Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/1985 Study Session 177 NOVEMBER 5, 1985 STUDY SESSION 1. ROLL CALL The City Council met, in session on this date at 2:00 .p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Mayor Clarence Barnett presiding, Council members Pat Berndt, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Jack Sparling present on roll call. City Manager Zais, City Attorney Andrews, City Clerk Roberts, and Deputy City Clerk Toney also present.• (Council member Henry. Beauchamp . • present after 2:05 p.m.) ' 2. INVOCATION F The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Barnett. 3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Mayor Barnett• referred to the letter • (in the Council information items) from, the Yakima Basin Joint Board, and requested the consensus of Council' to `'respond' to the `letter. 'Consensus was . given. • Council member Carmichael suggested waiting until Council member Beauchamp arrives to discuss this item. It was the general consensus -of Council to proceed with Item No. 5 and revert to Item No. 4 upon the arrival of Mr. Beauchamp. 5. PRESENTATION AND FILING OF 1986 PRELIMINARY BUDGET ' City Manager Zais stated this is'the official''filing of the 1986 Preliminary Budget. The budget totals $44,802,000 and the General Fund budget is scheduled to be $19,178,000 for 1986. Mr. Zais stated there has been a slight improvement in the year end financial position. The cash balance for 1985 was projected at $383,000 and now the figure is approximately $518,000. He added the YPPA and AFSCME contracts have not yet been settled. (Council member Beauchamp present at 2:05 p.m.) Mr. Zais stated budget study sessions will begin Thursday, November 7th and budget wrap up is scheduled for December 14th. He requested Council set a hearing date (for the budget) on November 26th at 2:00 p.m. It was MOVED by Buchanan, seconded by Carmichael, to set a date of public hearing for the Federal Revenue Sharing and the 1986 'Budget for November 26, 1985 at 2:00 p.m. Unanimously carried -by voice vote. 4.. RECONSIDERATION OF UNION GAP PROPOSAL FOR UTILITIES• SERVICES FOR ANNEXATION (CONTINUED) Prior to review and discussion of the staff report and recommendation, Ron King, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and Al Pruitt, President of the Yakima County Development Association, addressed Council regarding this issue. They spoke of the importance of the request for utility services and its role in the growth of industry in the Yakima area. Council was encouraged to approve the request for services. Glenn Rice, Director of Community & Economic Development, stated staff'remains supportive of the recommendation made in their report to Council on September '10th' to approve Alternative #4. Glen Rice', Director of Community & Economic Development, and Associate Planners Don Skone and Larry Lehman responded to Council's questions regarding this request and Alternative No. 4. Council member Beauchamp questioned the difference in service rates for Yakima users versus Union gap users. Mr. Rice explained that Union Gap users would be charged the regular rate, plus a surcharge. He stated the cost' factors • used to calculate the City of Yakima sewer rates include:' 1) base rate cost for sewer treatment, 2) Bonds for construction of sewer lines, 3) One -half the cost of City storm drainage system, 4) Sewer Division Budget, and 5) City administration fee. Associate Planner, Larry Lehman, stated the Union Gap users would be charged the same .base rate as Yakima users, however, an additional 50% . surcharge would be charged to the Union Gap users. He pointed out that Union Gap is a wholesale purchaser of sewer services, and, in 178 NOVEMBER 5, 1985 this instance, they are only charged for the processing of the sewer which they pipe to the City's treatment plant. City Manager Zais reminded Council that the wholesale rate was established in the original Wastewater Facility Agreement in 1976, and any changes in the wholesale rates would necessitate amending the agreement and formula. He stated the cost factor changes based on operation and maintenance, debt service, etc., however, the., formula. for calculating the shared costs remains the same. Chris Waarvick Wastewater Superintendent, pointed out that the capital cost recovery charge is used to recoup the City's up -front expenditures . for the installation of.the sewer lines. Mr. Lehman._ commented that Union Gap..,will be responsible for_ the capital cost recovery charge for the area to be annexed. Council member .C asked what the City's responsibility would be to the various users of the treatment plant if capacity is reached. Mr. Waarvick ,indicated the Environmental Protection Agency would still consider the City of Yakima the prime responsible party. Don Skone read from a portion of the 1976 Wastewater Agreement which indicates any future expense to expand the treatment plant system is to be shared by the wholesale users. He stated there is an existing contract with Union Gap, however, Council may wish to amend this contract. Mr.. Rice, stated such action would necessitate negotiations with the parties involved, and review of the amendment by the. State. Council member Carmichael stated she would like to see this - aspect researched by staff. Council member Beauchamp questioned if the Broadway residents have been made aware of this proposed annexation, and if Council has the authority to approve the annexation at this time without notification to the Broadway users. Mr. Skone stated any change has to be reviewed by the Yakima County Boundary Review Board, and amendments to the agreement would have to be reviewed by the Joint Board prior to that body making any recommendation. Council member Foy pointed out that the Broadway area is currently in the county and those residents have the option of requesting sewer service through the outside utility. agreement process. He stated if the Broadway area is annexed by Union Gap, the Broadway residents would make their request for sewer service to the City of Union Gap. The infra structure responsibilities • would then belong to- Union Gap. Drawing attention to the time, Mayor; Barnett reminded ,Council, of i t_he,3:00 p.m. meeting with the County Commissioners and questioned if there was further discussion on this item. It was MOVED by Foy, seconded by Berndt, to place Item No. 4.on next Tuesday's calendar, of business. City Manager Zais asked if there are points which need clarification by staff prior to next week. Council member Foy stated a copy of the information read by Mr. Skone regarding the Wastewater Facility Agreement would be helpful,. Council member Sparling stated he would like to know how many residents are currently being charged the 50% surcharge as related to the total number of residents being served, and the amount of revenue being received from the surcharge. Chris Waarvick stated the outside revenue is • approximately $300,000 annually as compared to $200,000 being paid by the residents inside the City. Council member Beauchamp stated he would like -to know who is responsible for funding expansion of the wastewater facility if capacity is, reached. Council member Carmichael stated the 90 -10 funding is no longer available for such expansion, and asked what formula for funding would be proposed. John Hodkinson, Mayor of Union Gap, stated the Boundary Review Board meets -next Tuesday and he would like to be able to present this issue at that meeting. It was the decision of Council to place this .item first on next week's agenda, and _then relay Council's decision to the County Commissioners for ,consideration during their Boundary Review Board meeting. Mr. Hodkinson stated the City of Union Gap has contributed to the treatment plant bonded _ indebtedness and adjudication expenses based on their allocation, from the beginning of the facility, and they will continue to do so..He.further added,_the original agreement addresses the issue of reaching capacity, and he would like to see the parties involved start to work. on resolving this issue as soon as possible. 6. MEETING WITH YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING CITY OUTSIDE UTILITY AGREEMENT /ANNEXATION POLICY (CONTINUED) County Commissioners Chuck Klarich, Graham Tollefson, and Jim Whiteside joined the.Council members for the purpose of discussing the City's Outside Utility Agreement /Annexation policy. Mayor NOVEMBER 5, 1985 179 Barnett asked if there were any questions regarding Report No. 37 -A ' c which had been prepared by city' staff.'f'Commissioner 'Tollefson , referred to page 4 of the staff report which indicates the outside utility agreement is needed because County building standards are inconsistant with City building standards. He stated this is not representative of the County's current building standards. He stated this issue needs to be resolved. -Associate Planner Skone referred to the map on the wall and explained that the areas colored in yellow would remain subject to the outside utility agreement and subsequent annexation to the City of Yakima. The areas beyond the yellow areas would not be subject to the outside utility agreement and could receive service without signing an outside utility agreement and /or agreeing to annexation. Mr. - Skone stated the map in the report to Council also lists-Possible annexation dates for the various areas. Commissioner Whiteside questioned if the areas on the map which are not colored would be - given sewer service without an outside utility /annexation'agreement within the next year or so. City Manager Zais stated within the urban boundary, the remaining white areas would'be eligible to receive sewer service based on allocation, but would not be required to sign an outside utility /annexation' agreement. Commissioner Klarich asked if the City is reserving sewer service for the areas designated in the yellow. Council member Carmichael stated service is not being reserved for anyone. Mr. Zais stated staff is aware of the allocation for the urban area, and at some point this will reach maximum capacity. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of reaching capacity and the basis on which outside utility agreements are granted. Staff pointed out '-f. that services are granted ' on a first come first serve basis, - -_ -and the areas .under discussion today do not represent .capacity • flow. Commissioner Whiteside expressed concern that industrial growth in the County could be hampered or impaired by'the City refusing to approve a request for outside utilities. Council member Carmichael stated to her knowledge, the Council has never denied a request for services.'Mr. Skone •indicated the 1981 R.W. Beck Study identified a commercial and industrial camponent for each of ' the 'interceptors, and - they are designed to accamodate growth. He stated if the County should envision an industrial development of a certain area, and • additional allocation is needed, the County would have to make provisions for the additional allocation. Wastewater Superintendent Waarvick -'stated currently the treatment plant is able to handle the capacity of all of the interceptors and lines only in the winter. Mayor Barnett asked if there were questions or comments regarding • "I• - - Report qNo. 37 -B. Commissioner Tollefsonl referred. • to Page 4 wherein the term "return on investment" is_,used, and indicated the term would be more appropriately used by'a private utility. A discussion ensued regarding the basis forthis charge and how it is applied. He stated he would like" to further pursue how these these figures were •calculated by staff, but at some other time. Commissioner Whiteside :asked what the residents of' the 'County would have to do to be treated on the same parity'as Union Gap and Terrace Heights. Council member Carmichael stated Union and I/ Terrace Heights brought their collection systems -into the 'Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility, while-the 'County did_not have a system to bring into the overall system: Union Gap and Terrace Heights ' also" process the billings for their' customers. Prosecuting Attorney Sullivan read from City Ordinance No. 2359 (passed in 1979) relating to the capital cost recovery charge. He stated county residents have been - charged to connect "to. the city sewer service and he feels the process used by the City is actually billing the residents in the •County twice,' and this is unfair. He stated he does not feel this will meet statuatory requirements if challenged. Commissioner Tollefson agreed that the City is intitled to=•recover•costs which have been expended, however, they do not feel a profit should be made in the process. Commissioner Whiteside suggested another look be taken at the wastewater agreement and possible - revisions made prior to reaching any conclusions on this issue. Commissioner Klarich questioned what the next step is with regard to adopting the Urban Area Plan and 'Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Skone stated the schedule for'adopting the -• ,; t. Urban ::Area Plan and Zoning! Ordinance i -, wasr postponed pending resolution of-the-outside utility /annexation issue. He requested clarification on the direction staff is to take regarding the ® NOVEMBER. 5, 1985 schedule for adopting the Urban Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Klarich and Council member Foy agreed that adoption of the Urban Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance should occur prior to January 1, 1985, for the sake of the construction industry. Commissioner Tollefson ,requested the County_ be allowed -to review the reports and comments made during today's meeting prior to giving staff further direction. City Manager'Zais suggested the Commissioners meet to discuss the issue•and submit their decision in writing. Commissioner Whiteside asked staff to proceed with investigating appropriate dates to consider adoption of the Urban Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Council member Sparling asked about the possibility of Council meeting to discuss the outside utility surcharge as he feels the County is being asked to pay more than they should. He stated he sees no reason to treat the County differently than Union Gap and Terrace Heights. Mr. Zais stated the surcharge issue is not tied to a certain time frame or a specific schedule for adoption of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. 7. OTHER BUSINESS Council member Berndt stated she had received a phone call from a citizen who was quite upset due to Cox Cable TV being purchased by McCaw. She was concerned about the level of service she would receive fram McCaw and asked if there was any recourse which might be taken. Mr. Zais stated staff is required to provide Council with a report regarding the sale of the franchise. The franchise stipulates that Council must approve -the condition and terns of the sale, and all of the conditions of the franchise that are in place with respect to Cox services which are delivered to the citizens of Yakima. These services must be duplicated by McCaw, however, no time frame has been established as to when this might occur. Council member• Foy suggested Council members be given a copy of the ordinance so they can review the standards, contained therein. Mr. Zais stated a copy of 'the 'ordinance can be provided at this time, however, the staff'report will take some time to prepare. .Council member Beauchamp asked if there are requirements for site screening of a junk yard within the City limits. He stated the recycling plant next to McDonalds is very unsightly and this situation needs to be addressed. Mr. Rice stated he would check into the situation. - Council member Carmichael referred to the letter fran Don McGinnis (which suggests Council consider naming the newly renovated pool at Lions Park in honor of Mer .Edmundson) stating she is extremely supportive of this 'suggestion. Mr. Zais stated the Parks Commission is currently-discussing this issue, as well as members 'of the Lions Club. No action was taken on the issue at this time as it is still under discussion by other organizations. Council member Buchanan expressed concern that information contained in the Yakima Transit Goals, Objectives, Standards and Performance Monitoring report appears not to be factual. City Manager Zais commented on the origin of the reports and indicated Council has previously discussed some of these issues. He stated some of these issues are from 1977 and have since been modified. These issues will be reviewed' by the•Transit Committee and recommendations will be made to Council regarding appropriate s action,, to be taken. Council - members, Foy., and Carmichael stated the information is not being translated accurately and is very confusing. Mr. Zais indicated he would look into the matter. Council member Buchanan requested information which would support that the Transit System broke even financially on their Fair Operations. He asked how many hours of operation were involved and how much revenue was received as the information previously supplied to Council did not reflect these specifics. 8. EXECUTIVE-SESSION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING It was MOVED by Beauchamp, seconded by Buchanan, to move into Executive. Session, for the purpose of , discussing ,: collective bargaining, and to adjourn immediately thereafter to the budget review on Thursday, November 7th at 3:00 p.m. Unanimously carried by voice vote. NOVEMBER 5, 1985 " Il 1 9. ADJOURNMENT Following the completion of the Executive Session, the meeting was adjourned at the hour of 5:00 p.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY COUN -IL MEM: • ODATE A 4 l� • COUNCIL M ER DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAY Inadvertently ommitted from Item #7, Other Business: Information Items Items of information supplied to Council. were: Letter from U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding Audit Examination For 1983 on HUD /CDBG. 10/16/85; Letter from the Yakima Basin Joint Board transmitting position paper . regarding hydroelectric development. 10 /22/85; Letter from Flossie Bowen regarding demolition of the Miller Building. Undated; . Letter from Director of Community -& Economic Development and Director,of Yakima County Planning Department regarding cancellation of the November 7th 1985 public hearing on the proposed Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. 10/28/85; News Release regarding 1985 Street Division Leaf Collection Program; Yakima Transit Monthly Operations Report for Elderly • and Handicapped Services for September 1985; Minutes of the October 1, 1985 Planning Commission meeting; and Agenda for November 4, 1985 Transit Advisory Task Force meeting and minutes of their October 7, 1985 meeting. • • • • • • • • • • • • •