powerful if used in combination with several of the other tools in the community results toolkit. There will be, for example, more community legitimacy to compacts, more organizations likely to join compacts, and compacts better - focused on achieving important community results if: - ® Residents and stakeholders are involved in identifying the issue to be addressed and outcomes to be achieved. H Multiple organizations and community members participate in causal diagramming, evidence gathering, strategy mapping, or action planning that lead to the compact. • Performance measures in the compact relate to performance measures of drivers and outcomes in a structured collaborative strategy to get results. Connecting community results compacts with a collaborative strategy involving performance drivers and outcomes can be particularly powerful. http: / /webapps.icma.org /pm/ 9402 /public /cover.cfm? author = Lyle% 20Wray %20and %20Paul %20Epstein &t... 3/5/2012 Current Issue I icma.org Page 6.of 7 If two desired community outcomes, for example, are to reduce the number of days per Online Learning year of unhealthy air quality and to reduce the If you would like more information on community results carbon footprint of the region, then: compacts, consider the webconference that was held in • Government and private organizations with large December 2010 with Lyle Wray. More details on this fleets could sign a compact to increase the webconference availability is at learning.icma.org percentage of clean - burning alternative -fuel vehicles in their fleets, which Washoe County did in an early TMT compact. ® Gas stations in the region could sign on to make cleaner- burning blends available to all customers. to Private developers could sign on to produce a percentage of housing and commercial space that meets LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards for sustainable buildings. Each partner is individually accountable for improving results for the performance drivers it can most influence, and, collectively, all partners are mutually accountable for achieving the desired community outcomes. USE THE SEVEN TOOLS In a time of fiscally constrained resources, it is critical to leverage community members as partners, to offer the best available knowledge on what works, and to develop and carry out action plans in communities to address a range of significant challenges. Putting together the seven tools described here offers the prospects of effective collaborations to achieve results around important common goals. ENDNOTES ' Public Management (PM) magazine articles include L. D. Wray and J. Hauer, "Performance Measurement to Achieve Quality of Life: Adding Value Through Citizens," August 1997; and P. Epstein, L. Wray, and C. Harding, "Citizens as Partners in Performance Management," November 2006. Lyle Wray, Ph.D., is executive director, Capitol Region Council of Governments, Hartford, Connecticut (lyle.wray@gmail.com). Paul Epstein leads the Results That Matter Team (www.RTMteam.net), Epstein & lass Associates, New York, New York (paul@RTMteam.net). Learn about the benefits of joining 1CMA and receiving PM magazine as part of your benefits package. To subscribe to PM, call 202 /289 -ICMA (202/289 -4262) or e -mail bookstoremanager @icma.org. SOLAR AMERICA '{ COMMUNITIES http: / /webapps. icma.org /pm/9402 /public /cover. cfm? author = Lyle %20 Wray %20and %20Paul %20Epstein &t... 3/5/2012