HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1986 Study Session - 398
OCTOBER 7, 1986
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION - COUNCIL WORKSHOP
1. ROLL CALL
The City Council met in session on this date at 12:00 noon in a
special Study Session — Council Workshop at the Restaurant at the
•
Airport, Yakima, Washington. Mayor Henry Beauchamp, presiding,
Council members Clarence Barnett, Pat Berndt, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn .
Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Jack Sparling present on roll call. City
Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Stouder, and City Clerk
Roberts also present.
•
2. INVOCATION
The Invocation was given by Council member Foy.
3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
•
Council member Carmichael inquired if the Mayor had received any
correspondence from the National League of Cities regarding
selection of voting delegates at its convention. She commented
that since she is going to the convention, compliments of the
Association of Washington Cities, and since she has not heard any
other Council members say they are attending, she would like to be
appointed as the City's voting .delegate. It was MOVED by Barnett,
•
seconded by Berndt, to appoint Lynn Carmichael as the City's voting
delegate, representing the City of Yakima, at the National League
of Cities meeting. Unanimously carried by voice vote.
There having been a request by one of the news media, it was the
general consensus of the Council to discuss the items out of
sequence of the Agenda and discuss Item No. 7 at this time.
7. SUBMISSION OF 1987 PRELIMINARY BUDGET FORECAST
City Manager Zais presented the 1987 Budget Forecast. He commented
detailed discussions will occur during the department budget
reviews. He mentioned those items significantly impacting the
budget, primarily the CIP, Rattlesnake Feasibility Study and
Wastewater Treatment Plant aerators replacement. He stated an
error was brought to staff's attention that on the top of page 28
the total 1987 budget amount should be $49,789,670, and the same
correction should be made in the table on page 35. In this
document, he stated he wanted to highlight major trends. that are
happening and briefly explained a proposed plan for a joint, City
Police /County Sheriff Data Processing System. City Manager Zais
asked if there were any other items in the Forecast Council would
like to have better addressed so when we get to the preliminary
budget, staff can have those answers available. Referring to page
22, Council member Barnett commented we would not be putting the
annual amount of $500,000 into the Transit Reserve. City Manager
Zais stated that figure is calculated by the UMTA regulations, and
has not always been $500,000. Council member Barnett referred to
the existing policy, and stated it appears we will not be able to
keep up with that policy statement this year, which concerns him
somewhat. He stated he would hope that would not be due solely to
the fact we established another route. City Manager Zais stated,
with the revenue down and the cross town route, we won't be able to
put any of the sales tax into the Capital Reserve Fund, however, it
is still subject to budget review. Council member Foy inquired if
we can legally do that since the Transit sales tax was voted in by
the citizens. Maybe the citizens would rather we take a reduction
instead of increasing it by a proposed 5% tax. City Manager Zais
stated the tax is proposed for the future and is not something
which is programmed for dependence in 1987. He stated the comment
he was making was that is a potential revenue source for the future
that might be considered for support of Cemetery, Parks, and
Recreation. Council member Barnett asked if any of the Community
Development Block Grant funds would be eligible for any of these.
B -5/1
•
wkshp10.7
8t
OCTOBER 7, 1986 ' • 39 - `
Council member Carmichael stated it couldn't be used unless Council
changes the target area. Mayor Beauchamp stated he had the same
question about the legality of a tax for the Cable TV fund and
perhaps staff should explore that question, as well as the one on
Transit. Council member Foy stated before we do budget this year,
we need to 'determine if we are going to have add -in items and
establish a policy. If we do, we will be forcing the City Manager
to look at that 5% Transit tax. Council member Barnett asked that
when we get to the detailed budget, can there be some indication
given on the revenue increase of 8%; what portion of that is due to
the proposed radio plan? City Manager Zais referred to the water
rate increase, commenting the $527,000 budgeted for the Rattlesnake
FERC license feasibility study can't come out of the reserve fund.
We are asking for an 8% increase to fund this, instead of the
previously proposed 6% increase.
Council member Berndt commented that last year when Council set
goals and priorities, she remembers Council thought we would meet
with department heads and have a mutual goals and priorities
session, but that never happened. She stated she still wants that
to occur. City Manager Zais stated he thinks the department heads
would still like to do that, and maybe a good time to do that would
be in the first quarter of the year. '
• 4. REPORT FROM LEGAL DEPARTMENT REGARDING GENERAL LEGAL MATTERS
. City Manager Zais stated there have been a number of questions that
have come up from Council relating to.general.advice from the Legal
Department. City Attorney Andrews stated he has .a list of
suggested .subjects Council may want to listen to, however, if
Council doesn't want to listen to any particular subject,..just say
so..He stated he thought we might discuss these general subjects:
1) the. difference between.an ordinance, resolution and motion; 2)
whether or. not a Council member may vote on. a matter that has
previously been heard by. the Council as a whole when that Council
member was not there; 3.) John Vanek will talk to you about public
- meetings versus public hearings in the. context.of the new zoning
ordinance and about conflict of interest and appearance of
fairness; 4) publication of ordinances; and 5.) review the current
provisions about executive. sessions - when may they be held, the
putp)ses, as least insofar as they apply to City Council meetings.
He stated he .brought a copy. of the Rules and.Procedures of the
Council in case Council has any questions on that. Mayor Beauchamp
requested. that staff make. each topic as brief as possible.
Council member Foy requested that the minutes of this discussion be
done verbatim. City Attorney. Andrews suggested talking .about the
difference between' an ordinance and a resolution. ._That.question
• was the subject of a paper. given recently at a conference by a man
named Jim Ferris, who was Senior Assistant Attorney General for the
• State .of. Washington. He was assigned as the Assistant Attorney
General in charge of municipal affairs for cities and towns. An
ordinance, defined, as that term is generally used, is.to designate
a local law of a municipal corporation duly enacted by the proper
authority, prescribing general, uniform and permanent rules of
conduct relating. to the corporate affairs of the municipality.
• . Stated. another .way by a..court _that. defined ordinances; that
definition was by McQuillin, which is a master work on law for
municipal corporations; the Washington. case defines_an ordinance as
laws of the city .which by their nature prescribes a general and
permanent rule, i.e. criminal .ordinance,_traffic codes ,..building
codes, land control, zoning, subdivision ordinance and.those things
that are general, uniform and permanent rather than transitory or '
one -time only items. A resolution,..Jim.Ferris tells us, is not the
equivalent of an ordinance, but it's. applied to an act of the
official.body, which ordinarily denotes something less solemn or
less formal than an ordinance._ It is an _expression..of ..opinion of
mind of the official body concerning. some particular_ item of
. business or some administrative. matter .coming within your
cognizance that. is more .of a one -shot item, or a temporary '
ordinance rather than something permanent, general, uniform. An _
example of. that is a resolution of intention is brought to
B - -5/2
wkshp10
400
OCTOBER 7, 1986
Council to declare its intention by adopting this resolution that
Council is going to create this local improvement district. That
is a one -time shot to declare your intention and starts the process
going and is not done by ordinance. When that local improvement
district is created and all of the things are done and it comes
back to Council for legal creation, it is done by ordinance because
that is a permanent, lasting action by Council that effects rights
and obligations of people, their property rights and monetary
affairs, so that is done by an ordinance. McQuillin, the master of
the textbooks, says a resolution tends to deal with matters of
special or temporary character, while an ordinance prescribes some
permanent rule of conduct of our government to continue in force
until that ordinance is repealed. A motion sometimes goes away
because of its own inertia, or it just runs out and there is no
sense necessarily of repealing them. Referring to motions and
orders of various kinds, as distinguished from resolution and
ordinances, he stated we generally look in our Council meeting on
motions as a way to make a decision on a procedural type matter.
For example, say Council calls for a report, it would be okay to
call for a report by the City Engineer, or to do something of a
transitory nature by motion. This paper points out, from a legal
standpoint in Washington, the difference between a motion and a
resolution is insignificant, and practically synonymous. Anything
that can be done by a resolution can be done by a motion and vice
versa because there is no difference and the power of the Council
is behind them. You tend to look at motions as procedural matters
and resolutions as temporary declarations of intent, authorizing
execution of contracts, and so forth; one shot items. There is a •
practical reason for that too, not mentioned in this paper.
Sometimes this is a matter of recordkeeping; a resolution, rather
than a motion is a convenient means and sometimes carries some
weight within a legal context in that it is a permanent record of
what you have done, rather than taking an extract out of the
minutes, which would not necessarily be a verbatim extract, so
there are some practical reasons, as well as some legal reasons for
having resolutions sometimes rather than motions. Now, we need to
talk about when is one or the other used. Ordinances, you
remember, are permanent and lasting action which have a general
legislative purpose. Any action meeting that criteria must be done
by ordinance and determining whether it is a legislative matter
usually requires a case -by -case analysis. A general guiding
principal is that action relating to subjects of a permanent and
general character are usually divided by the legislative to
exercise its legislative authority which is exercised by ordinance
and those that are subject to temporary and special characters are
regarded as administrative and can be done by resolution. There
are other places we look: one, to see whether the City Charter
specifically calls for an ordinance to accomplish a particular act,
or a state law. There is a list of over 250 different statutory
provisions relating to municipalities in the state statutes that
requires specific actions by the City Council, to be done by
specific modes of legislation. sometimes staff brings to Council
an ordinance or a resolution which may not fit the classical
distinction that we discussed; the reason is that there is sane
other reason for that, such as a requirement of the state statute
as in local improvement districts. Specifically McQuillin talks
about, and I think we want to talk about, the adoption of personnel
policies. The question is whether the adoption or enactment of
personnel matters is an exercise of your legislative authority
requiring an ordinance, or exercise of administrative authority or
ministerial authority, which can be accomplished by a resolution or
motion. Mcquillin's conclusion of this is that categories that
•
make up personnel policies should be regarded as legislative in
nature because they fix legal rights and duties. The setting of
compensation or fringe benefits, the establishment of Civil
Service or non - establishment of Civil Service is a matter that
can't be done by resolution. Other tenure rights must be done by
ordinance; work hours, work conditions, holidays, and so forth, are
to the extent they may be controversial, and should be incorporated
into an ordinance. It is these types of things which he stated he
guesses he does by instinct, maybe instinct isn't the right word;
some of these things that are so important he thinks they ought to
B -5/3
wkshp10.7
OCTOBER'7, 1986 4 0
be done in a manner so as to be, written in concrete, carved in
granite, preserved in a permanent file for reference and should be,
done by .ordinance. Council member Sparling commented that
ordinance passed years ago lasts forever. Right? City Attorney
Andrews agreed, unless it has been repealed: Council member
Sparling asked - if staff researches to see if - we - are•in conflict
• with another ordinance when we pass a new one. 'City Attorney
Andrews stated that is .a separate subject, and this leads in
to it. Council member Foy commented heT noticed that the -process in
Yakima is to have the resolution read and then there is a motion to
adopt, but you can also state it as "I move the resolution be read
by title and be placed before us for adoption "; and that is just as
good as going through the two processes. City Attorney Andrews
agreed and said you don't need a motion to read the' resolution,
which can be simply done by a direction of the mayor. The next
• matter is a resolution authorizing something and the mayor will
ask that the resolution be read, and the clerk will read the
resolution, and then Council has its discussion and" then a
Council member can for adoption. Council member Foy stated
• that a lot of times what we do is a lot of discussion and then we
seem to be looking at each other to see if we are ready to do
something and then the mayor has to read those non- verbals and say
please read it. He stated, to him, the process seems to be
streamlined by saying "Irwould like the resolution to - be read by
title and be placed before us for passage, and then we could go
ahead and do activity and maybe the Council they already
discussed 'it, and call for the question and boom, it's over
with:" Council member Buchanan stated you still have read it.
City Attorney Andrews stated the motion still •has to be voted on,
on•whether, you are going to read the resolution, and that takes
that extra vote: Council member Foy that he moves to have
the resolution read by title and placed before-us for passage, then
we are to adopt that. City•Attorney Andrews questioned, then
you are going to vote on that motion. Mr. Foyagreed ;•and stated
but-when that is read placed before for adoption, do I not
adopt when I make that vote. City Attorney Andrews disagreed,
stating you have to vote - on the resolution after it is read; you
have to vote on whether to adopt it: Council member Buchanan
stated' we are only doing one motion this way, and that way it would
be two motions. Council member Foy stated he has seen it done that
way, where they will read it, they go•ahead and then they don't
vote on whether to read it because it is part of the motion. City
Attorney Andrews stated he understands what he is doing and if it
is' okay with everybody; it doesn't'make one whit of difference to
him: Council 'member Foy - stated he•would adopt Council' s' method.
City Andrews stated that Council 'member Sparling asked
about•the process of amending ordinances. When an ordinance comes
to Council, it's on a piece of paper and it says ;• an ordinance
number, and there will be some recitals and then it says the City
of Yakima'Code is hereby amended. The reason we do it that way is
because many years •ago, • in about the late 1950's, - the City .of
Yakima codified its City ordinances where a11`.of the ordinances of
a'penal nature and public utilities and services, 'police, traffic,
fire, and all'of those, were put into some kind "of logical and
topical sequence •and bound in a code and were assigned a
sequential . number under a .- title - - and - chapter, sections and
subsections. Any ordinance amending the codification shall set
forth in full or or subsection or" subsections
of the codification being amended and when is done, it is
deemed to be in canpliance with a provision the Washington State
Constitution. - You can't say - "I want to amend section 3.77.010 by
striking the 'shall' and inserting the word 'shall not'." You .
can't do that; you - have to set , out the entire section with that •
word "shall" changed' to "shall. not." What has created - a problem,
is., subsequently; the State legislature laid on the city a
requirement by state' statute which says that "promptly after the
adoption; - every ordinance shall'be published at least once in the
official =newspaper of the City." Prior to this requirement we
followed.a procedure set forth in our Charter that legal notice of
any enactment of ordinance - 'or amendments' of the•Code, shall be
published in the newspaper in the City by title and, in
addition,' a clerk's certificate that says "An Ordinance the
8-5/4
wkshp10.7 •
4 O 2 OCTOBER 7, 1986
above title and number was enacted by the City Council on this
date." We have to publish the entire ordinance in compliance with
State law, as well as the clerk's certificate to comply with the
City Charter. Council member Berndt commented we still have the
freedom to publish a synopsis of the ordinance. City Attorney
Andrews stated in 1985 there were some other cities and towns,
other than first class, who were required to either publish and /or
post the entire ordinance. In 1977, in order to "help" those
cities that had that requirement at that time, there was a state
law enacted which said that "whenever any city is required to
publish any ordinance in the newspaper, the City may publish a
summary of the ordinance, which summary shall be approved by the
governing body,- which shall include the identification of the city,
a descriptive title, a section -by- section summary, any other
information which the city finds necessary to provide a complete
summary, and a statement to the effect that the full text will be
mailed to anybody who sends to the clerk such a request." The rest
of the law requires that whenever a publication is made under this
section, that is, whenever any publication is made by this summary
method, and if that proposed ordinance contains provisions
regarding taxation or penalties or descriptions of real property,
then the sections containing any of those three subjects must be
published in full and cannot be summarized. When a legal
description of property is contained in a summarized ordinance,
then the street.address must also be published, and when more than
• one street address is included, then the street address of the four
corners of the property involved must be published. Council member •
Berndt asked when a parking ordinance is amended, are we publishing
the entire ordinance. City Attorney Andrews stated we are only
publishing the section which has been amended. Council member
Berndt interjected that we are publishing the entire thing when we
• are only amending one paragraph. City Attorney Andrews stated we
are not amending one paragraph, we are amending one item, one
specific street, and one specific street is not a section. Council
member Berndt stated she would challenge that. Council member
Carmichael asked what is happening to the challenge. City Attorney
Andrews stated the challenge that you are talking about is not a
challenge against the validity of the requirement, but an action to
recover back from the State the costs for publication. There is
going to be a bill filed by the City of Seattle for the expenses
incurred, during this last year, by which Seattle is attempting to
• seek from the legislature its additional costs incurred in this
publication requirement. Assuming the State will reject that, as
it did this past year, then, he stated he has been advised by city
counsel that Seattle will commence legal action. Council member
Berndt asked why can't our summary be what we did to that parking
at that position, not the entire...City Attorney Andrews
interjected, stating it is because the requirement is that there be
a section -by- section summary. You can't just change an item in a
subsection. If you want to make a section out of each one of those
streets, then, you would say that "section 1: parking is prohibited
on J St.; section 2: parking is prohibited on such and such
street." You can do that rather than just list the streets. Then,
that would not be a summary, that would be a printing of the full
subsection. It is pretty difficult to summarize one sentence. On
the subject of what is a section and what is a subsection, which is
really what the question is why can't each sentence be a
subsection. It's because a section is not simply a sentence; a
section is a collection of sentences that constitutes a paragraph
that pertains to the same general subject that constitutes a
logical thought that makes up a paragraph. .A definition of a
summary is not that you may change one word, because a summary is a
summation of the point covering all the main points, but more
concisely, of a longer. point. It may not even be shorter, but
normally is. Council member Buchanan stated that when you are
doing something like a prohibition of a parking ordinance, it seems •
a summary would say that we are prohibiting parking on a list of
streets and it has now been'changed to include this new street.
City Attorney Andrews stated that that is not a summary; there are
some things you can't summarize, you just have to list all the
streets. Council member Foy stated the answer to this whole thing
is that we have to rely on AWC to take up this issue of publication
B -5/5
wkshp10.7
OCTOBER 7, 1986 - 4 -0
since its is aStates law and State law should come with its funding
to-cover the .costs. City Attorney Fred Andrews commented the real
solution to •the problem is to do away with the .law that says
ordinances have to published in its entirety: law by which
we say we •may get with a summary was passed in , 1 977, but the
requirements for First Class cities to ordinances in full
was passed..in 1985. There is a question whether the 1977 law would
even apply to•First Class cities. In 1977 when that was enacted
for the benefit of-some smaller cities;. that idea: was the subject
of a paper given by a man who was then city attorney of Longview
and he said there is no way, from his studies of the ordinances
drafted for Longview, 'there is no way•this so-called break, by
which ; cities can publish by summaries, or otherwise; does any good
for them. He raised .the question about legal descriptions, he
raised the-question about ordinances containing penalties, which
means all the criminal ordinances, all the traffic codes, all of
. which contain penalties; you can't summarize them if they contain
penalties. Mayor suggested sue move along on the agenda. ,
Council member Carmichael asked why we are doing this today. She
stated her concern is that she felt the really important issue of
this meeting today was to discuss goals and priorities. She
commented she is • afraid the : issue .of legal matters could take up
the-entire - afternoon. She stated she would like to postpone this
for another time and deal'with these other issues on the agenda.
Council membermBarnett commented he isgetting more out of the City
. Attorney's discussion than he 'would on -goals and) priorities.
Council member Carmichael' suggested that perhaps that :is.because
Council member Barnett was not able to join :•us the last time we did
this. -Council - member Barnett - stated he read all the - goals and
priorities when they -first came out and • read them when we got the
book in July and he • -read - the• update he got the .other: night and
found that most-of these - things - are•in - process.. Unless we were
going to establish new goals and. priorities on a staff that is
already pretty well loaded, that discussion not take more
than five or ten minutes. City Manager Zais stated - .maybe we
should determine'how'much we want to spend on these topics for
the balance of ..the :afternoon. Mayor Beauchamp stated that maybe we
don't want to go into.these legal issues in some depth,' but if
there are some new developments in•the legal arena, we
could briefly review them. City Attorney. Andrews stated there
• really .aren't - a . lot of new' •developments : in the legal- arena, but we
wanted to talk about the general legal questions which have come
during the Council meetings. He further stated that was not his
desire to lay this on Council,• but we were trying to respond to
some things we thought Council was interested in, but'if not, we
can pass on: this. Council member' Barnett stated there . is. one area
he would ' like ..to have discussion on, and that .is the memorandum
from Mr. Lamb on. handling public meetings, ,that appears different
from same previous we have had and the document we received
a-week or two in our pacckets. Council member Berndt stated the
County handles it differehtly•than we do, for instance, they put it
on consent, and• :we don't. City•Attorney Andrews stated he not
seen • that .•and maybe. staff should look at that try- to :reconcile
same things before we try to talk to Council about this.
Council member Buchanan expressed concern about a development being
built under the:approach of-the airport..-He spoke about. a
situation at•Sea wherein all the houses had be bought by
the City. of -- Seattle: - If any ofs you take .off here, you 'will notice
you - can take a left turn,' which is the normal traffic pattern, the
County. has a that is going to be right
underneath•the•approach - and departure for'this airport, and if that
reachea stage where all houses are built, At won't be too
much longer before all those houses have - to be bought. We need to
be looking at how much' money that going to cost. Mayor
Beauchamp questioned - if this' has .been: brought to.. the :-attention of
the-Airport: •Board and the.County. Council member Buchanan stated
the County' Commissioner liaison was: not: present 'during that
discussion the Board meeting.- ss
Referring - once again. to public•meeting procedures, Council member
Barnett stated it appears to him,.)the way - is interpreting it,
B -5/6
wkshpl0.7
1 0 4 OCTOBER 7, 1986
the instructions he got on public meetings differs from the memo
from Mr. Lamb. He stated his second question relates to the
situation yesterday when he went to hear a County appeal from a
class 2 review to the hearing examiner and then realized maybe he
shouldn't be there even though it's in the County, and whether or
not , under our interpretation, as a Council member, he should not
listen to a hearing examiner's hearing. He stated, realizing we
may have a similar situation in the City, he left. He commented
he has yet to see this hearing examiner through a complete session.
City Attorney Andrews stated if the property is in the County,
under their jurisdiction, there is no conflict. Council member Foy
stated it was brought to their attention, they were there during
the preliminary stage setting of the rules by Mr. Lamb, and it was
brought to their attention that since it's an urban plan, and we
and the County have adopted this; we, in the City, in an R -1 zone
have turned down an application for a duplex, and yet, in the
County they have approved it, and now it is being appealed. The
feeling was, what happens to the people we turned down? Lets say
- the County ruling is upheld; may they not came back to Council and
want us to reconsider our denial, and what happens if we had sat
through that County hearing, then we would be declared ineligible
to listen. City Attorney Andrews asked where this thought process
came from. Council member Foy stated it was theirs. City Attorney
Andrews stated that is a good idea. Council member Foy stated it
is a good possibility these people may come and ask for a change in
the ordinance in the County and then we have to adopt it. City
Attorney Andrews stated there may be some special considerations
that we may learn the hard way; ordinarily, there may not be any
problem, but with a joint ordinance there may be some problems.
The subject matter was outside the jurisdiction of the City but the
issue may be a common one that may apply to the County and City.
City Manager Zais commented Council may want to hear one of the
other items on the list. Council member Foy stated he would like
to see the city attorney give us a 3 -4 line description of each
topic and if we think we need additional information, we can meet
individually with him, or maybe` the Council in total, and request
review of a subject. City Attorney Andrews suggested he write down
each of the topics and see if Council is interested in receiving
additional detailed information. Council member Foy stated there
is a discrepancy between how we are handling public meetings if we
look at what the hearing examiner is saying, between us and the
County, so we've got some real concerns because this is supposed to
be a uniform ordinance. Referring to the zoning ordinance, Council
member Barnett stated that on public hearings, when we have a true
public hearing on the zoning ordinance and we are having a hearing,
sometimes, he may have voiced an opinion,. having asked the person
a question, may have commented back to them. He stated he guesses
that is getting, in dangerous territory. City Attorney Andrews
agreed and said if you express an opinion before all the testimony
is there, you may be accused of having made up your mind before you
heard all the testimony, violating the appearance of fairness
doctrine. Council member Buchanan suggested that when the city
attorney writes his list, he also gives his reference source.
5. DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
City Manager Zais commented Council has already talked about this a
little bit. These are work priorities Council established last
August. There have been periodic progress reports and action
reports on these programs. There are many other projects staff is
working on but not listed as the highest priorities. The main
purpose today is to allow Council to express your thoughts on how
staff is doing and give Council an opportunity to change your
priorities. Referring to items I. c, Contain the costs of
providing police and fire services, III. a, Joint law enforcement
center, I. d, Establish a 9 -1 -1 emergency communications system,
V., Combine communications (police /fire /sheriff), Council member
Buchanan stated that those are all related to I. c.'We need to
take another look at III. a, joint law enforcement center and talk
to the County. There was additional discussion regarding the
combined communications proposal. Council member Buchanan stated
he thinks the time has cone for the council committee to talk to
B -5/7
wkshp10.7
OCTOBER 7, 1986 •
4 ® 6
the County Commissioners. Council member Carmichael stated a long
time ago we used to meet periodically for lunch :with the County
Commissioners and maybe that, in addition to a committee, might be
a` vehicle for us - to address sane areas of concerns we have to the
County Commissioners and we might get- sane areas - .of concerns they
have for the 7 City. She recommended we give • part. of this-task task to
the Committee and to reinstate sane' of these meetings with
the72County Commissioners. Council member.Buchanan stated :•another
problem is emergency medical services, 'tie-in' with.ambulance. and
hospital. If we go to joint law enforcement,'that'can 'partly be
derailed. Right'now, the Health: District is looking' at a
coordinator for emergency medical services. - The. state - is-pushing
for that position to be filled; even to the point where will
pay for the first one and three - quarter year's salary. City
• Manager Zais stated there is- an'issue in the budget that. will cane
to on the emergency medical services budget and much
time is 'spent on that with no funding. - Council member Foy
cautioned Council - and 'staff about - asking for - an -EMS . tax on the .
basis we are running an • aid car - to cover the -cost of that fire
truck going He . iindicated it could put - the r ;City in
competition. Council stated there is a state law
that 'says there - is 'no can into business. Council member
Foy° - stated they thought that same thing - in Aberdeen and; they got
stuck.' He stated he. would like to see Council member• Buchanan
chair ,a• »committee, along with - Council members - Berndt. and Barnett to
work with this. He :stated he would be willing to be - an - alternate.
Council member•Carmichael stated she would be in working
on - .this - committee. Council member stated she would like to
see' 'Council member - Carmichael's -suggestion - .regarding. lunch
meetings .with County - , Commissioners. Mayor Beauchamp stated staff
is to get some dialogue with the Commissioners. Council member
Carnichael.:comuented she .was , involved: with :the the 9 -1 -1 •and joint law
enforcement and if there is 1 any- way she help,: . she. - willing.
There. was a :brief discussion: regarding .the: Rattlesnake :.project,
Fred.-'Stouder giving a update onu:its status. Referring to
III. c, Develop:a strategy.for replacing federal: funding programs
for-- .which funding is . being eliminated;—Council: member rFoy stated
that right now; administration should bring Council.a strategy and
then tell us it should. became a .policy. He - stated. he thinks that
is a priority' for_ administration. City Zais, that
later in the memo; he addressed what staff.has done, will be doing,
and what'needs to be '
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITIZEN SURVEY
•
Council member Barnett stated he would like to see this survey item
tabled until: after all the studies • that are in :process are
completed . then survey - the citizens sea-if willing
to all . the enhancements; rather than an- option :to give the
citizen an opportunity to gripe. He stated •he• would like to see
most» of these - gel, . then we establish a committee to - see : what type
of approach - we - want - to • - take . on a survey, .rather than the normal
type are you satisfied with) °the - city services: :It masMOVED by
Buchanan to move 2 - down to•item 6 or maybe 7. died
for lack• :of - a second; :'Council , member suggesting that item
be put at bottan of . the - priority: list. °Council member
Carmichael stated there is an outstanding'survey which will be done
by WSU. She: stated ' her concerns is - how the . questions . are to be
phrased. We look at the results•of this . survey - .in addition
to this' and 'go very carefully. One of' the things that frightens
her about a survey, she stated, is that.often a,survey - will tell
you exactly what you want depending_ on how you.:.write the
questions : • She commented that- any .time , there-, is 'more • than one
revenue- issue on' a.'ballot; they , all go down. ..
Referring to" the Goals and Priorities, City-Manager Zais asked
Council ' if there -is anything not on : this:: list :that needs to be.
Council member stated he would like clarify
comments. Be stated his •was to'listing the projects in
• ranking_ _order. We .just -list- them as ■ -our - •goals and
priorities.' • , ;. _ • .
B -5/8
wkshp10.7
4 0 6 OCTOBER 7, 1986
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Council member Berndt stated there was an issue about increasing
productivity and efficiency in the budget process. She stated that
hardly a day goes by that she doesn't get hounded about our parks
system. City Manager Zais cautioned Council to be careful about
comparison with other cities. He stated the Department director
has been directed to a re- examine the programs and staffing, with
the Parks Commission and Mr. Stouder. It seems we db a lot of
recreation programs in comparison with months. Mayor. Beauchamp
stated that in the past we have looked at fee programs, but not the
other overheads, etc.
Council member Barnett commented he has been going to COG meetings.
He stated he wonders whether it is time to consider if it's
worthwhile for the City to continue its membership in COG. If it
is decided to withdraw he stated he thinks we should give them time
to budget properly and not ju t tell them we are not going to join
next year. He stated he realizes there are certain types of grants
that have to be funneled through them because we -have a COG, so we
should be cautious. He stated it's great for the small towns and
cities to have COGs, although he is not sure we are getting that
much benefit from it. Council members Buchanan and Foy concurred
with Mr. Barnett's statements. Council member Carmichael stated
that actually the help for those small = commun.ities should come from
the State Department of Community Development. She stated we pay
twice and she supports Mr. Barnett's recommendation. Mayor
Beauchamp commented that if the Department of Community Development
cannot fill the gap, he would be concerned about pulling out.
Council member Foy referred to the article in the newspaper that
related to the Trolley Association's $400,000 purchase of the
roundhouse. If they get the lease for the roundhouse, he
questioned if we have to get a lease for storing that equipment,
because it's ours. Council member Barnett stated if they take the
roundhouse he thinks they could charge us for locomotive rent.
City Manager Zais commented there are two issues Glenn Rice has
been working on 1) trolley request that it be declared a
historical site, and 2) this question about what happens after the
lease is expired. He stated he was advised the lease would be
continued with the City, not the Trolley Association. Council
member Foy stated next year there is no tax write -off for all
antique things and we should sell it this year. City Manager Zais
stated staff is working on a report.
Council member Sparling submitted a letter of resignation from the
Council, which he read. He stated his time constraints do not
afford him the opportunity to serve any longer as a - member of the
Yakima City Council. In the letter he stated some of his'concerns
and suggestions: "1) You must resist the continuance of our union
agreement with AFSCME, regarding subcontracting. This clause is
costing the city taxpayer a lot of money and will get more and more
expensive; 2) You should resist further union domination of your
work force that ties the hand of your management staff; 3) I hope
you continue to consolidate county and city government departments.
Each of us lives and votes in Yakima County. Someday these
governments will be consolidated. I will continue to work on this
as long as I can; 4) The bus tax should be reduced to 0.2%. It is
my belief that we are running a very expensive system. I have
never seen reliable bus income and expense information. If you
reduce this tax 33% you might hear sane screaming but it can be
done for less if you try. Let the riders pay more and the
taxpayers less; 5) The Cable TV tax should be reduced to .3% or
less and the city should keep one half of this. Channel 12 should
be merged with KYVE and be paid 500 of the reduced cable tax income
in order to reduce KYVE auctions which are another drain on the
community; 6) Good luck with the 1987 budget. The budget process
could be more effective and a lot less work if. you follow my
earlier suggestions." Mayor Beauchamp asked Mr. Sparling if he had
an effective date for his resignation. Council member Sparling
B -5/9
wkshp10.7
OCTOBER 7, 1986 4 b :-
stated his resignation is • effective.: .as of right now. Mayor
Beauchamp expressed appreciation for the service provided by
Council member Sparling to the community. Council member Foy
stated he would like Council to give' consideration to the process
he went through to be appointed to the Council. Following further
discussion regarding a procedure to fill this vacancy, it was the
general consensus of the Council to request candidates to , complete
an application, with a cut -off date of Wednesday, October 22, 1986
at. 5:00 p.m.'-- Council member Buchanan indicated he - .would be
interested in :being appointed to this 'at- large position'. There
was sane discussion 'about a date to conduct' interviews and make a
decision on° the 'appointment, however , no •specific - :date was
determined. City Manager Zais stated an announcement should be
made and applications requested as soon as possible. (Council
member Sparling absent after 4:40 p.m.)
City Manager Zais asked if Council wanted to add the question about
the issue of - 'the' Parks' and Recreation operation 'efficiency and
productivity to the list. Council member Berndt stated it was just
her comment in general. City Manager Zais stated he could do it
department -wide with special emphasis on Parks and Recreation.
9. ADJOURNMENT'S ( -. -_ , .,
It was MOVED;by,... Buchanan, seconded by that . this meeting
be adjourned at the hour of p.m.' 'Unanimously - carried % by voice
vote: _, _ .1 •. •
i
READ AND "CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY - • I3 f7
cam. L MEMBER - ,DA
‘..kj
COUNCIL MEMBER DATE
ATTEST:
•
'CITY CLERK -: ,� , YOR -
•
•
•
• B -5/10
wkshpl0.7