The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/25/2000 Adjourned Meeting 240 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JANUARY 25, 2000 ADJOURNED MEETING The City Council met in session on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the 2nd Floor Training Room, at the Police Station /Legal Center, 200 South 3rd Street, Yakima, Washington. Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Larry Mattson, and Bernard Sims were present. Dick Zais, City Manager; Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager; Ray Paolella, City Attorney; Marketa George Oliver, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager; Rita Anson, Director of Finance and Budget; Don Blesio, Police Chief; Bill Cobabe, Neighborhood Development Services Manager; Kay Adams, City Engineer; Shelley Willson, Streets & Traffic Division Manager; Judge Martin; Jeff West, City Prosecutor; Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney; Cindy Epperson, Accounting Manager; Joan Davenport, Supervising Traffic Engineer; and Mike Morales, Grants Writer, were also present. CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF STREET AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REPORT AND ISSUES: A. STREET FUNDING GRANT /LOAN REVIEW B. OVERLAY PROJECT PRIORITIES 2000 C. SIX -YEAR PLAN /PRIORITIES D. TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS E. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN OPTIONS FOR FUTURE FUNDING Mayor Place called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. Dick Zais, City Manager, Mike Morales, Grants Writer, Rita Anson, Director of Finance and Budget, Bill Cobabe, Manager of Neighborhood Development Services, Shelley Willson, Streets and Traffic Manager, reviewed the staff report regarding the City's FY 2000 Transportation investment Strategy dated January 13, 2000 and responded to Council's questions. Rita Anson reviewed the chart in Section VI of the report, "Sources of Revenue to Finance Transportation Infrastructure" (included below). She described the revenue options listed, noting that no staff recommendation was provided, and indicated which options would require approval by a vote of the people based on the requirements of I -695. 241 JANUARY 25, 2000 — ADJOURNED MEETING SECTION VI SOURCES OF REVENUE TO FINANCE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE (This chart presents some options provided by existing state law. No recommendation pro or con or prioritization is intended to be suggested by inclusion of or sequence of items in the chart.] . PURPOSES AUTHORIZED POTENTIAL YIELD REVENUE OPTION AUTHORITY LIMITATIONS HOW ESTABLISHED [1999 ESTIMATE] Non -voted debt WA Const., < 1.5% Total Art 8 Sec 6 General Government Capital Bond Ordinance Passed by CC $32,000,000 Assessed Value RCW 39.36.020 Revenue must be identified /obligated [unused debt • Within City Ch. 39.46.RCW To pay debt service capacity] . • Voted Debt- WA Const., General Purpose Art 8 Sec 6 Capital Improvements 60% Majority $60,000,000 Total City Debt RCW 39.36.020 including Streets General Obligation Bonds [unused capacity, < 2.5% Total Ch. 39.46 RCW includes non -voted Assessed Value capacity listed above] within City Tax < 6% on Private Utilities, i.e. RCW 35.21.870 General Government - Remove $4,000 /customer /mo. $300,000 annually Electricity, telephone YMC 5.50.050- including Streets lid Natural Gas 060 Business & . $2,250,000 annually Occupation Tax RCW 35.21.710 General Government Simple Majority Election [$1,125,000 per each 0.2% Gross Receipts including Streets additional O.1%] Tax > 6.0% on Private Utilities, i.e. RCW 35.21.870 General Government • _Simple Majority Election $817,000 annually Electricity, Telephone including Streets to exceed 6% per each 1% Natural Gas Tax on Public Utilities, i.e. Ch. 7.64 YMC General Government Rate Ordinances Passed by $142,000 annually CC Refuse, Water, Sewer including Streets per each 1% Capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a Ordinance Passed by CC as 2nd 1/4 RE Excise RCW 82.46.035 Comprehensive plan authorized by $350,000 annually Tax New projects would require comp plan simple majority voting in general• amendment or special election • 2 • 242 JANUARY 25, 2000 — ADJOURNED MEETING PURPOSES AUTHORIZED • POTENTIAL YIELD • REVENUE OPTION AUTHORITY LIMITATIONS HOW ESTABLISHED [1999 ESTIMATE] Admissions Tax RCW 35.21.280 General Government Simple Majority Election $190,000 annually < 5% Ticket Price including Streets Community Development Block Grant Federal Grant City allocation of Federal Grant Re- allocation of funds Uncertain ( "CDBG ") Restricted to Target area public from existing programs purposes Brokered Natural Gas Excise Tax RCW 82.12.022 General Government Ordinance passed by CC to $12,000 annually • Max 6% including Streets Obtain state pass through Additional Sales Tax- $3,650,000 annually Transit RCW 82.14.045 "Public Transportation" Purposes Simple Majority Election [$1,217,000 annually up to 0.6% Per each additional (addl. 0.3 %) 0.1%] Motor Vehicle and special Fuel Tax Transportation Purposes Approval of county legislative Uncertain 10% of state rate RCW 82.80.010 including Streets body and a simple (2.3 cents /gal.) majority of the registered voters Vehicle License Fee (up to $15 per RCW 82.80.020 Transportation Purposes Simple Majority Election Uncertain County- . qualified vehicle) including Streets wide Commercial Parking RCW 82.80.030 Transportation Purposes Simple Majority Election Uncertain Tax including Streets Local improvements including streets and alleys LID assessments are based on Local Improvement Ch. 35.43 RCW "...levy and collect special special benefits and are not Can only be assessments Districts (LIDs) On property specially benefited Taxes. Consequently, the City determined in thereby to pay Council would not relation to specific the whole or any part of the expense" be legally required to obtain projects voter RCW 35.43.040 approval to establish LIDs. 3 243 JANUARY 25, 2000 - ADJOURNED MEETING PURPOSES AUTHORIZED POTENTIAL YIELD REVENUE OPTION AUTHORITY LIMITATIONS HOW ESTABLISHED [1999 ESTIMATE] • Ordinance Passed by CC that requires certain Reimbursement Street projects which the owners elect projects as a prerequisite to Can only be Contracts for Street, Ch.35.72.RCW to install as a result of ordinances that further property development determined in relation Road, and Highway require the projects as a prerequisite Developer reimbursement and to specific projects Projects To further property development latecomer contracts are not taxes. Consequently, the City Council would not be legally required to obtain voter approval to establish such contracts. IMPACT FEES: Note: Cities are authorized to require impact fees to pay for improvements necessitated by new development ' Fire, Parks, Schools, Street Capital Projects. "...cities...that Impact Fees RCW 82.02.050- plan under RCW 36.70A.040 Imposed upon development as Can only be a 0.09 are authorized to impose impact condition of development determined • fees are development activity as part approval in relation to of • the financing for public facilities" specific projects Mitigate off-site transportation impacts ' That are a direct result of proposed Generally: requires a plan development adopted under Ch. 39.92 Transportation Ch.39.92 RCW Provide a portion of the funding for Can only be Impact Fee reasonable and necessary off -site determined in relation transportation improvements to solve Specifically: monetary charge to specific projects the cumulative impacts of planned imposed on new development growth and developments in the plan for the authorized purposes area. City Manager Zais pointed out that the irrigation utility is not currently taxed (Council made the policy decision to exempt it while building capital reserve funds) but it could be, and would also I/ require an election. Another option that is not on the list, is a one -year special levy. City Manager Zais said staff is not advocating or recommending any of these options and some are more palatable politically. • 4 , 244 JANUARY 25, 2000 - ADJOURNED MEETING He suggested that the Council should establish, on a more permanent basis, a Citizens Capital Improvement Advisory Committee. Council Member Mattson said the issue of leverage is important to understand and it is critical to have a citizens committee help the general public understand that. Mayor Place asked if Council wanted to talk about traffic capacity options for the Concurrency Ordinance. Kay Adams, City Engineer, said the current proposal is to increase the standard from 600 to 800 vehicles per lane. Council Member Barnett asked if 'it would be more realistic to bump the number up to 1,000. Mr. Adams said that would be more realistic. City Manager Zais said that staff plans to bring the issue to Council next week with legislation to set a public hearing. Mayor Place asked if at the time the matter is before Council, would it be possible for Council to go to the 1,000 car standard if they wanted to do so. Mr. Zais answered yes. Shelley Willson explained that changing the capacity would immediately change the level of service (A, B, C or D, etc.) and therefore the City would no longer be forced to deny development,, based on the locally -set standards. Council Member Mattson clarified that the Council can come back later and change the standard to 1,000 if they wish to do so. Mrs. Willson distributed a letter from Bill Huibregtse regarding lane capacity and peak hour volumes: Mayor Place said for now the Council will proceed to raise the standard to 800 vehicle per lane. PROSECUTION SERVICES • Mayor Place said they were now going to discuss the issue of shoplifters who take under $50 worth of merchandise and excused staff members who were not needed for this discussion. City Manager Zais said that while this subject was not on the agenda, staff put together some information about the impact of the eliminated prosecutor position. Mr. Zais reminded the Council that a Prosecutor position had been eliminated in the Legal Department budget as a result of the passage of I -695. Mayor Place said she had received numerous calls from storeowners about this issue. Ray Paolella, City Attorney, gave Council background information regarding staffing in the Legal Department. Due to the addition of the Municipal Court and a shift in responsibilities from the County to the City to prosecute domestic violence cases there was a dramatic increase in case load and Council authorized a fourth prosecutor position. Then the City was faced with revenue reductions as a result of I -695 and the Legal Department reviewed their options for cost - saving reductions. They reviewed the issues being prosecuted and met with the Police Chief and Court representatives to discuss how to best make those cuts. Council Members expressed concern that if shoplifting offenses of $50 value or less were not prosecuted it would increase these types of crimes. 5 2.45 JANUARY 25, 2000 - ADJOURNED MEETING Chief Blesio responded to Council's questions regarding whether the police will even respond to a minor shoplifting call. Jeff West, Assistant Attorney, reported that in 1999 there were approximately 600 shoplifting cases. Council Member Sims asked what the creative solution is to solve this problem. City Attorney Paolella said it essentially comes down to a budgetary issue. Council Member Mattson was absent after 8:53 a.m. Due to a lack of a quorum, the meeting adjourned at 8:53 a.m. to February 1, 2000 at 7:30 a.m. in the Police Station /Legal Center for a Study Session on stormwater issues Ar - READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: i / � O I/ do. CIL MBER D ATE 'OUNCIL MEMBER / /DATE ATTEST: City Clerk Mary Place, Mayor Minutes prepared by Marketa George Oliver. An audio and videotape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office • 6