GRANDVIEW CITY COUNCIL

STUDY SESSION MINUTES

NOVEMBER 6, 2006

1.         CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Norm Childress called the study session to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Present were:  Mayor Norm Childress and Councilmembers Helen Darr, Bill Flory, Pam Horner, Jan McDonald and Joan Souders.  Robert Morales and Javier Rodriguez were absent.

Staff present were:  City Administrator Scott D. Staples, City Attorney Jack Maxwell, City Clerk Anita Palacios, Parks & Recreation Director Mike Carpenter, Public Works Director Cus Arteaga, and Police Chief David Charvet.

2.         MAINTENANCE CONSOLIDATION STUDY

The Public Works Director and Parks & Recreation Director provided the following information which included the estimated expenditure reductions to the current expense fund should the City consolidate the parks maintenance within the Public Works Department during the four month period of November through February.  Table 1 identified the estimated expenditure savings if all maintenance activities were eliminated for a period of four months (November to February).  Table 2 identified the estimated expenditure savings if the two maintenance employees were removed and supervision was reduced for the same period. 

TABLE 1

The total estimated reduction to the current expense fund by eliminating the parks maintenance personnel for the four month period was estimated at 2,079 man-hours for a cost savings of $48,630.58, which included a 30% estimate for benefits.  However, in evaluating the proposal, staff recommended consideration for funding, at a minimum, the following maintenance:

         Leaf pick-up (one employee 220 man-hours) at a cost of $4,620

         Parks winterization (one employee 40 man-hours) at a cost of $840

         Table repairs (50 tables 50 man-hours) at a cost of $1,050

         Minor building repairs (one employee 160 man-hours) at a cost of $3,360

The total estimated hours needed for the months of November though February in order to keep the parks facilities at an acceptable level were estimated at 470 man-hours.  If the City was able to continue to fund these man-hours, the City would have the ability to keep our parks at an acceptable level, but most importantly at an affordable price.  Staff estimated that the cost of the 470 man-hours to complete the above tasks at a budget price of $12,831 using the foremans salary.  Table 2 identified the recommended estimated expenditures savings of $35,253.58 to the current expense fund by eliminating two parks maintenance employees and a percentage of the foremans salary.

TABLE 2

Staff offered the following options for Council consideration:

Option 1 - Do nothing and continue with maintenance under the Parks & Recreation Department.

Option 2 Consolidate parks maintenance permanently under the direction of the Public Works Department.

Option 3 - Transfer the parks maintenance employees to the Public Works Department during the winter months (November to February); then during the month of March transfer the parks maintenance employees back to the Parks & Recreation Department for the mowing season.

The Public Works Director and Parks & Recreation Director recommended Option 2, which would consolidate the parks maintenance permanently under the supervision of the Public Works Director.  The recommendation also included the continued funding of the four items mentioned above during the months of November through February (470-manhours at an estimated cost of $12,831). 

Following discussion, Council consensus was to accept Option 2 to consolidate parks maintenance permanently under the direction of the Public Works Department as recommended and for staff to proceed to take the necessary steps to implement the consolidation no later than January 1, 2007 by developing a transition plan regarding relocation of personnel and equipment as well as have the appropriate meetings with affected personnel as soon as possible.  Councilmember Darr was opposed. 

3.         MUNICIPAL COURT DIRECTION STUDY

City Administrator Staples presented the following Municipal Court evaluation and direction report:

Background:  At the June 2006 retreat, the Mayor and City determined that a top priority for 2006/2007 was to review the feasibility of consolidating the Municipal Court with the Yakima County District Court, which now has a facility located in Grandview.

Process:  The first step was to gather cost information related to the operation of the current Municipal Court as well as a consolidated operation.  Initial meetings were held with the District Court Administrative Judge, District Court Administrator and District Court support staff.  City staff in attendance at one or more of those meetings included the City Clerk, Police Chief and City Attorney.  We discussed the methodology to be used to determine how costs would be allocated relative to the Citys share of District Court costs.  It was noted that the City would separately need to determine how it wished to handle prosecution and indigent defense services.  If the City wished to have those services handled by the County, separate discussions would need to take place with the County Prosecutor and the Office of Assigned Counsel.  At the initial meeting, we were advised that the City might find it preferable to retain its own indigent defense counsel.

The District Court Administrator provided us with a suggested template for a possible agreement.  In 1996, Walla Walla County and the City of Walla Walla entered into this agreement.  It was agreed that both the City and District Court would contact our Walla Walla counterparts to determine their level of satisfaction with the 1996 agreement.  Both parties were advised that it had worked well and that discussions were underway for a new ten (10) year agreement.  We also contacted the Administrator of the Courts in Olympia to determine their thoughts on the case factoring method used in the Walla Walla agreement.  They advised against using that method as the basis of the factoring system was outdated.  At that point, we went back to the use of simple caseload comparisons.  A document was prepared showing what the comparisons would be between Grandview caseloads and District Court caseloads going back to 2003.

Another portion of this review process was to determine whether it would be more cost effective to retain local prosecution by the City Attorney and to retain our separate contract for indigent defense services with Mike Mears.  In order to complete this piece, City Administrator Staples met with Ron Zirkle, County Prosecutor and Jack Maxwell, City Attorney.  As a result of these discussions, it was concluded that it would cost somewhat less to retain local prosecution.  We assumed that the current City Attorney allocates about 30% of his time for prosecution duties.

A final discussion was held with the District Court representatives on October 24, 2006.  It was agreed that the fairest approach would be to use a rolling four (4) year average based on annual Grandview caseloads versus District Court caseloads.  Based upon that consensus, the following cost comparison was prepared which outlined the cost of the various alternatives: 

Alternative 1:  Assumed contract with County with County prosecution

Alternative 2:  Assumed contract with County with City prosecution

Based upon the comparison, the City could realize a potential $47,000 savings in 2007 by virtue of a contract for court services.

The District Court Judges submitted the following proposal.  The City would file its misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor and infraction tickets in the District Court.  All proceedings related to Grandview filings would take place in the Grandview District Court.  A District Court judge would hear all proceedings.  All fines, civil penalties, forfeitures and other assessments would be collected by the District Court and forwarded to the City.  Delinquent accounts would be assigned to a collection agency selected by the City.  Individuals sentenced on Grandview cases would be committed to the Grandview City Jail and the City would make appropriate transfers if the facility was full or the sentence was in excess of capacity.  The City would be responsible for contracts for prosecution and defense, as well as service of process upon witnesses.  The court would pay jury costs.  The City would pay to the District Court, in four (4) quarterly installments, a total sum determined as follows.  Each October, the parties would meet and determine the obligation for the next calendar year.  The number of filings for the District Court [minus Grandview filings in succeeding years] and the Grandview Court filings [or Grandview filings in the District Court in succeeding years] for the previous four (4) years would be totaled, and the percentage of Grandview fillings to District Court filings determined. That number would then be applied to the projected District Court budget [without inclusion of Grandview's contribution] for the following year.  The percentage of the District Court budget represented by the Grandview filing percentage would be the Citys financial obligation for the following year.  A worksheet for 2007 was presented, which showed total filings for 1-1-03 to 12-31-06 [AOC numbers were current thru August 2006 and the last 4 months of 2006 were estimated and the total extrapolated] and an estimated District Court budget for 2007 in the sum of $2,535,307.  The City and County would enter into this agreement for a period of ten years, but each party would have the ability to opt out upon 12 months notice to the other party. 

Other Considerations:  In addition to the financial considerations, staff also examined other impacts of a potential change.  On the plus side, contracting with the District Court would free up approximately 800 square feet of space currently being used by Municipal Court and the Judge for other Police Department space needs.  Also, it would minimize court related impacts to the Police staff in that court customers would be going to the District Court facility to attend court.  Also, it would reduce customer counter traffic at the City Hall, as court customers would be making payments at the District Court facility.   

Another impact from a potential change would be for the existing municipal court clerk.  Her city position would be eliminated.  She would be eligible to apply for the new court clerk position at the District Court facility.  If she were hired, we estimate a $12,800 reduction in annual base pay, along with a reduction of other benefits such as longevity, health care, and vacation.

Also Judge Kimbrough submitted his letter of resignation effective December 31, 2006.  If the Council determined not to go forward with a contract with District Court, the Mayor would appoint a new Municipal Court Judge, subject to confirmation of the Council.  Assuming a new judge was retained through a professional services contract, rather than as a City employee, the potential savings to the City might be $20,000 to $25,000 annually, dependent upon what was negotiated with a new judge.

Following discussion, Council consensus was to proceed with the consolidation of the Citys Municipal Court with Yakima Countys District Court in Grandview.  Council agreed that this consolidation be considered with no impacts to the existing staff.   Council directed staff to proceed and negotiate a contract with the County.

4.         ADJOURNMENT

The study session adjourned at 7:15 p.m.

__________________________                                __________________________

Mayor Norm Childress                                                Anita Palacios, City Clerk