The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/26/2014 1.4 Strategic Plan and Business Plan ReviewITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: See attached. BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 4. For Meeting of: July 26, 2014 Review of Strategic Plan and Business Plan Tony O'Rourke, City Manager Resolution: Ordinance: Other (Specify): Contract: Contract Term: Start Date: End Date: Item Budgeted: Amount: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Description 0 retreat 1 0 retreat 2 0 retreat 3 City Manager Upload Date 7/23/2014 7/23/2014 7/23/2014 Type Cover Memo Cover Memo Cover Memo CITY OF YAKIMA Council Strategic Workshop DISCUSSION AGENDA July 26, 2014 Hilton Garden Inn, Yakima 10:30 Call to Order Introduction of Workshop by Mayor Times are approximate 10:45 Most Proud: Achievements of City Participants identify achievements, strengths, attributes of the City and community of which they are most proud. Discussion: How We See Yakima in 2018 Participants brainstorm desired futures for the City; their vision for what the City could look like in 2018 (internal and external). Based on observations, participants discuss what they see as strategic opportunities for the City. Core Strategies: Shared Strategic Priorities for the City Council members examine current strategic priorities in context of the morning discussion. Priorities are affirmed or amended, additions are considered as well as priorities which should drop. 12:15 Working Lunch Governing Together: E Pluribus Unum City Councils deal with difficult and complex decisions where finding agreement is not always easy. Participants discuss how— together — they work to achieve the strategic priorities. Conversation highlights the leadership practices of effective governance, including modeling the way, and characteristics of high -performing governing boards. Summary Discussion: Action Steps and Expectations Assignments and timeframes to refining the strategic priorities; how obstacles will be addressed Review of Day Impressions and feedback for the Day 2:30 Adjourn UPDATED 17 July 2014 E PLURIBUS UNUM The general meaning of each Latin word is clear: Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural." Unum is related to the English word: "unit." E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" — a phrase that elegantly captures the symbolism on the shield. ALTA MESA GROUP ©2013 Alta Mesa Group LLC Building Blocks of Effective Governance 1. Clear Sense and Unity of Purpose 2. Common Definition of Roles and Relationships 3. Culture of Team Success Based on Integrity, Trust and Respect 4. Structure and Process Focused on Ends Sense and Unity of Purpose A common focus on the difference the organization makes in the lives of its stakeholders. The core values and key goals the council members hold in common about the community and the services the organization provides. The clear sense and unity of purpose helps board members transcend their differences to fulfill a greater purpose. The Reality • You were appointed as an individual, but serve as a member of a team. • You don't have the authority as an individual to fix the problems you want to fix. • Your success as a board member and organization is inextricably tied to the success of your board and your staff. JIThe Board's responsibility for itself: A common understanding of how the individuals will work together to accomplish the unity of purpose. Boards should have a well-defined definition of their function. The performance of that role and the relationships among members must be defined through conversation, mutual definition of those behaviors and practices expected of the members and the chief executive, and mutual responsibility for the board's performance. Roles and Relationships Strong Governing Boards effectively work with their executive: Recognition that the role of the board and that of the chief executive and the professional staff are truly separate. With the complexity of governance in today's organi- zations, the balance is less one in which there are firm boundaries to roles, and more one in which stakeholders, board members and professional staff view themselves as mutually © 2012. Alta Mesa Group, LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction without permission. supportive partners in the unity of purpose, problem solving, and the delivery of agency services. Board's Focus on Ends • Goal setting — retreats • Exploration and analysis — committees • Disposition and policy — regular meetings • Stakeholder relations — stay in touch with the community and donors • Resource stewardship — effective direction to staff I A Culture of Team Success How the board leads as a team: How collectively and individually the board models and practices behaviors which inspire others, drives performance, shares authority and responsibility, and demonstrates to stakeholders a caring about people, the community and the unity of purpose. Team members value differences while recog- nizing the importance of finding common ground. Trust is built around understanding and respect, not necessarily agreement. Successful boards appreciate the profound influence of interpersonal practices on governance and strive to develop expected norms. Focus on Ends Bifocal vision — The board is forward thinking both on immediate ends and the creation of policies with a long- range perspective. Immediate ends are aligned with long term priorities. Strategic agility— The board manages political diversions to avert detours and focus its efforts and those of the staff on the immediate ends and collective goals. It guides these "means" through clear and consistent expectations of outcomes. ALTA MESA GROUP Model of Governance in Local Government Typical Tasks Determine purpose of organization, establish long-term vision, determine services and service levels, set strategic goals and priorities Pass ordinances, approve projects and programs, ratify budget, identify ends and outcomes, establish values and perspectives in policy Make key implementation decisions (i.e. siting), handle complaints, oversee administration, set decision boundaries, review performance measures Suggest management changes to manager, approve labor and other major contracts, review performance of organization in manager review k D Mission and Vision • • Adminis ration ••• • • • • • ........... • • • • • ••• E u Management V E Typical Tasks Advise, options, past practice, analyze conditions and trends, identify constraints Make recommen- dations on all decisions, formulate budget, determine service distribution formulae, create implementation plans (means) Establish practices and procedures, make decisions for implementing policy, monitor performance Control human, financial, material, and informational resources of organization to support policy and administrative functions Adopted from: Svara, J.H., 1985. Dichotomy and Duality. Reconceptualizing the Relationship between Policy and Administration in Council -Manager Cities. In: Public Administration Review 45:228, and Carver, J., 1997. Boards that Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Towards Board Governance Effective governing boards are built on a framework to guide their thoughts, actions, structure and relationships. Ideal elements include: 1. "Cradle" vision Systematic encouragement to think the unthinkable and to dream. 2. Explicitly address fundamental values The board is the guardian of organizational values; it focuses on deliberations and explicit pronouncements on those values. 3. Force an external focus Be more concerned with external responsiveness than with the internal issues of organizational mechanics. 4. Enable an outcome -driven organizing system Establish an outcome -based mission and procedurally enforce the mission as the central organizing focus. 5. Separate large issues from small ones Spend time on the large issues. 6. Force forward thinking Strategic leadership demands the long-term viewpoint and the majority of the board's thinking on the future. 7. Enable productivity Boards press towards leading and not reacting; more in creating than in approving 8. Facilitate diversity and unity Optimize the richness of board composition and opinion, yet still assimilate the variety into one voice. 9. Describe relationships to relevant constituencies Boards are both trustees and accountable to constituencies and therefore must define how these accountabilities coexist in their governance. 10. Define a common basis for discipline How the board governs practices self-discipline; to stick to its job description and rules of governance. 11. Delineate the board's role in common topics The role of the board and the executive on any topic is clear. 12. Determine what information is needed Precise distinctions about the amount of information that is needed: not too much, too little, too late, or simply wrong. 13. Balance overcontrol and undercontrol Clarify those aspects of management which need tight versus loose control; avoid being a "rubber -stamper" or a "micromanager." 14. Use board time effectively Sort out what really needs to be done to enable boards to use the precious gift of time more productively. Adopted from Boards ThatMakeA Difference, John Carver, 2006, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. COVER STORY 10 Habits Of Highly Effective Councils Carl H. Neu, Jr. ocal government operations directly affect our daily exis- tence and experiences and the quality of life that we per- ceive we have within our communities. No local govern- ment deserves, nor should its citizens tolerate, a council or governing body that isn't extraordi- narily effective and competent in leading the community. Thomas Cronin, a recognized authority on public policy, defines leadership as "making things happen that might not otherwise happen and preventing things from happening that ordinarily might happen. It is a process of getting peo- ple together to achieve common goals and aspirations. Lead- ership is a process that helps people transform intentions into positive action, visions into reality." The quality of leadership effectiveness demonstrated by a governing body and its ability to be a highly effective council are not attributes bestowed upon it by a swearing-in cere- mony. They are the results of disciplined adherence to a set of fundamental principles and skills that characterize highly effective governing bodies. Here, then, are 10 "habits" of highly effective councils, based upon the author's observa- tions of hundreds of governing bodies over the past 20 years. 4 NOVEMBER 1997 IThink and Act Strategically El A council's primary re- sponsibility is not just to make policy or to do its "Roman emperor" routine (thumbs down or thumbs up) on agenda items at public meetings. It is to determine and achieve the citizens' desires for the community's future. Councils and their administrative teams must accept responsibility for shaping the future of their communi- ties by expanding their mental hori- zons to identify and meet the chal- lenges that must be addressed through decisive leadership and through shared goals for the attainment of that future. A strategic leader always comes from the future and takes you "back to the future" from the present. This leadership adventure starts with a vi- sion and evolves into a definition of the strategic issues that must be mas- tered to achieve the vision. The next step is the development of long-range goals that address these strategic is- sues and that provide a decision-mak- ing and budgetary basis for the suc- cessful implementation of these goals. Living from one annual budget to an- other and from one council meeting to the next condemns your commu- nity and its future to happenstance and to the type of thinking that often befuddles national governance and policy. For this reason, polls show that an overwhelming majority of citizens want important issues affecting their lives to be decided at the local, home town level. Here, they expect leader- ship, sound thinking, and decisive ac- tion. In spite of this citizen expecta- tion, a 1996 survey conducted by the International City/County Manage- ment Association (ICMA), "Survey of Current Practice in Council -Manager Governments," indicates that fewer than 40 percent of all councils set long-term strategic goals to guide their semimonthly forays into decision making. 2 Understand and Demonstrate the Elements of Teams and Teamwork By law, councils exist and have authority only when their members convene as bodies to do business. They also are components of corporate beings that must speak, act, and fulfill their commit- ments with one voice and in a mature, effective, and reliable manner. Councils are collections of diverse individuals who come together to constitute and act as an entity, and only when operating as an entity can they exercise authority and perform in fulfillment of their purpose. This is a classic definition of "team." Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto, two pre- eminent authorities on teams and team- work, define a team as an entity com- prising two or more people working together to accomplish a specific pur- pose that can be attained only through coordinated activity among the team members. In short, a team exists to ful- fill a specific function or purpose and is made up of disparate, interdependent people who collectively achieve a capac- ity that none of its members could demonstrate individually. Teams always have two components that we might call their S components: systemicness and synergy. All teams are systemic by definition, being made up of interdependent parts (people) who af- fect each other's performance and that of the team. Synergy is the ability to achieve an effect, when working to- gether as a team, that is more than the sum of the team members' individual ef- forts. While all teams are systemic, rela- tively few are genuinely synergistic un- less their members understand, master, and demonstrate the fundamentals of teamwork, which are: • A clear sense of purpose. • A clear definition of the roles and re- lationships that unite individual tal- ents and capacities to achieve team performance. • Integration of members who have basic technical, interpersonal, and decision-making competence. • A commitment to team success and performance excellence. • A climate of trust, openness, and mu- tual respect. • Clear standards of success and per- formance excellence. • The support, resources, and recogni- tion to achieve success. • Principled and disciplined leader- ship. Highly effective councils spend time building their sense of being a team and enhancing their skills in productive teamwork. Master Small - Group Decision Making Most councils are classic small groups, with fewer than a dozen people. Small groups demonstrate certain skills and behaviors that link their members to- gether. They also have knowledge of the processes they must follow to make de- cisions in fulfillment of their purpose. Figure 1 summarizes the skill sets essen- tial to small -group effectiveness. Clearly Define Roles and Relationships Each team member, whether mayor or councilmember, makes a contribution to and has a relationship with the team. Contributions and relationships must be defined in terms of the role to be as- sumed and how that role is to be carried out through the behavior of the person in the role. A role has two elements: function, the specific responsibilities of that role, re- gardless of incumbency; and perfor- mance, the behavior of the person occu- pying the role in fulfilling his or her responsibilities. Councils, through char- ter, statute, or ordinance, have a clear definition of their function. The perfor- PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 5 Figure 1. Effective Small -Group Decision Making An EFFECTIVE Small Group Interpersonal Skills The ability to work with others • Listening to and understanding the views of others • Constructively confronting and resolving differences . • Supporting others and showing respect for their ideas • Participating actively in discussions • Taking "time outs" to discuss how well group members interact Task Skills Knowledge to do a job • Knowing the form and role of the organization • Knowing law, policies, and procedures • Showing civility and good manners • Using professional and technical knowledge Rational Skills Ability to deal with issues and problems rationally • Selecting and prioritizing the issues to be addressed • Analyzing issues and related facts • Identifying objectives and outcomes • Considering alternative strategies and courses of action • Assessing obstacles and consequences • Reaching consensus decisions • Evaluating and following up mance component must be defined within the team through discussion and mutual definition of those behaviors and practices expected of the mayor and councilmembers in the conduct of their duties and interactions. Vince Lombardi, when asked what made a winning team, replied, "Start with the fundamentals. A player's got to know the basics of the game and how to play his [her] position. The players have to play as a team, not a bunch of indi- viduals. The difference between medi- ocrity and greatness is the feeling the players have for each other," that is, their relationships. Teams talk about and de- fine expected roles and relationships and give constructive feedback to their members on the degree to which they are fulfilling these expectations. Establish and Abide by a Council -Staff Partnership We have all heard the saying "Council makes policy, staff implements policy." Well, this is a total misconception of re- ality. Policy making and policy imple- mentation are not distinct and separate functions. Policy making/implementa- tion is a continuum of thought and rela- tions that transforms ideas and abstrac- tions (visions, policies, goals, and plans) into defined, observable ends or out- comes (results, programs, buildings, streets, deliverable services). Council and staff share this continuum as part- ners ensuring each other's success. Each person plays an important role in mak- ing sound policies and in ensuring their effective implementation through reli- able administrative practices and perfor- mance. Figure 2 depicts this partnership and continuum. John Carver, a widely acclaimed au- thor who writes about boards that make a difference, discusses this partnership as one in which councils define the needs to be met and the outcomes to be achieved. He believes that councils should allow staff, within council -estab- lished limits, to define the means for achieving these ends. He sees a council - staff linkage that empowers staff to do its tasks and to be evaluated on the re- sults produced. Councils that accept and abide by this partnership focus their energy on estab- lishing vision, goals, and good policy and on empowering effective staff perfor- mance. Councils that do not do this will frequently fall into micromanaging, that is, they will perceive a need to become involved in, or retain approval over, even minor staff activity and plans. A critical element and important council task in this partnership is evalu- ation of the manager or administrator, based upon clearly defined goals, poli- cies, and established guidelines on exec- utive performance. According to the 1996 ICMA survey, only about 45 per- cent of all councils formally evaluate their managers' performance. 6 Make a Systematic Evaluation of Policy Implementation Councils, like most legislative bodies, frequently exhibit the Jean Luc Picard syndrome (Star Trek II) and simply tell their staffs: "Make it so." They assume that council action equates to policy and program implementation. The next time the council hears about policy is when a problem or crisis arises. In contrast, highly effective councils 6 NOVEMBER 1997 Figure 2. Council -Staff Partnership (To What Degree Is This Partnership Understood, Discussed, and Respected by Councilmembers?) GOVERNANCE/POLICY PROCESS COUNCIL'S SPHERE', • Community • Political factors • Values • Gratification P 0 L I' C` y_ 0 U N C I L A continuum/interaction A D M I N A D' N I S T R_ A T I 0 N ADMINISTRATOR/ MANAGER'S SPHERE • Staff and implementation • Performance issues • Values and expertise • Gratification expect periodic feedback on policy re- sults and on possible policy amend- ments that may be required. This feed- back can be provided through progress reports, status memos or newsletters, and policy reviews. 7 Allocate Council Time and Energy Appropriately Councils, like other teams, play in a number of settings or arenas to achieve overall, peak performance. There are four council -staff arenas, and each must be appreciated for its purpose and for its contribution to a council's effectiveness: • Goal setting (retreats or "advances"). • Exploration and analysis (study sessions). • Disposition/legislation (regular pub- lic meetings). • Community relations (interactions with constituents and with other agencies). Figure 3 shows the purpose, typical setting, focus, and key characteristics of each arena. All four arenas are essential to highly effective councils' fulfillment of their leadership, policy-making, goal - setting, and empowering responsibilities. A highly effective council will hold at least one goal -setting retreat or "ad- vance" annually. It also will hold two study sessions monthly, usually between regularly scheduled public hearings. Here, councilmembers will confer with staff and other experts on significant items under consideration that will eventually require official actions. While these meetings should be open to the public as observers, the public should not participate in the council - staff dialogue. Many councils short- change this arena, pushing the opportu- nity for learning into the formal public hearing, which is not designed to pro- mote much in-depth analysis of complex issues. The arena of disposition/legislation is designed to get to a vote, not to pro- mote careful analysis of complex issues. The fourth arena, community rela- tions, is becoming more important. It is rapidly transforming the role of the council and how it spends its time. Communities today are more dependent upon sophisticated alliances and part- nerships among groups, both public and private entities. Jurisdictions are subject to multiple, profound changes in how public officials operate. Today, the com- munity arena requires more time spent in interactions outside city hall and puts greater time pressure on mayors and councilmembers. Set Clear Rules and Procedures for Council 111111 Meetings Council meetings exist for the purpose of doing the council's business. Litera- ture on how to conduct effective and productive meetings specifies the need for an adherence to clearly defined rules and procedures. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 7 G 0 A A D M -Z<C c.7w ,WZH ', M L I I - -- S '•. P N S / 0- _ I S R L '", S I E I 's T 0 S C R---_ N U Y A L T T I S 0 N A D M I N A D' N I S T R_ A T I 0 N ADMINISTRATOR/ MANAGER'S SPHERE • Staff and implementation • Performance issues • Values and expertise • Gratification expect periodic feedback on policy re- sults and on possible policy amend- ments that may be required. This feed- back can be provided through progress reports, status memos or newsletters, and policy reviews. 7 Allocate Council Time and Energy Appropriately Councils, like other teams, play in a number of settings or arenas to achieve overall, peak performance. There are four council -staff arenas, and each must be appreciated for its purpose and for its contribution to a council's effectiveness: • Goal setting (retreats or "advances"). • Exploration and analysis (study sessions). • Disposition/legislation (regular pub- lic meetings). • Community relations (interactions with constituents and with other agencies). Figure 3 shows the purpose, typical setting, focus, and key characteristics of each arena. All four arenas are essential to highly effective councils' fulfillment of their leadership, policy-making, goal - setting, and empowering responsibilities. A highly effective council will hold at least one goal -setting retreat or "ad- vance" annually. It also will hold two study sessions monthly, usually between regularly scheduled public hearings. Here, councilmembers will confer with staff and other experts on significant items under consideration that will eventually require official actions. While these meetings should be open to the public as observers, the public should not participate in the council - staff dialogue. Many councils short- change this arena, pushing the opportu- nity for learning into the formal public hearing, which is not designed to pro- mote much in-depth analysis of complex issues. The arena of disposition/legislation is designed to get to a vote, not to pro- mote careful analysis of complex issues. The fourth arena, community rela- tions, is becoming more important. It is rapidly transforming the role of the council and how it spends its time. Communities today are more dependent upon sophisticated alliances and part- nerships among groups, both public and private entities. Jurisdictions are subject to multiple, profound changes in how public officials operate. Today, the com- munity arena requires more time spent in interactions outside city hall and puts greater time pressure on mayors and councilmembers. Set Clear Rules and Procedures for Council 111111 Meetings Council meetings exist for the purpose of doing the council's business. Litera- ture on how to conduct effective and productive meetings specifies the need for an adherence to clearly defined rules and procedures. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 7 Figure 3. Arenas for Governing Body and Staff Exploration and Arena Goal Setting Analysis Performance Disposition/ Legislation Community Relations Purposes • Establish vision • Explore potentials • Set goals • Set direction/ priorities - Community - Services - Staff action -Budgets Typical Setting Retreat or advance— informal off-site workshop • Understanding the issue(s) • Problem identification • Selecting "best options" • Building commitment Study session— conference room • Taking official action • Voting on items -Resolutions -Ordinances • Gathering public input • Mobilizing support Public—formal council meeting in chambers • Interacting with constituents/citizens • Building alliances • Doing outreach and liaison • Coordinating with other entities Numerous— diverse formats Focuses Key Characteristics • Future of community • Evaluation of - Needs - Trends - Strategic issues • Community desires and values • Leadership • Informality • Sharing of options • Open dialogue • Creative thinking • Humor and adventure • Face-to-face/group interaction • Developing knowl- edge for decision making • Sorting of options • Examining consequences • Setting strategies • Making competent and informed decisions • Starting council -staff dialogue • Questioning and test- ing ideas • Exchanging information • Negotiating and consensus building • No voting • Face-to-face/group interaction • Going through the agenda (formality) • Showing authority • Ratifiying/adopting • Dealing with political pressures • Identifying psychological needs • Meeting formally • Setting and following rules and procedures • Encouraging public input and involvement • Gaining high visibility • Dealing with pressure/advocacy from groups • Voting • Interacting as groups • Communicating • Problem solving • Collaborating and coordinating • Forming partnership(s) • Acting as a community • Being "outside" city hall • Responding to requests • Starting joint ventures • Facilitating interagency activity • Using multiple inter- action modes and communication techniques Many councils, however, drift from these rules and procedures in pursuit of informality, collegiality, and "just being nice." They let their meetings drone on with a lack of focus, redundant com- ments, and endless discussion. Rules and procedures do not pre- clude citizen input, courtesy, or sensi- tivity to public concerns and view- points. They respect all these elements and the necessity to conduct business in an orderly, disciplined, and productive manner. 8 9 Get a Valid Assessment of the Public's IN Concerns and an Evaluation of the Council's Performance Elections are contests among individuals vying to become members of the coun- cil. They are not valid, objective assess- ments of the public's feeling about the quality of the council's performance as a governing body and about whether or not it is addressing issues effectively. Highly effective councils seek feedback through a number of market research tools such as focus groups, surveys, and questionnaires. Typically, the phone calls a councilmember receives or the com- ments made in public hearings are not valid or accurate reflections of the entire community's sentiments about issues and about the council's performance. "Market research feedback" should be ongoing and should be included in the annual goal -setting retreat or advance. NOVEMBER 1997 Practice Continuous Personal Learning and Development as a Leader Leaders read, attend workshops, and constantly seek information, under- standing, and insight. Highly effective councils are composed of members who honestly know they don't know it all. They take advantage of the myriad of opportunities to learn and to perfect their skills by reading, going to state and national municipal league workshops, and attending every forum that can ex- pand their skills to lead and govern well. A highly effective council also learns as a council. It works closely with the manager to improve its leadership skills and the council-manager relationship, assessing objectively its performance on each of the 10 habits. This assessment should include the observations of coun- cilmembers, manager, department heads, and selected members of the community who have occasion to work and interact with councilmembers. The effective council should decide where gains can be made, then set up the opportunity through council workshops to learn the skills needed to make these gains. In 1990, Mayor Margaret Carpenter and City Manager Jack Ethredge of Thornton, Colorado, began a process with Thornton's council to increase the council's leadership skills and effective- ness that incorporated the 10 habits de- scribed in this article. First, the council conducted a careful reexamination of the city's mission and the role that it had to assume to ensure fulfillment of that mission. Then, in dis- cussions with the city manager, coun- cilmembers made a commitment to lead- ership innovation and excellence that focused on long-term and strategic issues vital to the community's future. The pro- cess involved advances, close attention to community feedback through focus groups and surveys, and frequent self- evaluation of both council's and staff's The Manager's Role in Building a Highly Effective Council • Focus the council on leadership and achieving a quality future for the community. • Select a time and place to conduct a facilitated discussion about fac- tors affecting the council's effec- tiveness. It is recommended that the manager be involved in this discussion. • Invite the council to assess can- didly and objectively its perfor- mance relative to the 10 habits of highly effective councils included in this article and other effective- ness indicators that councilmem- bers feel are appropriate. • Have the council identify where significant gains in effectiveness are desired. • Develop specific strategies and op- portunities with the council to achieve desired goals. • Schedule specific skill -building workshops for the council. Include key staff members when the focus is on council -staff relationship issues. • Establish a process with the coun- cil to evaluate gains that have been made and to target new opportu- nities for improvement. • Remember: peak performers con- stantly seek to improve their per- formance. They know they are on an endless journey of growth, performance effectiveness, and achievement. performance and sense of partnership. Now, the council holds multiple ad- vances each year to define and validate its strategic perspective and policy leader- ship. Skill development workshops ac- company these advances and focus on defined needs that are identified by coun- cilmembers. Specific "time-outs" are taken to evaluate how the council is func- tioning as a team, as well as how it func- tions with staff and with the community. The continuous quest for effectiveness al- ways begins with the question "Is there more we should be doing to improve our leadership performance and to ensure a quality future for our community?" As Jack Ethredge observes: "The entire process has helped Thornton's council to identify the issues that are essential to achieving our community's goals and to building collaborative relationships with citizens and with staff to agree about the goals. Thornton now is a community of partnerships, all focusing on a vision and using our combined resources to become the city we want to be in the future. There has been a real breakthrough in the amount of creative energy that is moving Thornton forward." The last, and probably most impor- tant, point: Keep your sense of humor. Governance is a serious business dealing with the vital issues affecting our com- munities and the quality of life we expe- rience within them. But humor reduces friction and stress, lets others know that we and they are human, and brings a pause that refreshes our insight and commitment. It is essential to forging and maintaining good relationships. Every community deserves nothing less than a highly effective council that embraces accountability for the commu- nity's performance in creating its future and in effectively addressing, in the pre- sent, those challenges vital to attaining that future. That is what is at stake: our communities' future. With few excep- tions, every council can be highly effec- tive and can provide strong leadership, but to become effective will require a good governance model and disciplined adherence to the fundamental habits of effectiveness. MEI Carl Neu, Jr., is executive vice president of Neu and Company, Lakewood, Colorado. All rights are reserved to Neu and Com- pany and the Center for the Future of Local Governance, 1997. PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 9 aft1 ofykLvvci 2014 Strc!teLc PLciv www.yakimawa.gov Introduction 74(4 4 &faxed Page 1 Strategic Planning Process 2 Strategic Priorities Strategic Priority: Economic Development 3 Strategic Priority: Public Safety 4 Strategic Priority: Improve the Built Environment 5 Strategic Priority: Public Trust & Accountability 6 Strategic Priority: Partnership Development 7 Tot/todathafet, OFFICE uF THE CIT} .4}4'4iGER 129 ,North .Second Sweet CITY HAIL, 1"aktnw. Nashinxton 98901 Phone (509, 575-6040 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I am pleased to present to the City Council for final adoption the City of Yakima Strategic Plan for 2014. The Strategic Plan is a collaboration of the City Council, City staff, and the community to create a dynamic set of strategies and key intended outcomes to move the community and City organization forward over the next several years. The foundation of the Strategic Plan is built on the following strategic priorities: *Economic Development *Public Safety *Improve the Built Environment *Public Trust and Accountability *Partnership Development These Strategic Priorities are based on results from Yakima's Annual Citizen Survey. The Strategic Plan offers direction and focus on issues that are critically important to improving Yakima. The Plan also sets priorities, establishes strategies, and most importantly includes performance measures to monitor and measure progress. The Strategic Plan will require the City Council and staff consideration when developing policies, delivering City services, preparing the City's budget, developing department business plans, and assessing the performance of the City Manager and staff. The following critical steps describe how we will move from words to action and ensure alignment of the City's Strategic Plan, departments and staff work plans, policies, and budget. *Each City department will create an annual Business Plan with specific action -oriented goals, work activities, and performance measures to align with and make progress on the Strategic Priorities. *City Council policy initiatives and discussions will focus on the Strategic Priorities. *Senior management and employee performance evaluations will be linked with the Strategic Priorities. *Strategic Priorities performance measures will be monitored and reported on to hold ourselves accountable for making measureable progress in achieving the strategic commitments, *Communicate quarterly to the City Council and annually to the public through a Strategic Plan Progress Report. *Periodically review the Strategic Plan to ensure that it continues to focus City government resources on the issues most important to the community. Upon adoption, the Plan wit be communicated to the citizens and City staff. I would like to thank the community, City Council, and staff for having the foresight and dedication required to develop a shared purpose and plan to achieve significant and sustainable success for the City of Yakima. Sincerely, Sz&e9 Pig Pweed4 "Strategic vision provides direction to both the formulation and execution of strategy. It makes strategy proactive, rather than reactive, about the future. Strategy is the crossover mechanism for moving from the work as forecasted to the work of our vision." - Colonel Bruce B.G. Clarke Business Model Strategic Plan "Plan" Business Plan "Act" Budget 'Fund' Core Values = Culture Understanding the needs of the City's customers is the foundation upon which this Strategic Plan has been developed. The City surveyed the local community, gathered baseline data from which to develop meaningful performance standards, and conducted study sessions with the City Council to establish strategic priorities and measureable outcomes. COMMUNITY INPUT—"Listening" to the Customer The City mailed a customized National Citizen Survey to 3,000 Yakima residents in June 2013. The survey provided information to allow the City Council to establish priorities in direct response to the needs of the citizenry. Survey results are highlighted through- out this document. DATA ANALYSIS—"Learning" What the Facts Are Information from various sources was utilized to provide background for the development of the Strategic Priorities and will be utilized to plan and execute initiatives to drive the Strategic Priorities. Ecatomc Decie4me.te Through collaboration and partnerships with other public, private, and non-profit entities, the City will aggressively support economic development efforts that will create quality, living wage jobs to ensure a diverse economic base, a resilient and growing City tax base, and long-term economic vitality for the City of Yakima. To move the local economy from recession to recovery, the City will commit to the following initiatives to foster a dynamic and diverse economy for Yakima. STRATEGIES Determine the best location for a public plaza for community events and activities. 2. Attend and promote Yakima's Downtown at the International Council of Shopping Centers annual conference in Las Vegas. 3, Produce Lunchtime Live and Downtown Summer Nights concert series in 2014 and will also create new events in order to attract more people to the downtown. 4. Form a public-private partnership to market and promote air service and secure a fourth flight to Seattle and eventually expand service to destinations like Portland, Spokane, and Salt Lake City. 5. Replace aging asphalt, taxiway lights, taxiway signs and airfield markings to ensure the airport will continually meet Federal Aviation Regulations while also meeting future aviation demands. 6. Develop final plans for the mill site. In addition, right-of-way acquisition for the Cascade Mill Parkway from Fair Avenue to the proposed East—West Corridor will be obtained. 7. Environmental remediation/clean up of the mill site property will happen in 2014. The City will also retain an urban economist to assist the City in the identification of appropriate and feasible commercial and job creation land uses for the mill site. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 Goal Increase the citizen survey rating of those who rate the City's employment opportunities as excellent/good 15% 18% 22% Lower unemployment rate 10% 9% 7% Increase number of business licenses 6,159 6,872 7,022 Increase annual sales tax growth 5% 7% 5% Increase annual lodging tax growth 3.2% 1.5% 3% Increase the citizen survey rating of those who feel safe in the down- town after dark 23% 23% 27% City of Yakima Strategic Plan 2014—page 3 Page& Saptey The City is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for its residents, businesses, and visitors. However, random acts of gang violence. property crime, and auto thefthave created growing concerns about public safety in Yakima. To ensure healthy and vital neighborhoods free of crime, the City needs to increase its community based partnerships in crime prevention, fire and life safety, code inspection. preparedness, and community policing. To that end, we are committed to the following initiatives. STRATEGIES Expand the downtown summer bike patrol to run from March through October, An additional parking enforcement officer will be hired specifically for the downtown. 2. Increase training opportunities for newly promoted employees and leadership development. 3. Deployment of 74 assigned police patrol vehicles. 4. Invest in eight license plate reader systems for the Yakima Police Department to aid in the recovery of stolen vehicles. 5. Hire a Gang Free Initiative manager to ensure effective public and private sector coordination and integration of resources directed toward the prevention and intervention of gang related crime and violence. 6. In 2014, the Yakima Police Department will have two full gang units assigned to work gang crimes. The gang units will also proactively seek out and arrest those individuals responsible for graffiti crimes. 7. Staffing levels at the Yakima Fire Department will be increased in order to reduce the number of "brownout" days. 8. Separate the Communications Center / Dispatch Center manager into two different positions. 9. Develop a design study for the new joint communications center that will be located at the County -owned, Restitution Center in Union Gap. 10. Invest in a new fire brush truck in order to better assist local agencies with wildland fires. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 Goal Citizen rating of safety in their neighborhood (very safe/somewhat safe) 50% 74% 77% Citizen rating of safety in downtown after dark (very safelsomewhat safe) 23% 23% 27% Crime prevention citizen rating (excellent/good) 23% 22% 25% Fire response travel time under five minutes 90% 88% 90% Fire department rating (excellent/good) 84% 83% 86% Police department citizen rating (excellentlgood) 54% 54% 57% Number of commercial structures inspected 0 2,512 4,000 Percent of robberies per 1,000 residents (UCR 1)1 crimes cleared 1.7/ 29.8% 1.49 / 32% 1.3 / 33% Auto theft rate per 1,000 residents / crimes cleared 12.3 / 6.8% 6.418.4% 5.0 / 9.0% Percent of burglaries per 1,000 residents (UCR) / crimes cleared 17.0 / 6.5% 12.1 / 5.6% 11.0 / 6.5% Percent of homicides per 1,000 residents / crimes cleared .07171% .05 / 75% City of Yakima Strategic Plan 2014—page 4 � dte Ear Soimeee The City's overall appearance and infrastructure are critical components of the public's perception of the community's quality and vitality. The current physical environment does not meet the public's expectation. The restoration of the built environment is a necessity. There is a compelling need to resolve and unify the visual quality of the community as well as ensure the provision and maintenance of essential infrastructure. STRATEGIES 1. Hire a graffiti abatement coordinator to coordinate cleanup of graffiti sites soon after they are reported. 2. Implement a pilot recycling program of approximately 600 households. 3. Complete the Collection System Master Plan in order to identify system expansion necessary to accommodate future economic growth. 4. Two additional code enforcement officers will be hired in order to allow the City to be more proactive in responding to code violations. 5. Industrial waste rate study will be conducted. 6. Begin the process of creating a comprehensive connectivity network by identifying existing sidewalks and bicycle lanes and start designing the connectivity master plan. 7. Amend the City's billboard and digital sign regulations to ensure that billboards and digital signs are regulated. 8. Reinstate the traffic engineer position to manage the right-of-way / street cut program. 9. Rehabilitate streets by issuing a 10 -year bond of $16 million to grind and overlay 92 lane miles of arterial streets and residential streets. 10. Install a biosolids (sludge) dryer to produce a Class A, exceptional quality biosolids product that can be sold as a soil amendment. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 Goal Improve citizen rating of the City's overall appearance as excellent/ good 29% 28% 30% Improve resident rating of the City's cleanliness as excellent/good 31% 29% 32% Improve citizen rating of City's code enforcement as excellentlgood 15% 15% 20% Create new downtown design standards No No Yes Improve citizen rating of City streets as excellentlgood 21 % 19% 24% Increase the lane miles of roads overlaid /reconstructed 0 28 92 Reduce sewer inflow/infiltration 10% 6% NA City of Yakima Strategic Plan 2014—page 5 Pea& ?we &,4ccemotealeeeo Based on the 2013 Yakima Citizen Survey, the residents and businesses of Yakima want a City government that delivers higher value and quality in City services. They have also made it clear they want to be more informed and engaged in solving this community's problems and setting its future course. Listening to and responding to the concerns of citizens fosters mutual trust and cooperation. They also want accountability and accessibility from our City leaders as they make decisions that will affect the lives of current and future generations in Yakima. To achieve greater public trust and accountability, the City is committed to increased citizen information, involvement and delivering exceptional and meaningful results. To achieve this we pledge to doing the following. STRATEGIES 1. Implement quality customer service academy for all existing and new employees, 2. Conduct Yakima's third annual citizen survey in late spring / early summer. 3. Implement new financial system software program. 4. Examine bus routes to create more efficient services. 5. Conduct Yakima's third annual employee survey in winter 2014. 6. Establish development service teams that ensure project review is coordinated among all City departments and divisions. 7. Perform a Business Process Analysis of the Utility Services Division. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 Goal Improve citizen excellent/good rating on direction City is taking 28% 31% 35% Improve citizen excellent/good rating on the value of services for taxes paid 27% 26% 30% Improve citizen excellent/good rating of services provided by the City 45% 48% 50% Conduct annual citizen survey Yes Yes Yes Improve citizen rating of City welcoming citizen involvement 30% 32% 35% Maintain general fund operating reserve balance as percentage of general fund expenses 16% 17.6% 16.7% Percentage of citizens who volunteer to some group or activity 54% 46% 50% Improve citizen opportunities to participate in community matters 45% 41% 45% Improve citizens rating of City public information services 48% 47% 50% Improve citizen excellent/good rating on water services 64% 64% 67% Reduce water quality complaints N/A 28 22 Reduce billing errors due to improper meter reads N/A 200 50 Reduce distribution system water Toss N/A 12% 10% City of Yakima Strategic Plan 2014—page 6 SbcategLc punaClry. pa,tegeato Veie€omette The City of Yakima will build cooperative and reciprocal partnerships with local, regional, state, federal, non-profitand private entities to enhance the vitality and quality of life of City residents, businesses, and guests to leverage resources with other organizations to accomplish what the City otherwise couldn't. STRATEGIES 1. Update YPAL facility at Miller Park. 2. Partner with the Southeast Community Center in upgrading the existing facility. 3. Join Yakima County in supporting a transportation revenue package. 4. Partner with the Capitol Theatre to locate funding sources for the necessary work that needs to be done. 5. Attract new businesses and visitors by partnering with Yakima County Development Association and Yakima Valley Tourism. PERFORMANCE MEASURES "The City of Yakima is a critical partner for economic development in Central Washington. By working to revitalize its downtown, expand airport operations, promote tourism, and support local business develop- ment, Yakima is implementing initiatives that lead to jobs and a stronger economy" — Dave McFadden, President, Yakima County Development Association 2012 2013 2014 Goal Establish Yakima Cleanup and Revitalization (CARE) program No No Yes Create Iegislativeladministrative strategy for state and federal issues No Yes Yes Create downtown event partnerships No Yes Yes Create Neighborhood Service Teams No No Yes Create park improvement partnerships No Yes Yes Secure federal and/or state funds for Mill Site No Yes Yes City of Yakima Strategic Plan 2014—page 7 www.yakimawa.gov 2013 City of Yakima Officials Back Row: Council Member Rick Ensey, Council Member Dave Ettl, Mayor Micah Cawley, Council Member Bill Lover Front Row: Council Member Kathy Coffey, Council Member Sara Bristol, Assistant Mayor Maureen Adkison 2014 Council Member: Tom Dittmar City Manager Tony O'Rourke Mascot/Security Murphy 7alee 4 &face/a Introduction City Organization Strategic Priorities BUSINESS PLAN: Strategic Priority: Strategic Priority: Strategic Priority: Strategic Priority: Strategic Priority: Page 1 2 3 Economic Development 4 Public Safety 8 Improve the Built Environment 10 Public Trust & Accountability 15 Partnership Development 17 Summary of Initiatives 19 latitodeedteRet. OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 129 North Second Street CITY HA11, Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509)575-6040 Honorable Mayor and members of the Yakima City Council, I am pleased to present u for your review and adoption the City's 2014 Business Plan. The 2014 Business Plan operationalizes the implementation of the City Council's Strategic Plan that was adopted in November 2012. The Business Plan is the culmination of a comprehensive process undertaken by the City Council and City staff to evaluate community needs and interests and identify the key strategic priorities to move the community and City organization forward. The Business Plan focuses on integrating the City's strategic priorities, key intended outcomes, and performance measures into daily operations. Business Plan: The Business Plan includes a brief description of the City's organizational structure and the City Council's Five Strategic Priorities. 1. Economic Development 2. Public Safety 3. Improving the Built Environment 4. Public Trust & Accountability 5. Partnership Development Each strategic priority section then identifies proposed initiatives to address each strategic priority and achieve the Key Intended Outcomes between January 2014 and December 2014. The Business Plan concludes with a summary of all Business Plan initiatives. Progress Reports: Quarterly and annual progress reports on the implementation status of the Business Plan will be presented to the City Council and community. Each fall, the City will present a "State of the City" report to the community, which will include the Annual Progress Report of the Strategic and Business Plans. Summary: The strategies reflected in the Five -Year Financial Plan, Business Plan and the Strategic Plan allow the City to honor its commitment to the community to provide essential, outstanding, and cost-effective service to its residents and businesses. Once again, I offer my thanks and appreciation to the community for the valuable input they provided. I also thank our employees who embraced these initiatives and the City Council for providing the opportunity for the City to demonstrate its commitment to the community. I look forward to a productive 12 months of implementation of the 2014 Business Plan and will provide quarterly reports to keep the citizenry and City Council informed of our progress. Sincerely, Lnzr City Manager eiev fz94pti,iatioa In July 2012, the City adopted several organizational changes including a reorganization of departments and services. The current organizational structure includes the following services and departments: • City Attorney's Office • Public Safety Services: Police and Fire Departments, 9-1-1 Communications • Finance Department: Financial Management, Budgeting, Purchasing, Utility Customer Services • Information Technology/Radio and electronics • Community Development: Planning, Codes, Neighborhood Development Services • Engineering/Utilities: Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Irrigation • Public Works: Parks & Recreation, Cemetery, Streets, Signs, Refuse, Transit, Fleet • Internal Services: City Manager's Office, Economic Development, Strategic Projects, Communications and Public Affairs, Human Resources, City Clerk • Yakima Air Terminal Assistant to the City Mgr CITY MANAGER Municipal Court Civil Service Commission Chief Examiner ( Community Development Director 2 Animal Control 1 Economic Development Manager 2 Finance Director l Purchasing Police Chief 911/ dispatch � J Fire Chief Fire Inspectors l Public Works Director 2 City Attorney J City Clerk Utilities & Engineering Director 2 Airport r \ Communications & Public Affairs J Human Resources � 1 Strategic Project Manager J Technology Services Radio/ Electronics \ J SzSzate9c Pth'uWe In July 2013, the City contracted National Research Center, Inc. and conducted its second annual citizen survey. On September 9, 2013, the City Council met and evaluated the information gathered from the survey. Council recognized and validated "The Case for Change" had been made to move away from "government as usual" and toward a local government that is customer focused, data driven, and results oriented. Toward this end, the City Council adopted five Strategic Priorities which are designed to address serious economic conditions, meet community expectations, build on the community's strengths and interest in the City, restore the community's trust, and move the City from recession to recovery. • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Through collaboration and partnerships, the City will aggressively support economic development efforts that will create quality, living wage jobs to ensure a diverse economic base, a resilient and growing City tax base, and long-term economic vitality for the City of Yakima. • PUBLIC SAFETY: The City is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for its residents, businesses, and visitors through increased partnerships in crime prevention, fire and life safety, code inspections, preparedness, and community policing. • PUBLIC TRUST & ACCOUNTABILITY: To enhance civic engagement and maximize information outreach by listening to, understanding, and fostering mutual respect with the community. • PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: To build cooperative and reciprocal partnerships with local, regional, state and federal agencies, non-profit and private entities in order to enhance the vitality and quality of life of Yakima residents, businesses, and guests. • IMPROVE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: To improve the City's "First Impression" and ensure investment in community and tourist infrastructure. Page 3 sozarelee ple,paeer Sco#o�tc Deeie4izmote The overall goal of Economic Development as a strategic priority is to aggressively support economic development efforts that will create quality, living wage jobs in order to ensure a diverse economic base, a resilient and growing City tax base, and long-term economic vitality for the City of Yakima. To move the City economy from recession to recovery, the City will commit to fostering a dynamic and diverse economy for Yakima. DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN & RETAIL PLAN Lead Department: Economic Development The Downtown Yakima Master Plan developed by Crandall Arambula consulting firm has identified a roadmap for continuing the successful transformation of Downtown Yakima to a vibrant retail, dining, entertainment and cultural destination, The first step in this transformative process is the creation of a public plaza for community events and activities. Conceptual plans for the proposed public plaza should include a performance area, water feature, seating, curbless frontage, and parking. A Downtown Master Plan Implementation Committee and Retail Committee will be formed to help facilitate the downtown revitalization process and products. Thomas Consultants developed a retail element of the Downtown Yakima Master Plan. Phase 1 of the downtown retail plan is to proactively market Downtown Yakima to potential investors and site selectors. Phase 1 will include the formation of a Downtown Yakima Retail Task Force and attendance at the International Council of Shopping Centers' annual conference in Las Vegas in order to meet with prospective investors and developers. SPECIAL EVENTS Lead Department: Economic Development The City will continue to produce Lunchtime Live and Downtown Summer Nights concert series as well as invest in new and upcoming events such as a Christmas Festival, Cultural Concert Series, Blues and Brews Festival, Spring Barrel Arts Festival, and Fresh Hop Ale Festival. In addition, the City will contribute $15,000 to the Fourth of July Planning Committee for its festival at the Central Washington State Fairgrounds while working with the committee to attract new donors and sponsors. EXPAND AIR SERVICE Lead Department: Airport In February 2013, the City of Yakima took sole ownership of the Yakima Air Terminal. During this transition it was determined that strategies for marketing the airport and expanding air service to Seattle was needed. The City contracted with Airplanners LLC to assist with evaluating the community's needs for air service and to increase the local marketing efforts for the airport. This year a public-private partnership will be formed to market and promote air service and secure a fourth flight to Seattle and eventually expand service to destinations like Portland, Spokane, and Salt Lake City. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS Lead Department: Airport The Yakima Air Terminal is an integral part of the City's economic and transportation infrastructure for Yakima. Through close cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport recently received two grants totaling $10 million to rehabilitate the airport's primary Taxiway and associated Taxiway connectors. This project will replace aging asphalt, Taxiway lights, Taxiway signs, and airfield markings to ensure the airport will continually meet Federal Aviation Regulations while also meeting future aviation demands. This project is slated to begin in spring 2014 and should be completed before year's end. Page 4 Se'aee9k P'tth'uq; Ecoiomcc Deidme#te Lead Department: Strategic Projects CASCADE MILL PROJECT Project implementation of the Cascade Mill Site in 2014 will require development of final plans and right of way acquisition for the Cascade Mill Parkway from Fair Avenue to the proposed East-West corridor. This project includes a roundabout at Fair Avenue as well as two other roundabouts, which will be coordinated with the East-West corridor. In addition, excavation and removal of the wood waste on the landfill and plywood plant properties should begin in 2014. The Remedial Action Plan and permitting process with the Department of Ecology for the landfill remediation will begin in 2014. An urban economist will begin work in 2014 to evaluate the most feasible and appropriate site land uses which compliment the Downtown Revitalization effort. Interchange modification review should be completed in 2014. The redevelopment of the Cascade Mill Site is one of the City of Yakima Priority Economic Development projects. A number of critical steps will be implemented in 2014 that will move the redevelopment of this site closer to reality. This is a complex project with multiple partners, both public and private. Implementation of the Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) program provides the core of funding for essential components. This summary provides an over -view of the essential tasks and projects. 2014 Critical Tasks are flagged with a . 1. 1-82 Interchange Modification Status — A public workshop was held on October 24, 2013 to provide information and receive comments (see attached) related to the preferred design option. Significant comments included concern about Fair Avenue access changes (near the Gateway Center and south of Yakima Avenue) and Greenway trail impacts. A Technical Stakeholders meeting was held in December to review findings, recommendations and preferred solutions. This review is a portion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the Interchange. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: Included in existing Lochner Contract Critical Task Timing: NEPA Review of Interchange should be complete in 2014 Alternative 28 2. Funding Package from State Legislature — A Senate revenue package includes both 1-82 Yakima - Union Gap Economic Development Improvements and the East — West Corridor Overpass and Bridge project. 1-82 work begins in 2017 and totals $56 million. The East — West Corridor is pushed out until 2023 and totals $45 million. The Senate plan also includes reforms to the allocation of transportation revenue. There is not an agreement with the House on the reforms or the project list. They must resolve the reforms first so they know how much money is in play. They can then finalize a project list. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: No 2014 funds are included in this package Critical Task Timing: Transportation Bill may not be approved until 2014 Page 5 3. Local Streets in the Cascade Mill Project Area — Several local street projects are planned and are in the preliminary design phase to serve the redevelopment of the mit site. A. Cascade Mill Parkway — The Cascade Mill Parkway (CMP) will be a City street connecting Fair Avenue to the East-West Corridor. The CMP is planned as a 4 -lane divided boulevard with landscaped median and limited driveways. Final design will be complete in 2014. The CMP will be constructed in two phases and is estimated to cost a total of $10 Million. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: Included in existing Lochner contract Critical Task Timing: Design complete 2nd Q 2014 B. Roundabout at Fair Avenue and CMP — The first street improvement project will be construction of a new roundabout at Fair Avenue and Cascade Mill Parkway. This project will improve mobility and safety at the intersection as well as provide access into the landfill area for environmental clean-up actions. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: TIB grant application Project cost $2.6 Million, City share is $1.6 Million Critical Task Timing: Design complete 2nd Q 2014, SEPA in 2014, construct in 2015 C. Roundabout at CMP and East-West Corridor — A roundabout is planned at the intersection of the East-West Corridor and the Cascade Mill Parkway. The Moxee spur railroad line will bisect the roundabout. Traffic control options are under review to design the most efficient and safe intersection and railroad crossing. Columbia Basin Railroad representatives will assist in design choices. This project requires NEPA review. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: design costs included in existing Lochner contract Critical Task Timing: 70% design will be complete in 2014, NEPA review underway. Public comment sessions will be held in 2014. D. H Street Improvement — The existing H Street alignment will be improved from North 15t Street to 71h Street, where it will transition to the East-West Corridor. At this time, a 3 -lane City street is planned with street lighting, sidewalks and bike lanes. This project will require NEPA review. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: design costs included in existing Lochner contract Critical Task Timing: 70% design will be complete in 2014, NEPA review underway. Public comment sessions will be held in 2014. 4. Environmental RemediationlClean Up • Three major issues are present on the Cascade Mill Project site that requires a clean-up/ remediation strategy: Wood debris, the former municipal landfill and remediation related to the saw mill & plywood plant operations. Permitting and environmental clean-up will be coordinated with Department of Ecology as well as funding options. A. Wood Debris - A significant amount (over 200,000cy) of wood debris is located on top of the former municipal landfill. This material must be removed prior to the handling of the municipal solid waste (MSW). 2014 Estimated Task Cost: Removal of wood debris may cost $900,000 or more, depending on strategy Critical Task Timing: Removal of wood debris could begin in 4th Q 2014 B. Municipal Landfill — There is an estimated 450,000 cy of municipal waste located over a 28 -acre site for which the -�--�m� -�0 lr .b City of Yakima has clean-up responsibility. At this time, the current recommendation is for full removal of the landfill which will maximize future development options and mini- mize continued liability for possible contamination caused by e1 the landfill. The City plans to purchase the area south of the railroad including landfill and plywood plant sites in 2014 in order to qualify for DOE grants. Removal of landfill may exceed $16 million or more, depending on strategy. City may consider requesting capital appropriation to cover clean -up costs. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: City plans to purchase area in 2014 for approximately $800,000 Critical Task Timing: Removal of landfill could begin in 3rd Q 2015 C. Plywood Plant and Saw Mill Area Clean-up — The project area contained a working lumber mill and related operations since 1903. The City contracted Landau & Associates to investigate the nature and extent of contaminants with particular emphasis on the plywood plant site. Issues of concern included petroleum products, heavy metals, groundwater contamination, and other materials. This study is considered due diligence prior to the planned purchase of the plywood plant site. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: Landau Phase 3 study in 2014, $300,000 Critical Task Timing: Phase 3 study is targeted for 2014, but could be delayed if necessary to 2015 D. Environmental Permitting with Department of Ecology — Clean-up and remediation of the landfill property will be subject to permit approval by the Department of Ecology (DOE). The City team is finalizing a Remedial Alternatives Report for the landfill clean up that will include cost evaluation. Once the preferred option has been selected, the proposal will be submitted to DOE for review. A Clean -Up Action Plan (CAP) will be developed with DOE and eligibility for funding under the MTCA program will be reviewed. The CAP will become a portion of the Consent Decree from DOE. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: Permit costs and preparation of technical studies included in current contract with Cascadia Law ✓ Critical Task Timing: This task must be accomplished in 2014 in order to meet clean up objectives for street construction and development. 5. Economic Analysis for Appropriate Land Use — In 2014, an Urban Economist will be retained to assist the City of Yakima in the identification of appropriate and feasible commercial and job creation land uses for the Cascade Mill site. This study will include a Market Assessment and a focused Market Study to develop scenarios for the redevelopment of the site including land use type, square feet of construction, job creation, and a proposed phasing plan, if appropriate. Land use scenarios will need to complement and not compete with the Yakima Downtown effort. 2014 Estimated Task Cost: Study will be a subcontract of Lochner contract, $40,000 Critical Task Timing: This task is scheduled for 2014 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 2013 2014 Actual Actual Goal Increase the citizen survey rating of those who rate the City's employment opportunities as excellent/good 15% 19% 22% Lower unemployment rate 10% 8% 7% Increase number of business licenses 6,159 6,872 YTD 7,022 Increase annual sales tax growth 5% 7% 5% Increase annual lodging tax growth 3.2% % 3% Increase the citizen survey rating of those who feel safe in the downtown after dark 23% 23% 27% Page 7 Sorate,#c Page& Sale(' The City is committed to providing a safe and secure environment for its residents, businesses, and visitors. However, random acts of gang violence, property crimes, and auto thefts have created growing concerns about public safety in Yakima. The overall goal of Public Safety as a strategic priority is to ensure healthy and vital neighborhoods free of crime by increasing community based partnerships in crime prevention, fire and life safety, code inspections, preparedness, and community policing. DOWNTOWN BIKE PATROLS Lead Department: Police Department In 2014, the Yakima Police Department will expand the downtown summer bicycle patrol to run from March through October. The patrol will be modified to include foot patrols depending on the needs of the area and specific events. TRAINING FOR POLICE & FIRE DEPTS Lead Department: Police and Fire Departments The Yakima Police Department and the Yakima Fire Department will be putting newly promoted employees through a leadership development program and additional training to ensure increased fire and police personnel skills, safety, and career development. ASSIGNED POLICE PATROL VEHICLES Lead Department: Police Department In 2014, the Yakima Police Department will equip and deploy 74 assigned police patrol vehicles to increase police presence and 24/7 response capability. This will increase the maximum number of police patrol vehicles in Yakima from a current level of 16 to upto74. LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM Lead Department: Police Department Yakima ranks 5th nationally in auto thefts per capita. The City is committed to reducing auto thefts and plans to lower incidents of theft and increase recoveries of stolen vehicles by purchasing eight automated license plate reader systems. This new technology will be used in the investigation and prosecution of a variety of other crimes. GANG FREE INITIATIVE MANAGER Lead Department: Police The City of Yakima will hire a Gang Free Initiative Operations Manager to facilitate and grow community partnerships to prevent, intervene, and suppress gang activity. Additionally, this person will be responsible for ensuring the effective public and private sector coordination and integration of resources directed toward the prevention and intervention of gang related crime and violence. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECOND GANG UNIT Lead Department: Police Department The Yakima Police Department has, over the last few months, restructured the Community Services Division to allow civilian employees to absorb most of the duties formerly performed by police officers. This change allows for a sergeant and two additional police officers to be assigned to work gang crimes. Starting in early January of 2014, the Yakima Police Department will have two gang units in the field, which wit allow for gang unit presence almost every day of the year. Each gang unit will consist of a sergeant and four officers. Page 8 J€c Saeq - twat. REDUCE BROWNOUTS IN THE FIRE DEPT Lead Department: Fire Department Currently the City experiences 129 days a year when inadequate fire staff are available to operate all available fire equipment. These days are classified as "Brownouts." The fire department will be increasing its staffing levels and use overtime to eliminate "Brownouts" and enhance community fire/medical safety. Overtime funds will also be used to meet peak staffing demand periods in lieu of fulltime staff. Two firefighters will be reinstated and one training lieutenant will be added to the staff. ADDITIONAL PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Lead Department: Police Department The Yakima Police Department will add a fulltime position dedicated to downtown parking enforcement, focusing on parking space turnover. With continued enforcement of downtown parking regulations, parking spaces will continue to turn over and be available for shoppers, and parking space abuses will be greatly reduced. NEW FIRE BRUSH TRUCK Lead Department: Fire Department The Yakima Fire Department will purchase a new brush truck to replace the existing 23 -year-old truck. This piece of equipment is necessary in order to ensure the department has reliable and capable wildland fire suppression capabilities. COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH REORGANIZATION Lead Department: Communications/Dispatch Department Due to increased management demands and the planned relocation of the 911 / dispatch center, the manager position will be split back into two separate positions; one for Communications/Dispatch Center and the other for Information Technology. INDIGENT DEFENSE Lead Department: Legal Department The Washington Supreme Court has imposed a new 400 caseload limit for attorneys providing public defense services for misdemeanor cases. To reduce the cost impacts of this unfunded mandate, the City has employed a Pre -Filing Diversion program and a Prosecution Charging Unit. These two initiatives will reduce the current misdemeanor case- load of 5,100 annually by almost one-third and reduce the number of prosecutors needed from nine to four. Subsequently, to meet the demands of the additional four defense attorneys, prosecution staffing levels will need to be increased by one attorney. COMMUNICATIONS CENTER DESIGN Lead Department: Communications The Communications Division will complete a design for the pre - design study for the new joint communications center located in the County -owned, Restitution Center in Union Gap. The purpose of this phase is to identify needs, create a design, and determine costs for the project. Over the last few years, the duties and responsibilities of the 911 / dispatch center have increased with additional outside contracts and more space is needed to accommodate the staff and equipment. Planned completion of the center is for late 2015. CONCENTRATION OF ANTI -GRAFFITI EFFORTS Lead Department: Police Department A continuing problem in the downtown area is the frequent and unwanted appearance of graffiti. Graffiti is an eyesore and detracts from a positive image of downtown. The police department will utilize its two gang units to proactively seek out and arrest those responsible for graffiti crimes in the downtown area as well as elsewhere in the city. Page 9 ACeic Sa - tail. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 Actual 2013 Actual 2014 Goal Citizen rating of safety in their neighborhood (very safe/somewhat safe) 50% 74% 77% Citizen rating of safety in downtown after dark (very safe/somewhat safe) 23% 23% 27% Crime prevention citizen rating (excellent/good) 23% 22% 25% Fire response travel time under five minutes 90% 88% 90% Fire department rating (excellent/good) 84% 83% 86% Police department citizen rating (excellent/good) 54% 54% 57% Number of commercial structures inspected 0 2,512 4,000 Percent of robberies per 1,000 residents (UCR 1) / crimes cleared 1.7 / 29.8% 1.49 / 32% 1.3 / 33% Auto theft rate per 1,000 residents / crimes cleared 12.3 / 6.8% 6.4 / 8.4% 5.0 / 9.0% Percent of burglaries per 1,000 residents (UCR) / crimes cleared 17.0 / 6.5% 12.1 / 5.6% 11.0 / 6.5% Homicides per 1,000 residents / crimes cleared .07 / 71% .05 / 75% *********************************************************************************************************************************** Spzatega plioteeer /01,knoae rhe Eat Fo#tme�2 The overall goal of Improve the Built Environment as a strategic priority is to improve the City's first impression and ensure investment in community and tourist infrastructure. GRAFFITI ABATEMENT COORDINATOR Lead Department: Community DevelopmentlCodes Division A second seasonal person will be hired to work five months of the year to coordinate cleanup graffiti sites soon after they are reported in order to diminish the visual blight graffiti creates in the community. PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM Lead Department: Refuse The Refuse Division will implement a 6 to 9 month Pilot Curbside Recycling Program consisting of approximately 600 households utilizing existing staff and equipment and a feasible source separation collection method. The City will coordinate with Yakima County Solid Waste for funding public education, and outreach. If the pilot recycling program proves to be successful after analyzing costs, the City will look to expand to a citywide recycling program. Page 10 ale Eat SoaGioptoseat-cam 't IMPLEMENT PHASE ONE OF N. 1st STREET PLAN Lead Department: Strategic Projects In 2013, the City Council authorized a landscape architect to prepare a final design for the landscape and pedestrian environment of the North First Street Revitalization Project, Phase 1 element (1-82 to "N" Street). Phase 1 will include selecting a preferred alternative from a limited list of options. In 2014, a civil engineering firm will be selected to prepare construction documents for the project design, which will include the design for undergrounding of power and other utilities. Construction drawings and plans should be completed in the summer of 2014. Project construction is expected in early 2015 and will be funded by a Surface Transportation Program grant of $2,718,000. In 2014, the City will continue seeking funding for additional phased construction of the North First Street Revitalization Project (from "N" Street to Lincoln Avenue). Finally, police, fire, and code enforcement will continue to ensure life safety and public safety issues are addressed and mitigated along the North First Street Corridor. COMPLETE WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS MASTER PLAN Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering - Wastewater The Wastewater Division will complete the Collection System Mas- ter Plan to identify system expansion necessary to accommodate future economic growth. Collection system pipelines condition ratings will identify and prioritize maintenance and capital projects for repair and replacement of sewer collection lines. The Collection System Master Plan will improve service provided to the community by ensuring lines are repaired prior to failure and that capacity improvements are budgeted and constructed to allow for continued growth and economic development. A sustainable collection system requires planned preventative maintenance and a program for planned expansion. EXPAND CODE ENFORCEMENT Lead Department: Community Development/Code Division Two additional code enforcement officers will be hired in order to allow the City to be more proactive in responding to code violations, in particular sign violations, in order to make the City more attractive. RIGHT OF WAY ENCROACHMENT AND STREET CUT PROGRAM Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering When commercial or government entities perform maintenance or construction activities in the public right-of-way, they interfere with the public's ability to use the portion of the right-of-way, create potentially dangerous obstacles to the traveling public, and often damage public infrastructure. The Engineering Division will implement a comprehensive right-of-way encroachment and street cut program which will enable the City to control the duration and extent that an entity encroaches in the right-of-way and ensure that safety precautions are taken to protect the public and the workers. The permitting fee structure will also be revised so that the cost of the permit is commensurate with the size and duration of the en- croachment. Additionally, entities that cut the City's pavement will not only have to repair the damage, but they will have to pay a restoration fee that will be used for future road resurfacing and replacement. The goal is to reduce the amount of time that the traveling public is inconvenienced by commercial activities in the right-of-way, dramatically improve work zone safety, and protect the City's infrastructure and investment in street resurfacing. CONDUCT INDUSTRIAL WASTE RATE STUDY Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering—Wastewater The Wastewater Division completed the installation of the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor in 2013 and has installed over 10,000 linear feet of pipeline to connect existing food processors to the Industrial Wastewater System. This project has increased the treatment capacity at the plant. The rate study will initiate rates for the City's recently built industrial wastewater treatment process. The food and drink processing industry is a diversifying sector of the economy as large scale production is being augmented with smaller scale beer, wine, and spirits production. A transparent evaluation of industrial wastewater rates is necessary for potential new food and drink production in Yakima. The industrial rate study will be combined with the update of the Stormwater and Wastewater Rate Study. Page 11 Else Fade Egaezeigmear Cont. PHASE 1 STORMWATER MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering—Stormwater The City stormwater program has completed a Stormwater Collections System Master Plan that identified $672 million in capital improvement needs over the next 20 years for improving this sector of the built environment. Improved stormwater conveyance and retention is necessary to maintain NPDES permit compliance and to mitigate flood hazards. The Stormwater Capital Budget has $600,000 available in 2014 to start implementing the master plan. Integrating stormwater projects into other City initiatives creates the possibility of significant cost savings. For example, incorporating "low impact development" features into downtown planning, North 1st Street, or the Mill Site redevelopment could add value to these projects with improved drainage that incorporates improving the appearance and function of our built environment. EAST -WEST CORRIDOR DESIGN & ALIGNMENT Lead Department: Strategic Projects Project implementation of the Cascade Mill Site in 2014 will require development of final plans and right-of-way acquisition for the Cascade Mill Parkway from Fair Avenue to the proposed East-West Corridor. This project includes a roundabout at Fair Avenue, as well as two other roundabouts, which will be coordinated with the East- West Corridor. CONNECTIVITY PLAN FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLES Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering Both the 2012 and 2013 citizens surveys highlighted connectivity, or the ability to get around the City by foot or bicycle, as an area of concern. In response to this concern, the Engineering Division will begin the process of creating a comprehensive connectivity network by identifying existing sidewalks and bicycle lanes and starting the design of the connectivity master plan. This plan will work in conjunction with the Parks & Recreation initiative to improve path and trail infrastructure. UPDATE STORMWATER & WASTEWATER RATE STUDIES Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering—Wastewater The City of Yakima is required to complete a utility rate study that will determine the billing rates required to provide utility services. The existing Wastewater & Stormwater Rate Ordinances expire at the end of 2014. On top of being mandated, the rate study allows the City to ensure public trust and accountability with its rate structures. The study will document sound financial practices the City uses to maintain the built environment and encourage economic development. The City will seek the services of a third party financial consultant to complete the analysis of the utilities and recommend a rate structure for the next three years. CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES Lead Department: Legal The City of Yakima, primarily through the Legal Department, is working with owners of certain properties and the Department of Ecology to achieve cleanup of the properties and placement of cleaned properties back onto the market as available sites for businesses. This process involves negotiations with current owners of the properties and a cooperative effort with Ecology, to explore acquisition of the affected properties and possible grant funds to finance site cleanup. WASTEWATER TREATMENT OUTFALL PROJECT Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering—Wastewater The Wastewater Division is moving the City of Yakima Wastewater outfall in order to restore critical floodplain environment for salmon recovery and Yakima Basin Integrated Plan implementation. This multi -benefit project will improve water quality, reduce flood hazards, enhance salmon and steelhead runs, increase recreational opportunities, and foster growth by allowing upstream land to come off of flood insurance maps. The project will improve the City's appearance and built environment, improve trails, involve community groups and individual citizens, and create partnerships. Page 12 die quiet Egobroptoteete coot, BILLBOARD REGULATIONS Lead Department: Community Development/Code Division The City's billboard and digital sign regulations will be amended to ensure that billboards and digital signs are regulated in a manner that will mitigate visual impacts on the community and safety impacts on drivers. BUILD BIOSOLIDS DRYER FACILITY Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering—Wastewater The Wastewater Division will install a biosolids (sludge) dryer to produce a Class A, exceptional quality biosolids product that can be sold "out of the gate" as a soil amendment. The soil amend- ment is suitable for City parks, golf courses, local agriculture, the Yakima Area Arboretum, and private use. The dryer will improve the built environment by increasing Wastewater Treatment Facility reliability, utilizing bio -gas produced by the new industrial wastewater treatment system, and reducing hauling and permitting expenses associated with Class B biosolids. The project defers major capital expenses, reduces operating expenses, and reduces the Wastewater Treatment Facility's carbon emissions. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC ENGINEER Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering The Traffic Engineer position will be reinstituted in order to manage the ROW encroachment/street cut program, review development applications, respond to citizen requests, evaluate traffic signal timing patterns and analyze traffic data collections. Other work that needs to be done includes development of prioritized traffic safety and operations capital improvements lists, update traffic policies and standards, and a detailed annual review and analysis of high accident locations. CITY HALL IMPROVEMENTS Lead Department: Community Development The existing City Hall is very outdated and has not had many upgrades over the years. The first floor needs to be updated in appearance, lighting, and ADA accessibility. Lead Department: Engineering/Finance The City's 802 lane miles of roads have an average Paving Condition Index (PCI) score of 54. Based on a 100 -point scale, the City's current road conditions are poor. Compounding this situation is the fact that 3% of Yakima's roads are currently classified as failed, while 23% or (185 lane miles) are projected to attain a failed classification by 2020 if not rehabilitated soon. In August 2013, 72% of voters supported a City Charter Amendment requiring the City to invest at least $2 million annually on the restoration or reconstruction of Yakima streets. Staff proposes building on the 2013 road improvements and taking advantage of excellent road rehabilitation pricing with an aggressive 2014 road rehabilitation plan based on issuing a 10 -year term bond of $16 million dollars to grind and overlay 92 lane miles of arterial streets and residential streets. This aggressive plan will prevent having to reconstruct these critical streets at a much higher cost and will extend their useful life by 10 to 15 years. (map of projects on page 15) Page 13 tire Eat Seed/zoomeat coat III 3 ifiI! Ih� r�l'I II 11li3 l� ImiPlili AleHeinflii 141 i sill loud �!IIN pal rut? ;Lh �rJ! tER I m umnmlpluuw rN. ie>K �.��YS■IIIf�9 — tt t unnl' ul` HIMHIM0101�iiltii� urp i tt �11 li31Aa"p IIIIImmunimi Ilwill;111YIIIIIL 111111111 •, I!unn1111Ill1Il11N- 1! r!�iou wisp maran11 , iii7iiaiilI7R 11111ii11`i a.ttiamu■m 1 i11 milk maim � - :1111 11 1 MA-3.5cC heat PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2013 RESURFACING 20142015 RESURFACING 2012 Actual Streets Resurfacing 2013 Actual 2014 Goal Improve citizen rating of the City's overall appearance as excellent/good 29% 28% 30% Improve resident rating of the City's cleanliness as excellent/good 31% 29% 32% Improve citizen rating of City's code enforcement as excellent/good 15% 15% 20% Create new downtown design standards No No Yes Improve citizen rating of City streets as excellent/good 21% 19% 24% Increase the lane miles of roads overlaid /reconstructed 0 28 92 Reduce sewer inflow/infiltration 10% 6% NA Page 14 St'tatc9c Pue: PJ& 7ae Br "4eeouHta2tQitry The overall goal of Public Trust & Accountability as a Strategic Priority is to enhance civic engagement and maximize information outreach by listening to, understanding, and fostering mutual respect with the community. IMPLEMENT QUALITY CUSTOMER SERVICE ACADEMY Lead Department: Human Resources As the direct results of the two citizen surveys that have been conducted since 2012, the City has recognized an opportunity to improve its customer service approach by developing a Customer Service Academy. Through this academy City employees will increase their abilities to provide a higher level of service to the community. All new emp oyees will attend the academy shortly after hire to immediately establish the level of excellence expected by the City. Graduation from this academy will prove that excellence in customer service is not only a necessity and a challenge, but a journey towards a successful future. CONDUCT ANNUAL CITIZEN SURVEY Lead Department: City Manager The Yakima Citizen Survey, a customized version of the National Citizen Survey conducted by National Research Center, Inc., has been conducted in both 2012 and 2013 and has helped guide the City Council in the development and implementation of its five Strategic Priorities. Results of the 2013 survey, when compared to bench- marks established by the 2012 survey, indicated that while the City had made several constructive changes from year to year and that it was moving in a generally positive direction, there remain areas that still require improvement. The City Council has committed to conducting annual citizen surveys for the foreseeable future so it can continue to listen to the community and learn how best to refine the City's priorities and operations on an ongoing basis in order to better meet the needs of the community. IMPLEMENT NEW FINANCIAL RECORD KEEPING SYSTEM Lead Department: Information Systems The City will finalize the implementation of a new financial system during the first quarter of 2014, which will greatly enhance the City's ability to analyze costs and project needs. Additionally, better and more comprehensive reports will be available for both the public and City departments to view the City's overall financial status. YAKIMA TRANSIT ROUTE REVISIONS Lead Department Public Works—Transit Division Yakima Transit will continue to examine bus routes to create more efficient service while also improving passenger information and ridership by purchasing and implementing a "Dispatch & Run -Cutting" software system to analyze the efficiency of each route. Staff will continue to identify various alternatives and choose the most cost- effective set of runs. Ad monitors will be purchased and installed on the buses to improve Yakima Transit's communication to the public and to promote ridership. Staff will continue to analyze efficiency, operating costs, ridership, and service demand. CONDUCT ANNUAL EMPLOYEE SURVEY Lead Department: Human Resources The City of Yakima will conduct its third annual employee survey in 2014. This assessment tool helps leadership leverage strengths and address weaknesses in order to develop strategies for organizational improvements. Page 15 Pedeed 714eat Bi flccou taE'feY�y - cant. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM Lead Department: Community Development/Planning The City will improve customer service by providing a consistent and well defined process that ensures that project review is coordinated among all City departments and divisions, that comments are provided in a concise and timely manner, and that decisions are always consistent with the Municipal Code. EXPLORE COST EFFECTIVE EFFICIENCIES Lead Department: Finance Based on historical customer concern, the City will perform a Business Process Analysis (BPA) of the Utility Services Division. This BPA will review current business practices and provide recommendations to make practices efficient and cost effective. The BPA will include a Change Management Analysis examining staffing, policies, productivity, and performance levels. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 Actual 2013 Actual 2014 Goal Improve citizen excellent/good rating on direction City is taking 28% 31% 35% Improve citizen excellent/good rating on the value of services for taxes paid 27% 26% 30% Improve citizen excellent/good rating of services provided by the City 45% 48% 50% Conduct annual citizen survey Yes Yes Yes Improve citizen rating of City welcoming citizen involvement 30% 32% 35% Maintain general fund operating reserve balance as percentage of general fund expenses 16% 17.6% 16.7% Percentage of citizens who volunteer to some group or activity 54% 46% 50% Improve citizen opportunities to participate in community matters 45% 41% 45% Improve citizens rating of City public information services 48% 47% 50% Improve citizen excellent/good rating on water services 64% 64% 67% Reduce water quality complaints 28 22 Reduce billing errors due to improper meter reads 200 50 Reduce distribution system water loss 12% 10% Page 16 Sezaee9e P'tth'ue,' pa/team/4 Detie€oftme.te The overall goal of Partnership Development as a strategic priority is to build cooperative and reciprocal partnerships with local, regional, state, and federal agencies, public and private entities, and non-profit organizations to enhance the vitality and quality of life of Yakima residents, businesses, and visitors. YPAL FACILITY Lead Department: Police Development The YPAL facility at Miller Park will be updated in order to accommodate the Youth and Family Development Center—Part of the Gang Free Initiative. Some of the possible improvements in 2014 include new windows, interior and exterior paint, classroom renovations, restroom upgrades, and new flooring. SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY CENTER Lead Department: Community Development The Southeast Community Center is another City -owned facility in need of upgrades. The existing restrooms are 40 years old, in disrepair, and are beginning to fail. Staff proposes that the City provide the supplies and materials needed for the remodel along with major plumbing and electrical contractor costs, while the Opportunities Industrialization Center, the facility's contracted operator, has agreed to contribute the construction labor portion of the updated services. VISITORS & CONVENTION BUREAU Lead Department: Economic Development The Visitors Information Center stimulates positive economic growth by serving more than 14,490 people each year. Surveys of visitors show that 20% of those served at the VIC extended their stays. The City will increase its contribution to the Visitors Center by $20,000 bringing the annual funding level to $60,000. The additional funds are needed to assist with personnel, maintenance, utilities, and other operating expenses. In addition, the City will seek a new location for the Visitors Information Center in light of the proposed 1-82 modification and Fair Avenue access changes. COLLABORATE WITH YAKIMA COUNTY ON STATE TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE Lead Department: Community Relations A key initiative adopted by the City Council as part of its 2014 State Legislative and Administrative Priorities is to actively pursue passage of a transportation revenue package that will be considered by the Washington State Legislature during the 2014 session. The Council has committed to supporting such a package, in conjunction with the Yakima County Commission, as long it contains funding for critical local projects including the expansion of Interstate 82 between the Highway 12 and Yakima Avenue exits (which incorporates access improvements to the Mill Site Development property), the Cascade Parkway, and the East-West Corridor. Additionally, the Council has committed to actively pursuing reforms proposed by members of the legislature that would revise existing methodologies for the generation and allocation of state transportation revenues. CAPITOL THEATRE IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS Lead Department: Utilities & Engineering The Capitol Theatre is in dire need of significant maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. The Engineering Division will work with the Capitol Theatre to locate funding sources for the necessary work. As funding becomes available, the Engineering Division will plan and implement the work. NEW VISION Lead Department: Economic Development The City will invest $33,000 to foster the continued success of the New Vision public-private partnership in order to assist local businesses to thrive, attract new businesses, and develop the local workforce. Page 17 piale.eAdio De'e€oftmet - coat. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2012 Actual 2013 Actual 2014 Goal Establish Yakima Cleanup and Revitalization (CARE) program No No Yes Create legislative/administrative strategy for state and federal issues No Yes Yes Create downtown event partnerships No Yes Yes Create Neighborhood Service Teams No No Yes Create park improvement partnerships No Yes Yes Secure federal and/or state funds for Mill Site No Yes Yes Water feature at Miller Park Yakima Trolley celebrated its centennial anniversary in 2013 with Murphy on board!!! Yakima Clean-up Page 18 Smwu 4 %e,¢, ooze 5ewice4. aid Pejczmace 'i12eaQcvicee 4 Szategic Pfunery louaiatue & Periercmaosee Wleaaaicee—.Suotmanuy Economic Development Initiative Department Performance Measure Begin implementation of Downtown Plan Economic Development! Strategic Projects Initiate Plaza development and design study; implement short term parking strategies, prepare Comprehensive Plan Sub -Area Amendment and SEPA strategy Appoint Downtown Implementation and Retail Task Force Committees City Manager's Office Implementation Committee will have 30 citizens and use Council Built Environment Committee; Retail Task Force will have 9 citizens and use Economic Development Committee Implement Retail Marketing Outreach effort for Downtown Economic Development Participate in priority retail conferences in 2014 and create promotional materials for marketing downtown Yakima Cascade Mill funding strategy Strategic Projects Maximize annual $1 million financial contributions for projects within the "pay -go" period of the LIFT project prior to construction bonding in 2017 Cascade Mill Parkway construction Strategic Projects Secure funding and develop final bid documents to construct the Fair Avenue Roundabout and Phase 1 of Cascade Mill Parkway in 2014 Cascade Mill project Strategic Projects Purchase landfill parcel and other properties south of the railroad to begin clean-up process and funding opportunities Cascade Mill project Strategic Projects Hire urban economist to review and recommend appropriate land uses for Cascade Mill Project which would complement Downtown project and take advantage of unique mill site location Ensure adequate water resources to meet future water demand Utilities & Engineering- Water Division Work with the development community to ensure privately built public infrastructure is built to meet present and future demands Page 20 9Kitlatt•ve & Pe�aumaace 'nZeaawre¢—Summwuy Public Safety Initiative Department Performance Measure Improve Communications Center call processing Information Systems Continued training to streamline call processing functions with emphasis on questioning techniques that will speed the process and obtain the needed information for emergency responders Improve public safety communication systems Information Systems Continue working on a comprehensive five-year, public safety communications plan by identifying needed resources, both financial and personnel Relocate the 911/dispatch center to enhance operations and improve performance Information Systems Having identified the County owned Restitution Center as the most viable site, prepare detailed design and construction documents Eliminate Brownouts Fire Department The fire department will be taking steps to increase manpower coverage in 2014 to almost completely eliminate brownout situations thereby increasing safety, reducing fire loss, and reducing response times. Implement Training Lieutenant Fire Department The Training Lieutenant position will be instituted in 2014 after years of absence from the fire department. This will increase efficiency, safety, and help reduce fire loss. Realignment of duties Fire Department The Deputy Fire Marshal position was realigned to focus almost exclusively on Public Education. By educating the public, we can reduce the number of fire calls as well as reduce damage by fire and injury or death from other preventable situations. Add multiple family residences to annual fire safety inspection program Fire Department Inspect at least 30% of multi -family complexes in 2014, including current business and public place inspections Increase officer training and succession training Fire Department Police Department The police and fire departments will institute full career path guidelines with specific training and educational benchmarks for each officer position. Reduce number of days apparatus are staffed by non -certified officer Fire Department Increase the number of commissioned Lieutenants by three by February 28, 2014. Maintain infrastructure to meet fire flow and water quality requirements Utilities & Engineering- Water Division Work with the development community to ensure privately built public infrastructure is built to City of Yakima and Department of Health standards and is adequate to meet present and future demands. Page 21 %Hitiative & PecdolHragee 'lyyZeaQ«ne¢—.Scusrrzsalc� J Improve the Built Environment Initiative Department Performance Measure Conduct Industrial Waste Rate Study Utilities & Engineering —Wastewater Complete study and recommend 5 -year rate structure Complete Wastewater Collections Plan Utilities & Engineering —Wastewater Complete plan and publish on website. Train planners to use the information to assist developers in project requirements. Phase 1 Stormwater Master Plan Utilities & Engineering — Wastewater Design and construct $600,000 of improvements based on Master Plan priorities Update Stormwater and Wastewater Rate Studies Utilities & Engineering — Wastewater Complete Stormwater and Wastewater Rate Studies Connectivity Plan for Bicycles & Pedestrians Utilities & Engineering Complete existing conditions survey; choose consultant to develop plan and priorities Wastewater Treatment Outfall Project Utilities & Engineering — Wastewater Complete project within schedule and budget Biosolids Dryer Facility Utilities & Engineering Complete design, begin construction, maintain approved schedule and budget Traffic Engineer Utilities & Engineering Hire new traffic engineer Curbside Recycling Program Public Works—Refuse The City of Yakima Refuse Department will implement a pilot curbside recycling program in 2014 Improve and maintain the safety and reliability of our drinking water and irrigation Utilities & Engineering- Water Division Improve and maintain the overall condition of the drinking water and irrigation distribution systems, maintain reliability for adequate delivery of water to meet use and fire flow demands. Page 22 14M4te."ue & penjrowaaKee 712eaQwte¢—.SuHuscan*y Improve the Built Environment — (cont.) Initiative Department Performance Measure Corridor Code Enforcement Emphasis identifying and abating illegal signs, banners, etc. Code Enforcement Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) - increase citizen's excellent/ good response from 15% to 20% in 2014 Code enforcement and Yakima Police Department will conduct an emphasis along North 1st Street in order to address building, fire and electrical deficiencies in businesses and on the property Code Enforcement / Police Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) - increase citizen's excellent/ good response from 15% to 20% in 2014 Amend ordinance regulating billboards and digital signs Community Development Develop required regulations of billboards and digital signs prior to expiration of moratorium North 1st Street Improvement project Strategic Projects/ Utilities & Engineering Engage City Council to select the preferred design, as developed by landscape architect; hire civil engineering firm to develop plans and specifications; bid project in 2014 for Phase 1 of project; seek additional funds for future phases Cascade Mill Site Environ- mental Clean Up Strategic Projects Implement strategy to remove wood waste from landfill site in 2014 Cascade Mill entry art Economic Development/ Strategic Projects Consider using Arts Commission to sponsor a design competition for Fair Avenue Roundabout centerpiece art using salvage material from Yakima Resources structures I-82/Yakima Avenue Interchange modification Strategic Projects Support Yakima County, WSDOT, and FHWA regarding the Interchange Justification Report (IJR) process and NEPA review I-82/Yakima Avenue Interchange modification impacts Strategic Projects Work with the Greenway and Visitors Center to review options regarding possible impacts of IJR to existing facilities Grind and overlay 92 lane miles Utilities & Engineering The City of Yakima will grind and overlay 92 lanes miles in 2014—on time and within budget Capitol Theatre Improvements and Repairs Utilities & Engineering Complete approximately $100,000 in safety and ADA compliance repairs and upgrades Right of Way—Street Cut Program Utilities & Engineering Implement program and ensure 100% permit and traffic control compliance Page 23 Initiative Department Performance Measure Improve efficiency of Development Services Team for plan review Community Development/ Planning Provide complete and concise responses to customers within one week of Development Services Team meetings Develop zoning regulations of marijuana sales, production, and processing in accordance with the provisions of 1-502 Community Development/ Code Enforcement/ Planning Develop regulations of recreational marijuana prior to expiration of moratorium Update zoning code and subdivision code to bring them in lie with state law and current case law Community Development/ Planning Complete subdivision and enforcement chapter of zoning code prior to year end. Begin zoning chapter prior to year end. Managed Competition Purchasing Successfully award two (2) managed competition RFP's Financial Trend Monitoring Report Finance A financial trend monitoring report will be produced quarterly and provided to the City Council and community Financial Management Finance Ensure all debt covenants and compliance requirements are met and maintain the City's bond rating (A+) Enhance the public's access to City Government Information Systems Continue to enhance the City's website, Yak Back services, and improved telephone contact. Show improved survey results on usage of City website and rating of public information services. Enhance the City's financial systems Information Systems Complete the transition to the Cayenta financial system and have real time, accurate financials available to departments by January 2014 Convert desktop work stations to thin clients Information Systems Identify workstation candidates for converting to thin clients and then develop plan for acquisition and installation of server based applications and thin clients. Reduction in Citywide computer workstation costs by 5% in the first year. Implement an e -discovery system within two hours Information Systems Conduct discovery phase to identify the scope and requirements of e -discovery and have e -discovery implementation plan and costs available for inclusion in 2015 budget Maintain adequate re- sources to meet operation- al, capital improvement needs, water supply and water quality Utilities & Engineering- Water Division Continue completing water rate analysis at least every 5 years, maintain adequate rate structure to meet operational needs and implement capital improvements identified in the approved Water System Plan and Master Irrigation Plan. Implement new transit software program Transit The Transit Division will implement a "Dispatch & Run Cutting Software" to increase efficiency of routes Place "Ad Monitors" Transit Increase the number of "Ad Monitors" placed on buses to 25 in order to improve communication and promote ridership in 2014 lK[tiatiue & Peniomuuue neadeeced—Sumuxivuy Public Trust & Accountability lametaoe chi Per6onmaKee ?12eaduaed—.Su&,mwuy Partnership Development Initiative Department Performance Measure Manage, design, and oversee the operation and maintenance of the Water and Irrigation infrastructure, pursue outside funding opportunities and pursue inside and outside partnerships to leverage resources Utilities & Engineering - Water Division Work with other agencies to repair, improve, or move river diversions to maintain domestic and irrigation supply. The Water Division will also coordinate more closely with other City divisions to make the most efficient use of our resources and expertise. Page 25 The National Citizen Survey T"" Yakima, WA Trends over Time 2013 National Research Center, Inc. 1 Boulder, CO Contents Summary 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM © 2012-2013 National Research Center, Inc. 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80301 303-444-7863 ncs@n-r-c.com www.n-r-c.com Summary The National Citizen Survey" (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The National Citizen Survey communities. This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2013 ratings for the City of Yakima to its previous survey results in 2012. Additional reports and technical appendices are available under separate cover. Trend data for Yakima represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents' opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being "higher" or "lower" if the differences are greater than six percentage points, otherwise the comparison between 2012 and 2013 are noted as being "similar." Additionally benchmark comparison for all survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark comparison over time can be impacted by various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual communities that comprise the benchmarks; regional and national economic or other events; as well as emerging survey methodologies. Overall, ratings in Yakima for 2013 generally remained stable. Of the 91 items for which comparisons were available, 66 items were rated similarly in 2012 and 2013, 16 items showed a decrease in ratings and 9 showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following: Aspects of Community Quality showing an increase in ratings included traffic flow on major streets, the overall natural environment and recreational opportunities. Decreases were seen in ease of travel by bicycle, opportunities to volunteer and the variety of housing options. Aspects of Governance saw decreases in ratings between survey years in the areas of traffic signal timing, sewer services, storm drainage, power utility, recreation centers and the customer service provided by City employees. Other ratings within Governance were similar to 2012; no meaningful increases in ratings were noted. Overall, levels of Engagement and Participation in various activities available in Yakima were lower in 2013 when compared to 2012. Fewer respondents reported having contacted City employees, using public transportation, volunteering, recycling at home or watching a public meeting in 2013 than in 2012. They did, however, report having talked or visited with their neighbors with greater frequency. 1 Table 1: Community Overall quality of life Overall image Place to live Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance Table 2: Community Safety Overall feeling of safety Safe in neighborhood Safe downtown Mobility Overall ease travel Paths and walking trails Ease of walking Travel by bicycle Travel by public transportation Travel by car Public parking Traffic flow Natural Environment Overall natural environment Cleanliness Air quality The National Citizen SurveyTM Quality Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 44% 41% 19% 21% 49% 50% 60% 60% 38% 42% 46% 45% 29% 28% Quality by Domain Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 NA 77% 62% 2013 23% 74% 60% Percent rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat safe) 2013 69% excel lent/good, 2012 NA 2013 compared to 2012 Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar 2013 compared to 2012 NA Similar Similar Comparison to 2012 Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower benchmark 2013 Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Much lower Comparison to benchmark 2012 NA Much lower Much lower 2013 Much lower Lower Much lower 2013 compared Comparison to benchmark to 2012 2012 2013 NA NA NA 49% 52% Similar Much lower Similar 48% 46% Similar Much lower Lower 43% 33% Lower Much lower Lower NA 51% NA NA Similar 64% 64% Similar Higher Similar NA 40% NA NA NA 42% 49% Higher Similar Similar Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 2013 49% 31% 50% 56% 29% 53% 2 2013 compared to 2012 Higher Similar Similar Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Much lower Similar The National Citizen SurveyTA1 Built Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Overall built environment New development in Yakima Affordable quality housing Housing options Public places NA 36% 39% 33% 33% 46% NA 36% 37% 35% NA Similar Similar Lower NA NA NA Much lower Lower Much lower Much lower NA Similar Lower NA Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Overall economic health Vibrant downtown Business and services Cost of living Shopping opportunities Employment opportunities Place to visit Place to work NA NA 43% NA 39% 15% NA 38% 24% 21% 40% 35% 37% 19% 36% 40% NA NA Similar NA Similar Similar NA Similar NA NA Much lower NA Much lower Much lower NA Much lower NA NA Lower NA Lower Similar Much lower Lower Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Health and wellness Mental health care Preventive health services Health care Food Recreational opportunities Fitness opportunities NA NA NA NA NA 41% NA 47% 43% 47% 45% 53% 50% 55% 3 NA NA NA NA NA Higher NA NA NA NA NA NA Much lower NA NA NA Similar Similar Similar Lower NA The National Citizen SurveyTM Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Education and enrichment Religious or spiritual events and activities Cultural/arts/music activities Adult education K-12 education Child care/preschool NA 42% 62% 41% NA 46% 27% 71% 43% 47% 54% 50% NA Higher Similar NA Higher Higher NA NA Much lower Similar Much lower Similar NA NA Much lower Lower Much lower Similar Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Social events and activities 38% 36% Neighborliness NA 36% Openness and acceptance 35% 33% Opportunities to participate in community matters 45% 41% Opportunities to volunteer 65% 56% Table 3: Governance Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Services provided by Yakima Customer service Value of services Overall direction Welcoming citizen involvement Confidence in Yakima Acting in the best interest of Yakima Being honest Treating all residents fairly Services provided by the federal government 2012 45% 60% 27% 28% 29% NA NA NA NA 28% 2013 47% 48% 26% 31% 32% 28% 31% 32% 29% Similar NA Similar Similar Lower 2013 compared to 2012 Similar Much lower Lower Much lower Similar Much lower Similar Much lower Similar Much lower NA NA Much lower Lower NA NA Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33% Similar Much lower Similar 4 The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 4: Governance by Domain Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Police Fire Ambulance/EMS Crime prevention Fire prevention Animal control Emergency preparedness 54% 84% 83% 22% 56% 28% 54% 83% 79% 22% 55% 26% 35% 34% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Similar Similar Much lower Lower Much lower Lower Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Traffic enforcement Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Bus or transit services 47% 22% 42% 41% 36% 43% 19% 38% 40% 42% 27% 29% 44% 36% 62% 59% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Similar Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Lower Lower Much lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Similar Much higher Similar Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Drinking water Natural areas preservation Open space 79% 43% 58% 64% NA NA 81% 42% 61% 61% 45% 39% Similar Similar Similar Similar NA NA Lower Much lower Much lower Lower NA NA Similar Much lower Similar Similar Similar Much lower Built Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Storm drainage Sewer services Power utility Utility billing Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement 46% 71% 73% NA 37% 63% 67% 54% 28% 27% 15% 15% 5 Lower Lower Lower NA Similar Similar Much lower Lower Lower NA Lower Similar Similar Lower Much lower Lower Much lower Much lower The National Citizen SurveyTM Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., excel lent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Economic development 23% 24% Similar Much lower Lower Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., excel lent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 City parks Recreation programs Recreation centers Health services 56% 43% 43% NA 57% 40% 37% 47% Similar Similar Lower NA Much lower Much lower Much lower NA Lower Much lower Much lower Lower Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Special events NA 41% Public libraries 70% 74% NA Similar NA Much lower Much lower Similar Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Public information 48% 47% Table 5: Engagement and Participation Overall Similar Much lower Lower Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat likely, yes) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Sense of community Recommend Yakima Remain in Yakima Contacted Yakima employees 34% 59% 73% 31% 55% 79% Similar Similar Similar 42% 33% Lower Table 6: Engagement and Participation by Domain Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Much lower Similar Much lower Lower Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Stocked supplies for an emergency NA 32% Reported a crime NA 42% Was the victim of a crime 26% 29% 6 NA NA Similar NA NA NA NA Much higher Higher Mobility Used public transportation instead of driving Carpooled instead of driving alone Walked or biked instead of driving Natural Environment Conserved water Made home more energy efficient Recycled at home Built Environment Observed a code violation Housing costs 30% or more of income Economy Purchased goods or services in Yakima Economy will have positive impact on income Work in Yakima The National Citizen SurveyTM Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 NA 23% NA 51% NA 52% Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 NA 82% NA 80% 78% 71% Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 NA 67% 2013 compared to 2012 NA NA NA 2013 compared to 2012 NA NA Lower Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 NA NA NA NA NA NA Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 NA NA NA Much lower NA Lower 2013 Comparison to compared to benchmark 2012 2012 2013 NA NA NA 46% 40% Similar Much higher Similar Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 NA 92% 17% 24% NA 62% 7 2013 compared to 2012 NA Higher NA Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 NA NA Similar Similar NA NA The National Citizen SurveyTM Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Used Yakima recreation centers Visited a City park Used Yakima public libraries Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity In good to excellent health 60% 60% 87% 83% 60% 57% NA 79% NA NA 76% 86% Similar Similar Similar NA NA NA Higher Similar Similar Similar Much lower Lower NA NA NA NA NA NA Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Participated in religious or spiritual activities Attended a City -sponsored event 60% 61% NA 46% Similar Much higher Similar NA NA NA Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2012 2013 2013 compared to 2012 Comparison to benchmark 2012 2013 Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate Contacted Yakima elected officials Volunteered Participated in a club Talked to or visited with neighbors Done a favor for a neighbor Attended a local public meeting Watched a local public meeting Read or watched local news Voted in local elections NA 23% NA 54% 38% 56% 97% 16% 46% 34% 87% 83% 18% 18% 47% NA 65% 38% 86% 78% 8 NA NA Lower Similar Higher Lower Similar Lower NA Higher NA NA Much higher Much higher NA NA Similar Similar Much higher Much higher Higher Lower Much lower Much higher NA Much lower Similar Similar NA Similar The National Citizen SurveyTM Yakima, WA Technical Appendices 2013 National Research Center, Inc. 1 Boulder, CO The National Citizen SurveyTM Appendix B: Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from approximately 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The NCS. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is Yakima's "percent positive." The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., "excellent" and "good," "very safe" and "somewhat safe," "essential" and "very important," etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating "yes" or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Yakima's rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Yakima's rating to the benchmark. Benchmark Database Characteristics Region New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic East South Central West South Central Mountain Pacific Population Less than 10,000 10,000 to 24,999 25,000to 49,999 50,000 to 99,999 100,000 or more Percent 3% 5% 15% 13/0 22% 3% 7% 16% 16% Percent 10% 22% 23% 22% 23% In that final column, Yakima's results are noted as being "higher" than the benchmark, "lower" than the benchmark or "similar" to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Yakima residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme are noted as "much higher" or "much lower." 20 The National Citizen SurveyTM National Benchmark Comparisons Table 63: Community Quality Overall Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark The overall quality of life in Yakima 41% 365 371 Much lower Overall image or reputation of Yakima 21% 280 281 Much lower Yakima as a place to live 50% 306 309 Much lower Your neighborhood as a place to live 60% 246 252 Lower Yakima as a place to raise children 42% 301 306 Much lower Yakima as a place to retire 45% 273 294 Lower Overall appearance of Yakima 28% 283 289 Much lower Table 64: Community Quality by Domain Safety Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Yakima 23% 86 86 Much lower In your neighborhood during the day 74% 279 285 Lower In Yakima's downtown area during the day 60% 243 245 Much lower Number of Percent communities in Comparison to Mobility positive Rank comparison benchmark Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 69% NA NA NA Availability of paths and walking trails 52% 145 219 Similar Ease of walking in Yakima 46% 196 242 Lower Ease of travel by bicycle in Yakima 33% 210 249 Lower Ease of travel by public transportation in Yakima 51% 25 49 Similar Ease of travel by car in Yakima 64% 107 249 Similar Ease of public parking 40% NA NA NA Traffic flow on major streets 49% 122 273 Similar Natural Environment Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 56% 190 223 Lower Cleanliness of Yakima 29% 217 223 Much lower Air quality 53% 164 205 Similar Built Environment Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Overall "built environment" of Yakima (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 36% NA NA NA Overall quality of new development in Yakima 33% 224 236 Lower Availability of affordable quality housing 36% 208 257 Similar Variety of housing options 37% 191 212 Lower Public places where people want to spend time 35% NA NA NA 21 The National Citizen SurveyTM Economy Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Overall economic health of Yakima 24% NA NA NA Vibrant downtown/commercial area 21% NA NA NA Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima 40% 187 212 Lower Cost of living in Yakima 35% NA NA NA Shopping opportunities 37% 189 242 Lower Employment opportunities 19% 202 258 Similar Yakima as a place to visit 36% 8 8 Much lower Yakima as a place to work 40% 230 279 Lower Recreation and Wellness Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Health and wellness opportunities in Yakima 47% NA NA NA Availability of affordable quality mental health care 43% NA NA NA Availability of preventive health services 47% 144 165 Similar Availability of affordable quality health care 45% 166 207 Similar Availability of affordable quality food 53% 136 169 Similar Recreational opportunities 50% 213 254 Lower Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 55% NA NA NA Education and Enrichment Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 42% NA NA NA Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 71% 137 168 Similar Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 43% 181 252 Similar Adult educational opportunities 47% NA NA NA K-12 education 54% 153 206 Lower Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 50% 85 211 Similar Community Engagement Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 36% 193 203 Lower Neighborliness of Yakima 36% NA NA NA Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 33% 235 238 Lower Opportunities to participate in community matters 41% 205 211 Lower Opportunities to volunteer 56% 197 213 Lower 22 The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 65: Governance Overall Number of Percent communities in Comparison to positive Rank comparison benchmark The City of Yakima 47% 328 345 Lower Overall customer service by Yakima employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 48% 303 308 Much lower The value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 26% 324 327 Lower The overall direction that Yakima is taking 31% 259 275 Lower The job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen involvement 32% 247 259 Lower Overall confidence in Yakima government 28% NA NA NA Generally acting in the best interest of the community 31% NA NA NA Being honest 32% NA NA NA Treating all residents fairly 29% NA NA NA The Federal Government 33% 190 212 Similar Table 66: Governance by Domain Percent Number of communities Comparison to Safety positive Rank in comparison benchmark Police/Sheriff services 54% 343 349 Lower Fire services 83% 275 294 Similar Ambulance or emergency medical services 79% 248 269 Similar Crime prevention 22% 286 287 Much lower Fire prevention and education 55% 232 238 Lower Animal control 26% 266 266 Much lower Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 34% 226 232 Lower Percent Number of communities Comparison to Mobility positive Rank in comparison benchmark Traffic enforcement 43% 299 307 Lower Street repair 19% 337 353 Much lower Street cleaning 38% 226 240 Lower Street lighting 40% 248 267 Lower Snow removal 42% 223 244 Lower Sidewalk maintenance 29% 239 244 Lower Traffic signal timing 36% 190 210 Similar Bus or transit services 59% 74 185 Similar Natural Environment Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark Garbage collection 81% 215 289 Similar Recycling 42% 287 294 Much lower Yard waste pickup 61% 180 211 Similar Drinking water 61% 184 262 Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 45% 183 217 Similar Yakima open space 39% 20 20 Much lower 23 The National Citizen Survey TM' Built Environment Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark Storm drainage 37% 291 302 Lower Sewer services 63% 211 252 Similar Power (electric and/or gas) utility 67% 87 118 Similar Utility billing 54% 16 16 Lower Land use, planning and zoning 27% 232 243 Lower Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 15% 298 300 Much lower Economy Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark Economic development 24% 217 238 Lower Recreation and Wellness Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark City parks 57% 255 265 Lower Recreation programs or classes 40% 263 268 Much lower Recreation centers or facilities 37% 228 231 Much lower Health services 47% 141 160 Lower Education and Enrichment Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark City -sponsored special events Public library services 41% 7 7 Much lower 74% 244 286 Similar Community Engagement Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark Public information services 47% 214 232 Lower Table 67: Engagement and Participation Overall Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark Sense of community 31% 256 257 Much lower Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 51% 212 216 Much lower Remain in Yakima for the next five years 73% 164 215 Similar Contacted Yakima (in•person, phone, email or web) for help or information 33% 235 246 Lower Table 68: Engagement and Participation by Domain Percent Number of communities Comparison to Safety positive Rank in comparison benchmark Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 32% NA NA NA Reported a crime to the police 42% NA NA NA Household member was a victim of a crime 29% 2 217 Higher Mobility Percent Number of communities Comparison to positive Rank in comparison benchmark Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving 23% NA NA NA Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 51% NA NA NA Walked or biked instead of driving 52% NA NA NA 24 The National Citizen SurveyTM Natural Environment Percent Number of communities positive Rank in comparison Comparison to benchmark Made efforts to conserve water Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient Recycled at home 82% 80% 71% NA NA 172 NA NA 208 NA NA Lower Built Environment Percent Number of communities positive Rank in comparison Comparison to benchmark Observed a code violation or other hazard in Yakima Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) 67% NA 40% 60 NA 205 NA Similar Economy Percent Number of communities positive Rank in comparison Comparison to benchmark Purchased goods or services from a business located in Yakima Economy will have positive impact on income Work inside boundaries of Yakima 92% 24% 62% NA 48 NA NA 203 NA NA Similar NA Recreation and Wellness Percent Number of communities positive Rank in comparison Comparison to benchmark Used Yakima recreation centers or their services Visited a neighborhood park or City park Used Yakima public libraries or their services Ate at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity In good to excellent health 60% 83% 57% 79% 76% 86% 57 147 177 NA NA NA 178 210 188 NA NA NA Similar Similar Lower NA NA NA Education and Enrichment Percent Number of communities positive Rank in comparison Comparison to benchmark Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Yakima 61% 27 Attended a City -sponsored event 46% NA 154 NA Similar NA Community Engagement Percent Number of communities positive Rank in comparison Comparison to benchmark Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 23% NA Contacted Yakima elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 16% NA Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Yakima 46% 87 Participated in a club 34% 66 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors 87% 1 Done a favor for a neighbor 83% 179 Attended a local public meeting 18% 190 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 38% 69 Read or watched local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 86% NA Voted in local elections 78% 86 25 NA NA 209 180 196 179 213 172 NA 212 NA NA Similar Similar Much higher Lower Similar Similar NA Similar The National Citizen Survey."'" Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Yakima's comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. Abilene city, KS 6,844 Adams County, CO 441,603 Airway Heights city, WA 6,114 Albany city, GA 77,434 Albany city, OR 50,158 Albemarle County, VA 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN 18,016 Altoona city, IA 14,541 Ames city, IA 58,965 Andover CDP, MA 8,762 Ankeny city, IA 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI 113,934 Annapolis city, MD 38,394 Apple Valley town, CA 69,135 Arapahoe County, CO 572,003 Arlington city, TX 365,438 Arlington County, VA 207,627 Arvada city, CO 106,433 Asheville city, NC 83,393 Ashland city, OR 20,078 Ashland town, VA 7,225 Aspen city, CO 6,658 Auburn city, AL 53,380 Auburn city, WA 70,180 Aurora city, CO 325,078 Austin city, TX 790,390 Baltimore city, MD 620,961 Baltimore County, MD 805,029 Barnstable Town city, MA 45,193 Battle Creek city, MI 52,347 Baytown city, TX 71,802 Bedford town, MA 13,320 Bellevue city, WA 122,363 Beltrami County, MN 44,442 Benbrook city, TX 21,234 Benicia city, CA 26,997 Bettendorf city, IA 33,217 Billings city, MT 104,170 Blaine city, MN 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI 3,869 Bloomington city, IL 76,610 Bloomington city, MN 82,893 Blue Ash city, OH 12,114 Blue Springs city, MO 52,575 Boise City city, ID 205,671 Boonville city, MO 8,319 Botetourt County, VA 33,148 Boulder city, CO 97,385 Boulder County, CO 294,567 Bowling Green city, KY 58,067 Branson city, MO 10,520 Brea city, CA 39,282 Brevard County, FL 543,376 Bristol city, TN 26,702 Broken Arrow city, OK 98,850 Brookline town, NH 4,991 Broomfield city, CO 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN 21,285 Bryan city, TX 76,201 Burleson city, TX 36,690 Cabarrus County, NC 178,011 26 Cambridge city, MA 105,162 Cape Coral city, FL 154,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO 37,941 Cartersville city, GA 19,731 Carver County, MN 91,042 Cary town, NC 135,234 Casa Grande city, AZ 48,571 Casper city, WY 55,316 Castle Pines North city, CO 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO 48,231 Cedar Falls city, IA 39,260 Cedar Rapids city, IA 126,326 Centennial city, CO 100,377 Centralia city, IL 13,032 Chambersburg borough, PA 20.268 Chandler city, AZ 236,123 Chanhassen city, MN 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC 57,233 Charlotte city, NC 731,424 Charlotte County, FL 159,978 Charlottesville city, VA 43,475 Chesapeake city, VA 222,209 Chesterfield County, VA 316,236 Chippewa Falls city, WI 13,661 Citrus Heights city, CA 83,301 Clayton city, MO 15,939 Clearwater city, FL 107,685 Clive city, IA 15,447 College Station city, TX 93,857 Colleyville city, TX 22,807 Collinsville city, IL 25,579 Columbia city, MO 108,500 Columbus city, WI 4,991 Commerce City city, CO 45,913 Concord city, CA 122,067 Concord town, MA 17,668 Conyers city, GA 15,195 Cookeville city, TN 30,435 Coon Rapids city, MN 61,476 Cooper City city, FL 28,547 Coronado city, CA 18,912 Corpus Christi city, TX 305,215 Corvallis city, OR 54,462 Coventry Lake CDP, CT 2,990 Cranberry township, PA 28,098 Crested Butte town, CO 1,487 Cross Roads town, TX 1,563 Crystal Lake city, IL 40,743 Cupertino city, CA 58,302 Dade City city, FL 6,437 Dakota County, MN 398,552 Dallas city, TX 1,197,816 Dania Beach city, FL 29,639 Davenport city, IA 99,685 Davidson town, NC 10,944 De Pere city, WI 23,800 Decatur city, GA 19,335 Delray Beach city, FL 60,522 Denton city, TX 113,383 Denver city, CO 600,158 Des Moines city, IA 203,433 The National Citizen SurveyTM Destin city, FL 12,305 Hartford city, CT 124,775 Dewey-Humboldt town, AZ 3,894 Henderson city, NV 257,729 Dorchester County, MD 32,618 Hermiston city, OR 16,745 Dothan city, AL 65,496 Herndon town, VA 23,292 Douglas County, CO 285,465 High Point city, NC 104,371 Dover city, DE 36,047 Highland Park city, IL 29,763 Dover city, NH 29,987 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO 96,713 Dublin city, OH 41,751 Hillsborough town, NC 6,087 Duluth city, MN 86,265 Holden town, MA 17,346 Duncanville city, TX 38,524 Holland city, MI 33,051 East Grand Forks city, MN 8,601 Honolulu County, HI 953,207 East Lansing city, MI 48,579 Hoquiam city, WA 8,726 East Providence city, RI 47,037 Houston city, TX 2,099,451 Eau Claire city, WI 65,883 Howell city, MI 9,489 Eden Prairie city, MN 60,797 Hudson city, OH 22,262 Edina city, MN 47,941 Hudson town, CO 2,356 Edmond city, OK 81,405 Hudsonville city, MI 7,116 Edmonds city, WA 39,709 Huntersville town, NC 46,773 El Cerrito city, CA 23,549 Hurst city, TX 37,337 El Paso city, TX 649,121 Hutchinson city, MN 14,178 Elk Grove city, CA 153,015 Hutto city, TX 14,698 Elk River city, MN 22,974 Indian Trail town, NC 33,518 Elmhurst city, IL 44,121 Indianola city, IA 14,782 Encinitas city, CA 59,518 Jackson County, MI 160,248 Englewood city, CO 30,255 Jefferson City city, MO 43,079 Erie town, CO 18,135 Jefferson County, CO 534,543 Escambia County, FL 297,619 Jerome city, ID 10,890 Escanaba city, MI 12,616 Johnson City city, TN 63,152 Estes Park town, CO 5,858 Johnson County, KS 544,179 Farmington Hills city, MI 79,740 Jupiter town, FL 55,156 Federal Way city, WA 89,306 Kalamazoo city, MI 74,262 Fishers town, IN 76,794 Kenmore city, WA 20,460 Flagstaff city, AZ 65,870 Kennett Square borough, PA 6,072 Flower Mound town, TX 64,669 Kirkland city, WA 48,787 Flushing city, MI 8,389 Kutztown borough, PA 5,012 Forest Grove city, OR 21,083 La Plata town, MD 8,753 Fort Collins city, CO 143,986 La Porte city, TX 33,800 Fort Smith city, AR 86,209 La Vista city, NE 15,758 Fort Worth city, TX 741,206 Lafayette city, CO 24,453 Fountain Hills town, AZ 22,489 Laguna Beach city, CA 22,723 Fredericksburg city, VA 24,286 Laguna Hills city, CA 30,344 Freeport CDP, ME 1,485 Lake Oswego city, OR 36,619 Freeport city, IL 25,638 Lakeville city, MN 55,954 Fremont city, CA 214,089 Lakewood city, CO 142,980 Fruita city, CO 12,646 Lane County, OR 351,715 Gainesville city, FL 124,354 Larimer County, CO 299,630 Gaithersburg city, MD 59,933 Las Cruces city, NM 97,618 Galveston city, TX 47,743 Lawrence city, KS 87,643 Garden City city, KS 26,658 League City city, TX 83,560 Gardner city, KS 19,123 Lebanon city, NH 13,151 Geneva city, NY 13,261 Lee County, FL 618,754 Georgetown city, TX 47,400 Lee's Summit city, MO 91,364 Georgetown town, CO 1,034 Lewiston city, ME 36,592 Germantown city, TN 38,844 Lexington city, VA 7,042 Gig Harbor city, WA 7,126 Lincoln city, NE 258,379 Gilbert town, AZ 208,453 Littleton city, CO 41,737 Gillette city, WY 29,087 Livermore city, CA 80,968 Goodyear city, AZ 65,275 Lone Tree city, CO 10,218 Grafton village, WI 11,459 Longmont city, CO 86,270 Grand Island city, NE 48,520 Los Alamos County, NM 17,950 Greeley city, CO 92,889 Louisville city, CO 18,376 Green Valley CDP, AZ 21,391 Lower Providence township, PA 25,436 Greer city, SC 25,515 Lynchburg city, VA 75,568 Gulf Shores city, AL 9,741 Lynnwood city, WA 35,836 Gunnison County, CO 15,324 Lyons village, IL 10,729 Hailey city, ID 7,960 Madison city, WI 233,209 Hamilton city, OH 62,477 Mankato city, MN 39,309 Hampton city, VA 137,436 Maple Grove city, MN 61,567 Hanover County, VA 99,863 Maple Valley city, WA 22,684 Harrisonville city, MO 10,019 Maricopa County, AZ 3,817,117 27 The National Citizen Survey."'" Marin County, CA 252,409 Marion County, IA 33,309 Maryland Heights city, MO 27,472 Mayer city, MN 1,749 McAllen city, TX 129,877 McDonough city, GA 22,084 McKinney city, TX 131,117 McMinnville city, OR 32,187 Mecklenburg County, NC 919,628 Medford city, OR 74,907 Menlo Park city, CA 32,026 Meridian charter township, MI 39,688 Meridian city, ID 75,092 Merriam city, KS 11,003 Merrill city, WI 9,661 Mesa city, AZ 439,041 Miami Beach city, FL 87,779 Midland city, MI 41,863 Milford city, DE 9,559 Minneapolis city, MN 382,578 Mission Viejo city, CA 93,305 Missoula city, MT 66,788 Monterey city, CA 27,810 Montgomery County, MD 971,777 Montgomery County, VA 94,392 Montpelier city, VT 7,855 Montrose city, CO 19,132 Mooresville town, NC 32,711 Morristown city, TN 29,137 Moscow city, ID 23,800 Mountlake Terrace city, WA 19,909 Munster town, IN 23,603 Muscatine city, IA 22,886 Naperville city, IL 141,853 Needham CDP, MA 28,886 New Braunfels city, TX 57,740 New Brighton city, MN 21,456 New Orleans city, LA 343,829 New York city, NY 8,175,133 Newport Beach city, CA 85,186 Newport city, RI 24,672 Newport News city, VA 180,719 Noblesville city, IN 51,969 Nogales city, AZ 20,837 Norfolk city, VA 242,803 Norman city, OK 110,925 North Las Vegas city, NV 216,961 North Palm Beach village, FL 12,015 Northglenn city, CO 35,789 Novato city, CA 51,904 Novi city, MI 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL 28,281 Oak Park village, IL 51,878 Oakland charter township, MI 16,779 Oakland Park city, FL 41,363 Ocala city, FL 56,315 Ogdensburg city, NY 11,128 Oklahoma City city, OK 579,999 Olathe city, KS 125,872 Olmsted County, MN 144,248 Orland Park village, IL 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI 66,083 Otsego County, MI 24,164 Oviedo city, FL 33,342 Paducah city, KY 25,024 Palm Beach County, FL 1,320,134 Palm Coast city, FL 75,180 Palm Springs city, CA 44,552 Palo Alto city, CA 64,403 Panama City city, FL 36,484 28 Papillion city, NE 18,894 Park City city, UT 7,558 Park Ridge city, IL 37,480 Parker town, CO 45,297 Pasadena city, CA 137,122 Pasco city, WA 59,781 Pasco County, FL 464,697 Peachtree City city, GA 34,364 Peoria city, AZ 154,065 Peoria County, IL 186,494 Peters township, PA 21,213 Petoskey city, MI 5,670 Phoenix city, AZ 1,445,632 Pinal County, AZ 375,770 Pinehurst village, NC 13,124 Piqua city, OH 20,522 Plano city, TX 259,841 Platte City city, MO 4,691 Plymouth city, MN 70,576 Pocatello city, ID 54,255 Polk County, FL 602,095 Port Huron city, MI 30,184 Port Orange city, FL 56,048 Port St. Lucie city, FL 164,603 Portland city, OR 583,776 Post Falls city, ID 27,574 Prince William County, VA 402,002 Provo city, UT 112,488 Pueblo city, CO 106,595 Purcellville town, VA 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ 26,361 Radford city, VA 16,408 Radnor township, PA 31,531 Rapid City city, SD 67,956 Raymore city, MO 19,206 Redmond city, WA 54,144 Rehoboth Beach city, DE 1,327 Renton city, WA 90,927 Reston CDP, VA 58,404 Richmond city, CA 103,701 Richmond Heights city, MO 8,603 Rifle city, CO 9,172 Rio Rancho city, NM 87,521 Riverdale city, UT 8,426 Riverside city, MO 2,937 Riverside village, IL 8,875 Rochester city, MI 12,711 Rock Hill city, SC 66,154 Rockford city, IL 152,871 Rockville city, MD 61,209 Roeland Park city, KS 6,731 Rolla city, MO 19,559 Roswell city, GA 88,346 Round Rock city, TX 99,887 Rowlett city, TX 56,199 Royal Oak city, MI 57,236 Saco city, ME 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ 25,259 Salida city, CO 5,236 Salt Lake City city, UT 186,440 Sammamish city, WA 45,780 San Antonio city, TX 1,327,407 San Carlos city, CA 28,406 San Diego city, CA 1,307,402 San Jose city, CA 945,942 San Juan County, NM 130,044 San Marcos city, TX 44,894 San Rafael city, CA 57,713 Sandy city, UT 87,461 Sandy Springs city, GA 93,853 The National Citizen Survey"' Sanford city, FL 53,570 Santa Clarita city, CA 176,320 Santa Monica city, CA 89,736 Sarasota city, FL 51,917 Sarasota County, FL 379,448 Savage city, MN 26,911 Savannah city, GA 136,286 Scarborough CDP, ME 4,403 Scott County, MN 129,928 Scottsdale city, AZ 217,385 Seaside city, CA 33,025 SeaTac city, WA 26,909 Sevierville city, TN 14,807 Shawnee city, KS 62,209 Sherman village, IL 4,148 Shorewood city, MN 7,307 Sioux Falls city, SD 153,888 Skokie village, IL 64,784 Smyrna city, GA 51,271 Snellville city, GA 18,242 South Lake Tahoe city, CA 21,403 South Portland city, ME 25,002 Southborough town, MA 9,767 Southlake city, TX 26,575 Sparks city, NV 90,264 Spokane Valley city, WA 89,755 Springboro city, OH 17,409 Springfield city, OR 59,403 Springville city, UT 29,466 St. Cloud city, MN 65,842 St. Louis County, MN 200,226 St. Louis Park city, MN 45,250 Stallings town, NC 13,831 State College borough, PA 42,034 Sterling Heights city, MI 129,699 Sugar Land city, TX 78,817 Summit city, NJ 21,457 Sunnyvale city, CA 140,081 Surprise city, AZ 117,517 Suwanee city, GA 15,355 Tacoma city, WA 198,397 Takoma Park city, MD 16,715 Temecula city, CA 100,097 Tempe city, AZ 161,719 Temple city, TX 66,102 The Woodlands CDP, TX 93,847 Thornton city, CO 118,772 Thousand Oaks city, CA 126,683 29 Tomball city, TX 10,753 Tualatin city, OR 26,054 Tulsa city, OK 391,906 Twin Falls city, ID 44,125 Tyler city, TX 96,900 Umatilla city, OR 6,906 Upper Arlington city, OH 33,771 Urbandale city, IA 39,463 Vail town, CO 5,305 Vancouver city, WA 161,791 Vestavia Hills city, AL 34,033 Virginia Beach city, VA 437,994 Visalia city, CA 124,442 Wahpeton city, ND 7,766 Wake Forest town, NC 30,117 Walnut Creek city, CA 64,173 Washington County, MN 238,136 Washoe County, NV 421,407 Watauga city, TX 23,497 Wauwatosa city, WI 46,396 Waddington town, NC 9,459 Wentzville city, MO 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH 13,143 West Chester borough, PA 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA 56,609 West Richland city, WA 11,811 Westerville city, OH 36,120 Westlake town, TX 992 Westminster city, CO 106,114 Wheat Ridge city, CO 30,166 White House city, TN 10,255 Whitewater township, MI 2,597 Wichita city, KS 382,368 Williamsburg city, VA 14,068 Wilmington city, IL 5,724 Wilmington city, NC 106,476 Wilsonville city, OR 19,509 Wind Point village, WI 1,723 Windsor town, CO 18,644 Windsor town, CT 29,044 Winston-Salem city, NC 229,617 Winter Garden city, FL 34,568 Woodland city, WA 5,509 Wrentham town, MA 10,955 Yakima city, WA 91,067 York County, VA 65,464 Yuma city, AZ 93,064