HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008 04B Minutes 08-06-2008 Council Public Safety Committee • Council Public Safety Committee
Council Chambers
City Hall
August 6, 2008
MINUTES
Council Members Present: Norm Johnson, Bill Lover and David Edler
Staff Present: City Manager Dick Zais, Assistant City Manager Dave Zabell, Police
Chief Sam Granato, Fire Chief Charlie Hines, Supervising Code Inspector Joe Caruso,
Police Captain Jeff Schneider, Police Captain Greg Copeland, Police Lieutenant Gary
Belles, Police Lieutenant Mike Merryman, Police Lieutenant Tom Foley, Assistant City
Attorney Cynthia Martinez, Assistant City Attorney Bronson Faul, Police Administrative
Assistant Terri Greer
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Johnson at 2:02 p.m.
I. Gang Enforcement MOU
0 Granato advised the Committee of the planned expansion of the Yakima Police
Department (YPD) gang unit to a county -wide gang unit. In order to establish a county-
wide unit, Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) need to be executed with
participating agencies. Once the MOUs have been executed, the task force can apply
for federal funding. Each participating agency will be responsible for the salaries and
overtime of their own employees assigned to the task force. All Yakima County law
enforcement agencies are invited to join. Currently, there is a Washington State
Department of Corrections officer assigned to the unit.
Granato expects that the MOUs will be ready to present to the Committee in late
August.
II. EMS Levy
Bob Hall recently sent a list of 14 questions regarding the EMS Levy to the Council.
Those questions have been addressed and returned to Mr. Hall by Chief Hines. Edler
asked Hines what he would recommend to the Committee for the next step. Hines
stated he would like to see this placed on the November ballot to start receiving funds at
the earliest possible opportunity. Later ballot dates delay collection of funds. Edler
would like to see the Public Safety Committee engage quickly in the strategic planning
process for the Levy. The Council is in favor of the Levy change, the issue is with the
timing of the ballot.
•
0 Johnson clarified the procedure would be to go back to the full council to have the
council set the ballot date, which could be done at the next council meeting. Martinez
advised it did not need to be in the form of a motion to reconsider, any motion that has
been previously introduced could be brought up again. Zais stated there would need to
4 10
be a special meeting of the Council called in order to meet the timelines required to
have the issue on the November ballot. There would need to be resolutions submitted
by December 12 to put be on the February ballot.
It was MOVED by Edler to ask the Council to convene a special meeting to put the EMS
Levy on the November ballot. SECONDED by Lover for further discussion.
Lover stated he didn't think the issue would pass the full council at this time and that
would not be good for the Levy. Johnson stated there should be more forums like the
Chamber of Commerce luncheon to get the information out to the community to develop
community support, and that issues such as a continuing Levy or a sunset Levy are still
not resolved. Lover asked if it is still possible to have the County fire departments
participate with us; however, Hines stated that none of the County fire chiefs saw a
need to go for a separate Levy.
Johnson stated he did not have a problem sending this back to the full council with a
recommendation for a February ballot date, but there needs to be community outreach
in the interim.
Johnson called for a vote on Edler's motion to request a special council meeting to put
the issue on the November ballot. Vote was one aye (Edler) and two nay (Johnson &
Lover). Motion DEFEATED. 0
It was MOVED by Johnson to present to the full council for a February ballot.
SECONDED by Edler, with an amendment for the Public Safety Committee to
recommend no sunset on the Levy. The recommendation died for lack of a second.
The motion as moved by Johnson was voted upon and PASSED unanimously.
Johnson requested that Zais provide the legal information to the Committee on the
issue of a sunset vs. no sunset Levy. Edler asked what Hines' recommendation was on
the issue. Hines recommended a permanent Levy. He will also develop a fact sheet on
the options and restrictions regarding when the Levy vote can be held, what the
duration of the Levy can be, etc.
III. Police Grant Status
Foley updated the Committee on the status of the GREAT program grant. We have
unofficially been notified that we are not on the list of those receiving an award
announcement, so the assumption is we are not getting the grant. There is a $100,000
"hedge" in the Byrne earmark for the GREAT officer salary.
Edler questioned the impact on CSC's request for funds for meth reduction. It appears
this will fit into the contract segment of the grant requirement. Lover asked if the CSC
could rephrase their program to drug reduction rather than specifically meth reduction.
Edler asked about the status of graffiti paint out and inquired if Proposition 1 had
ill
passed, would the City be as far behind as we are on graffiti paint out. There is funding
0 in the COPS Tech for graffiti cameras. Additionally, the individuals responsible for the
etching /tagging in the downtown area were recently sentenced to one year. Out of 148
graffiti arrests, there have only been 9 convictions and a stronger message needs to be
sent to the taggers. There needs to be a comprehensive review of city graffiti programs
to ensure efforts are not being duplicated or areas are slipping through the cracks.
Lover inquired as to why the conviction rate is so low. Granato advised the taggers had
to be caught in the act of tagging or would have to confess in order to get a conviction.
A brief review of other police grants was provided.
IV. North 1 Street Emphasis
Belles provided a final update on the North 1 Street emphasis patrol and advised that
statistics are now showing that the emphasis patrols are reducing crime in the
surrounding districts, rather than just displacing crime to the surrounding districts.
V. LEMAP response report
Granato presented the Police Department command staffs response report to the
LEMAP review. During a retreat of the command staff, it was decided to compile a
response report giving the status of action on each recommendation made by the
LEMAP committee.
0 Councilman Lover stated that the LEMAP report was in essence a performance audit he
is very happy with the report and the progress the department has made in
implementing the recommendations.
VI. Other Business
It was MOVED by Edler and SECONDED by Lover to move the Public Safety
Committee meetings to a quarterly or as needed meeting schedule. Motion PASSED
unanimously:
VII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:05.
i si ,
Nor Joh Or
Public Safety Committee Chair
Minutes prepared by Terri Greer
ID
CITY OF YAKIMA
LEGAL
•
DEPARTMENT
200 South Third Street, Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (Phone) 509 - 575 -6033 (Fax) 509 - 575 -6160
MEMORANDUM
August 14, 2008
TO: David Edler, Honorable Mayor
Yakima City Council Members
CC: Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: Cynthia Martinez, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Options for EMS Levy Duration
On August 6, 2008, the Council Public Safety Committee of the Yakima City Council
voted unanimously to recommend that the Council take action to place a City EMS levy
on the February 3, 2009 election. However, the Council Public Safety Committee made
no recommendation regarding the duration of the proposed EMS levy. Below is my
legal opinion summarizing the applicable statutory rules pertaining to EMS levies.
Attached is also a memo prepared by Charlie Heinz and myself exploring a series of
questions raised over the last several weeks. Our goal is to be as clear as possible
regarding the options available to the City Council. We want to apologize for the
confusion surrounding the sunset options, but as you will read, each choice has a
different set of options and concerns.
In the event the Council elects to call for a future ballot proposition on a City EMS levy,
as proposed by the Council Public Safety Committee, the Legal Department will need
clear direction from the full Council with respect to the sunsetting of any EMS levy
proposal.
With respect to whether a City EMS levy should be permanent, or should sunset
with the County EMS levy, there are only two legal options:
1. A permanent City EMS levy, which will not sunset with the County levy in 2012.
2. A City EMS levy which will sunset with the County levy in 2012, and which
cannot be sunsetted for an earlier or a later date.'
This opinion has been verified with Bob Meinig, staff attorney at MRSC in consultation with other MRSC
staff attorneys.
•
Memo to Mayor and City Council
August 14, 2008
Page - 2
110
Legal Opinion Summarizing the Statutory Rules Governing EMS Levy Duration
and Election Options:
Pursuant to RCW 84.52.069, attached, counties and /or cities may ask the voters
for authority to levy a property tax of up to 50 cents per thousand dollars of assessed
valuation of property to support emergency medical services (EMS). There are three
duration options contained in the statute: six years, ten years, or permanent.
The Statute contains some challenging procedural rules governing an EMS levy
limited in duration (6 or 10 years) and the permanent EMS levy option. These rules are
summarized below:
EMS Levy limited in duration: (6 or 10 year sunset)
1. A city levy authorized subsequent to a county EMS levy that is limited in
duration (6 or 10 years) shall expire concurrently with the county levy.
2. The County must obtain the City's approval before placing the renewal of
the countywide EMS levy on the ballot.
3. The City and County can not request the renewal of their respective
levies on the same ballot.
Permanent EMS levy:
1. A permanent EMS levy is subject to a referendum at any time, as opposed to
the standard referendum procedure, which requires that a petition be filed within seven
days of the passage of the ordinance.
2. A city imposing a permanent levy under this section shall provide for separate
accounting and expenditures of the revenues generated by the levy. The city shall
maintain a statement of the accounting which shall be updated at least every two years
and shall be available to the public upon request at no charge.
cc. Chief Charlie Hines
Dave Zabell
Helen Harvey
Cim/EMSlevy3.doc
CITY OF YAKIMA
LEGAL
•
DEPARTMENT
200 South Third Street, Yakima, WA 98901 -2830 (Phone) 509 - 575-6033 (Fax) 509- 575 -6160
MEMORANDUM
August 14, 2008
TO: David Edler, Honorable Mayor
Yakima City Council Members
CC: Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: Charlie Heinz, Fire Chief
Cynthia Martinez, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: EMS Levy Duration and Election Questions
1. What are the controlling statutes with respect to EMS levies?
RCW 84.52.069 provides that counties and/or cities may ask the
voters for authority to levy a property tax of up to 50 cents per
thousand dollars of assessed valuation of property to support
emergency medical services (EMS).
2. What are the options for the amount of the levy?
The Statute authorizes an amount up to 50 cents. The amount of the
County EMS levy combined with the City EMS levy cannot exceed 50
cents.
The County currently has a 25 cent levy. Which means the City can
collect an additional 25 cent levy.
3. What options in terms of duration does the statute provide for an EMS
1evy,
cim /EMS levy6.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council
August 14, 2008
Page - 2 •
The statute provides that a levy may be presented to the voters to be
in effect for six years, ten years, or permanently.
4. Why cannot the voters of Yakima authorize a limited duration EMS levy
of six or ten years as provided for in the statute?
The existing limited duration County EMS levy imposes an
unavoidable obstruction to this approach. The statute provides that
when a city authorizes an EMS levy subsequent to a county EMS levy
that is limited in duration, the city levy shall expire at the same time as
the county levy.
In other words, should the City of Yakima voters approve anything
other than a permanent EMS levy; the City EMS levy will expire with
the Yakima County EMS levy in 2012.
5. Can the proposed EMS levy be set to expire at a later date than the
County EMS Levy?
As discussed in #3 above, any term authorized other than a
permanent levy, must expire with the County EMS Levy in 2012 and
cannot be sunsetted at a later date.
6. Can a City levy be drafted to sunset for less than the 4 years
remaining for the County EMS levy?
No. Based on the answer in #5 there can only be one sunset, 2012.
7. If the voters were to approve a permanent City EMS levy, what option
is available to the people to put an end to the levy?
A permanent EMS levy is subject to a referendum at any time, as
opposed to the standard referendum procedure, which requires that a
petition be filed within seven days of the passage of the ordinance or
resolution.
S .
cim/EMSlevy6. doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council
August 14, 2008
Page - 3
8. In the case where the City EMS levy were to expire concurrently with
the County. EMS levy in 2012, what are the legal requirements with
respect to future elections to reenact both the City and County levies?
The Statute provides that the City must approve any county -wide EMS
levy proposal before it can be placed on the ballot The Statute also
prohibits another taxing district within a county (the City) from placing
an EMS levy vote on the same ballot as a county -wide EMS levy vote.
9. When a limited duration City levy expires in 2012, what are the election
options?
The Statute prohibits the City and County from presenting their
renewals on the same ballot. There would have to be two elections in
succession presenting each jurisdiction's EMS levy renewal. The City
could ask for renewal during a Spring special election, and the County
could follow in the Fall general election, or vice versa. Such a scheme
would prevent each jurisdiction from experiencing a lapse in EMS
410 funding. The choice of election would be the City's because the
County needs the City's approval before they can place their renewal
measure on the ballot.
In either scenario the voters would be deciding on an EMS levy in
back to back elections. There is some concern that voter fatigue and
confusion could jeopardize either or both of the renewals.
10. If there is no levy election until the county levy expires in 2012, may
the City and County hold a joint EMS levy election on a 50 cent levy
proposal countywide?
The City could approve a county -wide request for a 50 cent levy and
City of Yakima voters would vote on the county -wide levy proposal. If
passed, the City would receive a portion of the 50 cent levy.
This may also be an option if the City chooses an EMS levy of limited
duration. The City would have to convince the County and the other
Fire Districts to pursue a 50 cent renewal when both of the levies
expire in 2012 .
S
cim/EMSlevy6. doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council
August 14, 2008
Page -
11. Has the 50 cent option been discussed with the other jurisdiction within
the County?
Yes, however, the other jurisdictions in the county are not interested in
pursuing a 50 cent levy. All of the other jurisdictions within the County
are, primarily volunteer fire departments. The City of Yakima, like
other cities its size, has chosen to staff a professional Fire
Department. Volunteer Departments do not have the overhead
expenses of a professional Fire Department.
The City could choose to withhold its approval for a County EMS levy
renewal and force the County to renew at 50 cents. However, such a
move may sour the County voters.
12. What options in terms of duration does the statute provide for a
countywide EMS levy?
The duration options remain the same; 6years, 1 Oyears, or permanent.
13. Does the timing of the EMS levy have an effect on the impact of the
statute?
No, regardless of when a City EMS levy appears on the ballot, if it is
for a limited term, by statute it expires with the County EMS levy in
2012.
14. Why a permanent EMS Levy?
At present, the Yakima Fire Department is not able to meet the current
demand for service. The Department's failure to meet current demand
is the direct result of being understaffed. As the City of Yakima
continues to grow, calls of service will increase, not decrease. Call
volumes have increased 62% over the last ten years. The significant
increase in call volume over this period and a decline in the
Department's Firefighter per capita ratio have resulted in a marked
and continued decline in service for the citizens in need of emergency
medical or fire response.
•
cim/EMSlevy6.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council
August 14, 2008
Page - 5
The rising call volume and the decline of Firefighter per capita have
diminished the Department's ability to respond to emergencies over
the past ten years. Without additional resources, this problem will
continue to grow. The trajectory of this decline in service is beginning
to put our residents at risk. A permanent EMS levy will offer a
permanent solution.
In contrast to a limited term (6 or 10 years) EMS levy, a permanent
levy removes the confusion and perception of competing /dueling
levy's in 2012. With both issues so close together the resulting
confusion could jeopardize the City's levy, the County's levy, or both.
For this proposal to be successful, the City needs the funds from both
levies. The County EMS levy currently funds 8 Firefighters and the
proposed City EMS levy would fund an additional 12 positions.
With revenues from a successful City EMS levy being realized in April
2010, the time to recruit, hire and train 12 Firefighters, and certify 18
Firefighters as paramedics pushes full implementation of the program
to mid -2011, at the earliest. Voters will be asked to renew the EMS
levy before they have realized the full benefit of their investment.
The short duration of guaranteed funding will also make recruitment
efforts difficult and retention even more so. A qualified Firefighter-
Paramedic, realizing that the job they were hired for may not be there
for more than a few months after graduation will be very susceptible to
recruitment from an agency with a more stable financial picture.
cc. Dave Zabel!
Helen Harvey
•
cim/EMSlevy6.doc
February 2009
Ballot
Levy Passes
Election/Voting Revenue
Day Flow
Begins
February 2009 January 2010 I April 2010
Collection
Begins
Note: Timelines are based on information received from the Yakima County Treasurers
Office and the Washington State Department of Revenue.
• • •
ti*^ r C O?
. _%
} 4 2008 / 2009 Election Calendar
Election Date Aug 19, 08 Nov 4, 08 i Mar 10, 09 pr , 0 9 May 19, 09 Aug 18, 09 Nov 3, 09
Resolutions Due May 27 Aug 12 L an 16 Mar 6 Mar 27 May 26 Aug 11
30 Day reg /Add chg Deadline Jul 19 Oct 4 Feb 7 Mar 28 Apr 18 Jul 18 Oct 3
15 Day NEW Registration Deadline Aug 4 Oct 20 liFeb 23 Apr 13 May 4 Aug 3 Oct 19
Ballots Available Jul 30 Oct 15 1 Feb 18 Apr 8 Apr 29 Jul 29 Oct 14
Election Certified Sep 3 Nov 25 i Mar 25 May 13 Jun 3 Sep 2 Nov 24
A
I
* *Please note that the 15 -Day In Person voter registration deadline in ONLY for persons who are not currently
registered anywhere in Washington State.