Yakima City Council Study Session - June 10, 2025: 2026 Budget Deficit and Levy Options
Yakima City Council Study Session - June 10, 2025: 2026 Budget Deficit and Levy Options
This study session focused on the city's projected $9 million general fund deficit for 2026. City Manager Vicki Baker and Finance Director Craig Warner presented results from extensive community outreach and detailed revenue and reduction options. Council members discussed potential levy measures, a new public safety sales tax, fee increases, and the need for long-term economic development. No final decisions were made; staff was directed to provide additional analysis before the Council's early July deadline for ballot measures.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Randall Leofsky, city resident: Expressed concern about using Transportation Benefit District (TBD) funds for the trolley, arguing that neighborhood street repairs are a higher priority and that current asphalt-over-dirt roads are unsafe.
- Anne Knapp, city resident: Questioned the origin of the $9 million deficit, supported eliminating trolley maintenance ($10,000), advocated for impact fees (citing examples from MRSC), and noted that combined levy and fee increases could be burdensome for citizens.
- Luis Lopez, city resident: Thanked Public Works for alley improvements and praised Council for not making the city a "sanctuary city" and for avoiding divisive measures.
- Tony Sandoval, city resident: Opposed allowing public commenters to yield time to others and urged the Council to create an economic development committee, citing past successful community projects.
- Ken Johnsen (President, Yakima Valley Trolley Association): Expressed support for the trolley and requested collaboration on funding for the Sixth Avenue project, noting the association has hired a fundraiser and is exploring grant opportunities and phasing the project.
- Clayton Bussey (Historic Preservation Commission member): Expressed support for preserving the trolley and encouraged continued funding searches.
- Tony Courcy, city resident: Discussed the need for a crosswalk at 16th Ave and Hathaway Ave, and criticized the Council's handling of public comment time limits.
Discussion Items
2026 Budget Options and Recommendations
- City Manager Vicki Baker reviewed the priority-based budgeting process and community outreach (town halls, survey, rotary clubs). Finance Director Craig Warner detailed the $9 million deficit, noting that previously available ARPA funds and reserve reductions (from 16.7% to 12%) cannot be used again.
- All-Cuts Option A: A list of 35 potential cuts totaling $9 million, including elimination of lobbying/travel ($120,000), trolley maintenance ($10,000), closing Lions Pool ($479,000), closing Fire Station 92 ($1.7 million), eliminating the gang unit ($1 million), narcotics unit ($470,000), property crimes unit ($750,000), and other reductions to parks and public safety programs.
- Revenue Options:
- Utility tax (5% increase = $2.5M annually; councilmanic but potential impact on economic development)
- TBD fee increase ($20 to $40 = $1.7M) or TBD sales tax (0.1% = $2.7M) – staff recommended reserving for future transportation capital
- Impact fees, fire district, metro park district – require long-term studies; not viable for 2026
- Public safety sales tax (additional 0.1%) – new state law effective July 2025, but requires analysis of attached conditions and a 75-day implementation lead time (would begin collection Jan 2026)
- EMS Levy (25¢ max, requires 60% supermajority; failed at 59% in 2008)
- CPI adjustment to City Charter (voter approval to remove automatic CPI increases for streets and parks)
- Voter-approved levy options (requires 50%+1 vote)
- City-wide user fee increases – staff comparing with Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, Wenatchee; to be presented later
- Staff Recommended Package:
- Option B: Public safety levy of $5.4 million (would buy back narcotics, gang, property crimes units, Fire Station 92, snow & ice control, crime analyst, etc.)
- Option C: Parks levy of $1.8 million (would buy back Franklin Pool, youth sports, Harman Senior Center, Lions Pool, Washington Fruit Community Center, adult sports partially, with fee adjustments)
- Reductions of services totaling $1.8 million (including economic development items like trolley maintenance, YCDA funding, downtown flowers, Clean City program)
- Fee increases to offset remaining service reductions
- Council Discussion:
- Councilmember Glenn highlighted declining school enrollment, the closure of the Del Monte plant, and stressed that economic development is the only sustainable solution.
- Councilmember Berg supported fee increases and asked whether one or two levies would be on the ballot.
- Assistant Mayor Brown expressed concern about a single “parks levy” that includes community centers and adult sports, arguing it should be called “parks and recreation.” He also questioned the new public safety sales tax, noting that 0.1% could generate $2.7 million and that the Council should have full information before going to voters.
- Mayor Byers favored one combined levy to cover all services, emphasizing simplicity and voter education.
- Councilmember Deccio worried that a large levy would mainly maintain the status quo and not address underlying law-and-order costs, referencing increased prosecution costs and the hospital's ongoing losses.
- Several council members noted the disparity in property tax impact across districts (e.g., West Valley homes assessed at $600k+ vs. city average $356k) and preferred sales tax as a more equitable option.
- City Attorney Sara Watkins clarified that the city can only provide factual educational information about levies and cannot lobby; council members must follow election season rules.
Key Outcomes
- Staff agreed to bring back more detailed analysis of the new public safety sales tax (0.1%) including attached conditions, impact on the deficit, and timeline.
- Staff will refine the cost estimates for each cut and buy-back item, particularly the number of positions affected (e.g., YPD property crimes unit, code enforcement officers).
- The Budget Advisory Committee will meet on June 11 to review the presentation and provide input.
- Council aims to make a decision on which revenue measures (one levy, two levies, or other options) by the first meeting of July (roughly July 1, 2025) to meet the August 5 county deadline for ballot measures.
- The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2025, at 5:30 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
All right. I call this council meeting back into order. Roll call, please. Berg. Here. Brown? Here. Buy yours? Present. DCL? Here. Glenn? Here. Herrera is absent, and Roy is absent. All right. Next up is public comment. We have allowed fifteen minutes for public comment this evening. If you'd like to uh do public comment tonight, there are uh sheets in the back, if you would fill them out and please bring them up to the clerk. State law prohibits electionering at city facilities, so during public comment, speakers cannot campaign or against candidates or support or oppose any ballot measure in any upcoming election. So first up is Randall. Close enough, okay. Um in the red T money for something as frivolous as the trolley. But taking taxpayer dollars and spending them for the trolley when our streets in my neighborhood are asphalt over dirt, not road base. And so they crack, sink, you get water moving underneath, you get a whole ditch where the the asphalt is just ditched out. It sinks, it's still there, but it's six inches lower than the rest of the the area. There's uh dips all over that keep forming, and if you're on a bicycle and you hit those and you're not aware they're there, you could easily go over the handlebars, which could be a lawsuit for the city. Um the uh engineers are trying to they patch things regularly, but not keeping up with it. So what needs to happen is those asphalt streets need to be ground up and road base needs to be put down and then repaved. That's gonna be very expensive. Millions, if not a billion for the whole neighborhood. Um so whatever TBD money going to something like the trolley when that needs to be done is insane to me. I I just think it's so irresponsible. So basically it. Thank you. Give this to you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh next up is Ann Knapp. Hello, thank you for taking public comments tonight. Um, I guess one of my main concerns is what caused the nine million dollar deficit in the first place. I'm sure you know what it is, but it would be good to avoid um creating more deficits in the future. Um I I agree with um Randall on eliminating the trolley maintenance, it's only $10,000, and I'll come and talk to you about the TBD projects um next week when you've got the TBD hearing. But I think that that's money that we could spend elsewhere. Um the transportation benefit district and transportation benefit district sales tax. That's the staff is recommending reserving that for future transportation capital needs, and I didn't know what those needs are or why that money might not be spent now if it's going to be collected now. Um I did talk a little bit to your finance director about impact fees, and they've been in place ever since the Growth Management Act was um created, and I think the city should really look at using impact fees. I think they would really be beneficial. Uh the municipal research and services center is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across the state, and they provide legal and policy guidance on any topic, and they have a lot of sample ordinances and so forth, so I think they could help us get impact fees. We might not get that in in place for this upcoming budget year, but I think if we began working on those for future years, it would be very beneficial. And the development on Knob Hill, there's no crosswalks for um people from my neighborhood to get over there.
openpublica.com