HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1994-018 Centennial Clean Water FundRESOLUTION NO. R_94-18
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to sign all applications,
grant agreements and amendments, and other documents
relating to wastewater comprehensive planning for the
Centennial Clean Water Fund Outcome Funding grant
program.
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has an existing adopted plan for wastewater
collection, treatment, disposal for the Yakima Regional Urban Area; such plan being necessary
to determine the needs of the area for health, safety and well being of the people; and
WHEREAS, the existing plan, because of the passage of time and potential for
expanded sewer service area through local Growth Management Act impacts, requires revision
and update to reflect changes in service area conditions, and transmission and treatment needs;
and
WHEREAS, the plan update is to be developed in accordance with the requirements of
Public law 92-500 and 95-217, and will set forth institutional frameworks, facilities and
systems required to be constructed, improved and rehabilitated to serve the needs of the area;
and
WHEREAS, while the present funding cycle for the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update
is reflected in the adopted 1994 City of Yakima budget, a new State of Washington grant
program for comprehensive planning focusing on results has recently become available for
application; and
WHEREAS, the presently scheduled Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update is eligible for
Centennial Clean Water Fund Outcome grant funding application submittal; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Manager is duly authorized to sign applications, grant agreements and
amendments, and other documents relating to wastewater facility systems planning for the 1994
round Centennial Clean Water Fund -Outcome Funding grant program.
ADOPTED THIS 22nd day of Feb.; 1994.
ATTEST:
)<C4-hF A te_ eh
CITY CLERK
CCWF O.F. Resolution
2/15/94
CW
MAYOR
1ASNtNGTON STATE
OEFA1IY[Nt 0T
ECOLOGY
CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND
PROTOTYPE OUTCOME FUNDING INITIATIVE APPLICATION
PART I
Ecology Use
Application Noniamir
1. PROJECT TITLE (Five words or less)
YAKIMA URBAN AREA WASTEWATER PLANNING
2. PROJECT TYPE (Check one)
t$ Activity 0 Facility
4. CONTACT PERSON: Dennis Covell
Title: Director of Engineering & Utilities
Address: 129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Telephone Number:
(509)575-6111
3. APPLICANT NAME (PUBLIC BODY) AND ADDRESS
City of Yakima
129 N. 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Authorized Signatory Name and Title:
R. A. Zais Jr.
City Manager
The person whose name is listed here must sign the
application.
5. If funded, we will offer a grant or grant/loan as required by the Program Guidelines. If you are applying for a 100%
loan, check box 0
6. SOURCE OF FUNDS
.a. Total Estimated Project Cost $ 505,000
"b. Total Estimated Eligible Project Cost S 100%
c. Ecology Grant Share (51%) S250.000
d. Ecology Loan Share ( 0 %) $255,000
e. Applicant's Share (a_%)
The total project cost may include costs necessary for the successful completion of the project that may NOT be
eligible for grant or loan participation under the Centennial Clean Water Fund program.
Amount used as the base cost for Ecology grant or loan share.
8. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE
f. Will you receive other state or federal funding to
complete this project? If yes, list source amount.
$
7. REQUESTED LOAN TERMS
a. O 0 - 5 Year Term - 0% Interest Rate
0 6 - 14 Year Term - 3 1/2% Interest Rate
015 - 20 Year Term - 4 1/2% Interest Rate
Years
Specific Term Requested:
Financial hardship assistance grants and/or loans are being
requested in accordance with WAC 173-95-150:
❑Yes 0 N
If yes, please submit Financial Capability Outline with your
application.
9. APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION
a. County of Applicant: 4.ma
b. County of Project ia-uma
c. What is the legislative district of applicant 14
d. Does the project involve an activity covering legislative
districts statewide?
O Yes ® No
e. Legislative d'istrict(s) of project
Include all state legislative districts where at least five
percent of the project will be accomplished (Total must
equal 100%)
District No. 13 Percent 5
District No. 14 Percent 90
District No. 15 Percent 5
District No. Percent
10. FOR FACILITY PROJECTS ONLY
a. Type of Project:
(Check one)
O Denning (Step - Department of Ecology WQFA approved facilities plan or engineering report required)
O Design (StepoP approved plans and specifications required)
O Construction (Step 3 -Department of Ecology WQFA
O Design and Construction approved facilities plan or engineering report required - see guidelines for
(Step 4 -Department of Ecology
eligibility)
b. Facility Project Status
DOCUMENT APPROVED
Engineering Report
Facilities Plan
Plans and Specifications
❑ Yes
O Yes
O Yes
O No
❑ No
O No
DATE
If yes, attach approval letters from the Department of Ecology Water Quality Financial Assistance
of report or plan cover page.
Note: All facilities construction projects must have an engineering report or facilities plan (Step 1) and plans and
specifications (Step 2) approved by the Department's Water Quality Financial Assistance Program at the time of
application.
11. FOR PUGET SOUND WATERSHED PLANNING PROJECTS ONLY N/A
b. Puget Sound Watershed Projects:
(1) Is this proposed project in sequence with the county's
approved ranking of watersheds according to Chapter
400-12 WAC?
OYes 0 N
(2) If yes, what is the ranked number of the proposed
watershed project?
Program and copy
a. Planning document status: implementation
(1) Has a planning document for an imp
project been completed?
OYes 0 N
If yes, date of completion:
12. PROJECT DURATION
a. How long will the project take to complete? 24 1,10..
b. What is the / r earliest date you could be ready
to start?6/1/94
Number.
13. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
Does this project involve or impact more than one public
body?
®Yes ONo
If yes, do all public bodies support the goals and objectives
of the project?
® Yes O No
14. WATER BODY TYPE INVOLVED IN PROJECT (Check one or more)
® Freshwater River or Stream
❑ Federally Designated Sole Source Aquifer
tg Ground Water Specify
•
O Otho
O Marine Water other than Puget Sound
O Puget Sound (direct disch,rge)
O Wetlands
O Freshwater Lake
15. WETLANDS
Will this project negatively impact a wetland?
O Yes
Q No
co cOHTRACT
-;�J'
16. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Are you currently in compliance with the deadlines established in Chapter 36.70 RCW, "Growth Management Act?"
® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A
17. 303(d) LISTED WATER BODIES
Will the proposed project protect or improve the water quality of 303(d) listed waterbodies?
a Yes ❑ No
18. POLLUTION PREVENTION
Does your project contain a pollution prevention component?
Yes 0 N
19. IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Would this project implement a specific recommendation of a comprehensive planning effort completed or updated in
the last five years?
❑ Yes N/A G No
20. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES
Are you proposing this project to comply with a statutory or regulatory requirement?
5Yes 0 N
If yes, list. -
21. ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED AREAS Ecology Use Only
22. PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES
Would this project eliminate a public health emergency declared by the Washington State Department of Health?
❑Yes 12No
23. I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS APPLICATION IS
TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT I AM LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THIS
INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. This must be the same person listed in item 3 above. If the
signatory is not a mayor, city manager, county executive, board of commissioners chairman, etc., a resolution authorizing
the signatory to sign on behalf of the public body must be attached.
R. A. Zais Jr. 1.-V, \
PRINTED NAME NATURE
City Manager February 23, 1994
TITLE DATE
24. Send 5 copies, one of which is an original with original signature to:
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Financial Assistance Program
Policy and Support Section
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
co cOHTRACT
-;�J'
PROTOTYPE OUTCOME FUNDING INITIATIVE
APPLICATION
PART 2
I. What type of plan will you do?:
— Watershed Plan in the Puget Sound Basin
_ Watershed Plan outside the Puget Sound Basin
_ Ground Water Management Area
Wellhead Protection Pian
x General Sewer Plan
Comprehensive Stormwater Plan
Lake Restoration Plan Phase I
_ Other (please list which type)
II. The rest of your application consists of your Target Plan. There are six pieces in
a Target Plan:
1. The geographical area and baseline information of the planning area
2. Your customers who must support and complement the plan in order to
achieve results
3. Your Performance Targets that list your commitments to results and
achievements that directly contribute to the Centennial water quality outcome
4. Verification measures to know if you've accomplished what you projected
5. Your Key People who have the ability and energies to reach your results
6. Financial Projections on planning costs... including some early implementation
The "Prototype Outcome Funding Initiative Instructions" (attached) explains exactly what
you need to know to develop your Target Plan. We ask that you limit your discussion of
each plan piece to no more than two pages and your total Target Plan to no more than
eight pages. We will talk with you about your plan in more detail during April, after
reviewing your Target Plan, and we will help you get a start on it at the briefings.
PROTOTYPE OUTCOME FUNDING INITIATIVE APPLICATION
PART II
TARGET PLAN
1. Identify the geographical area and baseline information of the planning area.
Per Growth Management Act requirements, an interim urban growth area has
been recommended by the Yakima City Council and approved by the Board of
County Commissioners (see attached map and statistics). The "new" urban
growth area includes the City of Yakima, City of Union Gap, the community of
Terrace Heights, and unincorporated portions of Yakima County surrounding
the urban core. The existing urban area boundary has been expanded to reflect
the community's understanding (see the attached January, 1992 Vision 2010
document) of where urban growth in the Yakima area will occur in the coming
years (and to some extent has already occurred). Importantly, the communities
of Wiley City and Ahtanum to the southwest and portions of Gleed to the
northwest have been included; in part, because of presently understood sewer
and groundwater needs. The Terrace Heights area has also been slightly
expanded reflecting community consensus that this area will see significant
increases in residential development. The current comprehensive improvements
to various Terrace Heights water systems are expected to further fuel growth in
Terrace Heights.
2. Identify your customers who must support and complement the plan in order to
achieve results.
The traditional list of participants include City and County officials who are active
in land use and utility planning. A larger, more representative, group is
embodied by those 300 citizens who participated in the Vision 2010 process. The
existing sewer service area is guided by the 4 -Party Agreement for sewer and
planning services in the urban area. A Urban Area Zoning Ordinance has also
been developed between the jurisdictions and provides a common field for local
government, developers and the public. Importantly in this new Plan, the
residents of Gleed, Wiley City, and Ahtanum must be informed as to the cost
implications of future sewer service in their areas. The traditional participants in
sewer planning have been Yakima City and County, Union Gap and Terrace
Heights. They also must be aware of the cost and land use implications of
extending sewer service in their areas. Common to all of the participants are the
implications of continuing to meet ever increasing water quality standards; this
will relate back to treatment facility capacity and capability. The City of
Yakima's Pretreatment Program has an integral business education and
information activity through the Pretreatment Quarterly newsletter. The
newsletter reaches over 700 commercial and industrial customers within the
service area. The Yakima Health District is also an important customer because
ccwf app. 11 text
page 1
February 18, 1994 cw
of their role in dealing with environmental threats. The Wastewater Division has
worked closely on various issues with the Greater Yakima Chamber of
Commerce and Yakima County Development Association. The key issue with
these two groups has been to work towards sustainable development in a
manner that will avoid long term environmental degradation while still
providing an attractive business climate. A strong economy does not preclude
environmental protection; in fact, to support the ever increasing costs of
environmental protection, a strong economy is an important factor in. financing
the costs of environmental protection and enhancement.
3. Identify your Performance Targets that list your commitments to results and
achievements that directly contribute to the Centennial water quality outcomes.
a) Prevention of further degradation of groundwater quality by encouraging
regional sewer service and discouraging new onsite sewage systems within the
urban area. Residential growth is anticipated to continue to grow at a pace of 2
to 3 % per year within the urban area. Sewer service to accommodate this
growth must be planned or continued degradation of the groundwater is
assured. The costs of providing transmission and collection capability are lowest
at the time of development before streets and other urban utilities are
constructed.
b) Remediate existing groundwater degradation by providing the availability of
sanitary sewer service within the interim urban area boundary. Explore annual
City program to construct local sewers in low income area with groundwater
contamination problems. This program would require coordination with the
Yakima Health District.
c) Continued interceptor construction as appropriate and where development is
likely or has occurred. The topographical analysis of the study area is key to
planning for this service within the sewer service area.
d) Ensure that effluent quality meets applicable standards now and into the
future. The comprehensive planning should consider facility capacities,
necessary facility process units, and planned rehabilitations.
e) Continue to lead participation in Local Improvement Districts as one method
of providing sewer availability within the urban area.
f) Develop a community education program for citizens raising level of
awareness to environmental and water quality issues and the part they play in
creating a sustainable community.
4. Identify verification measures to know if you've accomplished what you projected.
ccwf app. II text
page 2
February 18,1994 cw
a & b) Verification measures may include using City's Geographical Information
System to monitor sewer hook-ups from new and existing parcels to establish
performance trends. Coordinate information sharing with the Yakima Valley
Council of Governments on local surface water quality studies. Monitor Yakima
Health District's approval of new onsite system permits and rehabilitation
permits within the Yakima Urban Area. Monitor the dry sewer construction in
new developments not close to sewer collectors. Verification measures also
include incorporating the strategy of "investing in low income areas for sewer"
into Comprehensive Plan for legislative review
c) Verification measures include projected transmission main preliminary design
based on GMA and land use planning projections. This task is dependent on
accurate topographical information generated as part of Plan activities.
d) Verification measures include the following: Analyze existing treatment
capacity; determine facility projected needs; analyze effluent requirements;
continue pretreatment program progress; budget, design, finance and construct
improvements; continue Infiltration and Inflow elimination progress over last
three years (see WWTP flow chart). Further identify water quality standards
which impact the planning area and develop within the plan both short and long
term recommendations to meet these standards.
e) Verification measures include monitoring LID projects initiated.
f) Verification measures include production of deliverables which include video
productions (City's local access production facilities), quarterly newsletters, and
newspaper inserts.
Verification measures common in one fashion or another to all of the
performance targets are discussed in the following. The development of a
Capital Improvement Plan which meets the requirements of the Growth
Management Act covers two areas; the formal adoption of "what must happen"
and the policy discussion of "how it gets paid for." The City of Yakima has a
significant investment into its Growth Management Act planning. Draft
elements presently include Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Transportation,
Transit, Stormwater, and Mapping (GIS). Water and Sewer Plans are being
prepared to fold into the Utilities requirements of GMA. Environmental review
of some these elements is scheduled to begin this year. The environmental
review process will provide a unique opportunity to compare goals and targets
to achievements. The public process, integral to environmental review, will
involve the citizens of the area and expose them to the interconnecting nature of
all urban activity to environmental quality. The Plan will include tests within its
6 -year Capital Improvement Plan to determine if early implementation actions
are achieving the desired results.
ccwf app. II text
page 3
February 18,1994 cw
The City has already prepared a draft Citizen participation strategy for the Water
and Sewer Comprehensive Plans. Utilizing the existing Utility Rate Advisory
Board (URAB) as the core, this group may easily be expanded to include many
facets of community interest. URAB historically has members which include
banking, engineering, industry and government expertise. Since URAB meetings
are, by law, open meeting, we believe it makes sense to expand the participation
in the existing URAB process to a broader spectrum of input.
Finally, the GMA planning process for some urban services requires a Level of
Service (LOS) evaluation. This approach is well suited to Outcome based
planning. Identification and adoption through the Plan of regional LOS's for
sewer service lend well to evaluating whether these "targets" or level of services
are being met.
5. Identify your Key People who have the ability and energies to reach your results.
The City of Yakima's strength in project accomplishment comes through its
reliance on team work. The key people induded in the discussion which follows
all have impressive histories of individual project experience, but what this
organization has discovered is the importance of focusing and coordinating
collective efforts based on individual talents and experience. Additionally, the
continuity of the personnel involved offers the benefit of these key people living
with and understanding the consequences of planning implementation.
Dick Zais, Yakima City Manager, can trace his experience with wastewater issues
back to the mid 1970's when the original regional approach to wastewater and
planning needs was begun. He provides the important link between the policy
makers, City Council, and staff. Glenn Rice, now Assistant City Manager, was
also involved in the original planning and wastewater regional approach in the
1970's and previously held the position of Director of Community Development.
His strengths include understanding and addressing the importance of inter -
jurisdictional cooperation between governmental agencies, the development
community, and citizens of the region. These two individuals are very serious
concerning the task of informing City Council on important policy issues and
translating those policy positions into action at the staff level.
Denny Covell, Director of Engineering and Utilities, has managed a number of
important planning and project tasks in the Yakima Urban Area. These include
comprehensive sewer and water planning, transportation planning, and Growth
Management activities. He presently is lead City staffer on the Yakima Avenue -
I -82 "Gateway" project which has State, City, County and local business
involvement. This major project, eventually projected to cost $20 million at full
potential, has an extensive public participation facet which has taken great skill
to coordinate. Denny Covell is also the lead City Staffer on the region's
Stormwater Management Plan funded in part by WDOE. The Storm Water Plan
ccwf app. II text
page 4
February 18,1994 cw
is presently in draft form and the public participation process is shortly to
emerge into a new phase.
Glenn Valanzuela, Director of Community Development, and Don Skone,
Planning Manger, team up to provide extensive knowledge and expertise in the
planning and community development field. Areas of expertise and experience
include regional zoning and land use planning and its implementation among
the jurisdictions in the upper Yakima Valley; Growth Management Act planning
activities; and extensive public participation processes. The City's planning
department is fully integrated into the City's Geographical Information System
(Arc/Info based) so information is more readily available and translatable into
usable form for those who need it.
Chris Waarvick, Wastewater Manager, Bruce Bates, Assistant Manager, and
Doug Mayo, Project Engineer comprise the Wastewater Division's team for
Wastewater Comprehensive planning. These individuals have the experience
and knowledge gained from preparing and implementing the 1988 Sewer
Comprehensive Plan, Biosolids Management Plan, Wastewater Cost of Service
Studies, Pretreatment Program Planning, and numerous other wastewater
related planning and implementation activities. The 1988 Comprehensive Plan
translated into action; over $20 million in construction of treatment facility
improvements over the last 8 years. This has kept the City's regional facility in
good stead for capacity to serve the region. Other Sewer Comprehensive Plan
recommendations have also been implemented including the City's Infow and
Infiltration (I/I) removal program and sewer line rehabilitation projects. The I/I
removal program has resulted in a reduction of nearly 3 million gallons per day
from the treatment facility at peak flow (see attached chart). Sewer line
rehabilitation is ongoing financed by the Public Works Trust Fund loan program.
Chris Waarvick, Bruce Bates and Doug Mayo have also been involved in
important community activities such as the Solids Waste Management Plan,
Vision 2010 community consensus development, and Total Quality Management
program development for the City. These three individuals also provide detailed
staff presentations to City Council on wastewater issues.
HDR Engineering, Inc. is the City's wastewater engineering consultant. This
present comprehensive plan would utilize the consultants knowledge and
expertise gained from the 1988 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. This firm also
provided the technical engineering expertise for recent treatment facility
improvements. This required a high level of understanding of the City's
treatment facility abilities and capacities. The City's contractual relationship with
HDR Engineering, Inc. presently includes an overarching TQM approach to
consultant/client relationships.
Finally, two individuals from outside the City's organization are mentioned for
their importance in achieving Plan outcomes. Skip Steinmetz, Yakima Health
District Environmental Director, is very interested in the outcomes of this Plan
ccwf app. II text
page 5
February 18, 1994 cw
and has provided a letter to the City outlining some important issues. Bob
Barwin, Section Head of the Water Quality Division of the Central DOE office,
also shares a significant interest in the outcomes of this Plan. The City has
established a successful working relationship with Bob Barwin and he has made
joint presentations with City staff to the Yakima City Council on broad water
quality issues before they have become issues of immediate concern.
ccwf app. 11 text
page 6
February 18, 1994 cw
oposed Se
rban Area
Ilei' 1211NGliu11111.LZI11711���T 11111111111111,0% at 1
�Y
11Ci n � I - ■ mina: Il',�,„ nll upim 111 ���I�I1111
NOB HIL •T r] �' 1�, �■ �l IIIIIIIII
11 �� 1 11 �"' 11IIIIDHIi11119""""IJlI 1;� �W� f� ! ��
111 IIIIII '.' IIIIIIIIIIIIIP
M �� IIYIYII1111111 :1f; ���1� Tr'i!1�,1
ill V i l' ii�s 11ut111■:-III 11111111111111
�.i■C�` �._■I" 1•11---nlll�lllllllluuiiiIllll
r- �n nll�I;,�l•illllllllll■ 111'11
� ■ 111 i �� ,bill.. !'3►.' i1'i7'�11_
I� '"Jii•'_'ul�'iii'i�iii.i
—1111111111grii.
.wulul-.I.
Xp
mm■1fi11m
aim�111f111!111
1111W
RPC 11x17.12-1
Yakima Interim
Urban Growth Area
February 15, 1994
•
-.
0
Existing Urban Area
Proposed Yakima
Interim Urban Area
Yakima City Limits
Urban Area Boundary
Interim Urban Growth
Area (2115194)
Other Municipal
Interim Urban Area
m
b
'Copyright Flo p
Scale - 1 : 5600
0
2800
5600
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 1,.
For Meeting Of 2/22/94
State of Washington 1994 Centennial Clean Water Grant Application for
Wastewater Planning Activities
Denny Covell, Director of Engineering and Utilities
Chris Waarvick, Wastewater Superintendent
Bruce Bates, Assistant Superintendent
Doug Mayo, Project Engineer
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Chris Waarvick/575-6078
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
In 1994, the Centennial Clean Water Fund, managed by the Department of Ecology, will
invest up to $1.4 million dollars statewide into comprehensive planning projects using a new
approach known as Outcome Funding. Comprehensive planning projects such as
watershed planning, groundwater management, wellhead protection, lake restoration,
)eneral sewer or stormwater are eligible to apply. The application deadline is February 25,
1994. Staff respectfully requests Council authorization to forward the attached grant
application to the Washington State Department of Ecology and approval of the resolution
authorizing the City Manager to sign the grant application and subsequent associated grant
documents.
(...continued...)
Resolution X Ordinance _Contract Other (Specify) Grant Application and Attachments
Funding Source Grant proceeds joined with existing budgeted resources
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the grant application and
subsequent grant related documents.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
centennial '94 grant app.
February 17, 1994 cw
page 1
The City is presently under contract for its Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update with HDR
Engineering, Inc. This contract was approved by City Council at the 12/21/93 Council
Meeting under Item #16. The scope of work contains both planning and "hard" engineering
tasks to be accomplished over the next 18-24 months. The Department of Ecology put
forward in December of 1993 an alternative grant program for planning focusing on "results."
"Outcome Funding, a program developed by the non-profit Rensselaerville Institute of New
York, is a new approach designed to help public bodies focus our limited dollars where they
count most -- on restoring and protecting water quality." (Citation from the 12/93 WDOE
Focus publication) The Outcome Funding approach seeks different information from
standard planning applications. The focus is Tess on financial information and more on: 1)
the planning area; 2) the people who must act to achieve the results intended; 3) the results
intended to be accomplished; 4) the results verification process; and 5) the key individuals
working on the project. This Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update iregLJired every 5 years) is
especially important and timely. The discussion of the new interim Urban Area Boundary is
shortly due to elevate to the level of quantifying the costs and ability to provide urban services
within this new area.
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update ("Update") is presently on track with both staff work
agendas and contracted engineering services. Additionally, much of the Yakima Urban Area
is scheduled to be "flown and photographed" for development of accurate 2 foot contour
topography under a contract with CH2M-Hill. The Water and Sewer Divisions are funding
this contour project which was approved by Council on 12/21/93 as part of the
Comprehensive Water Plan Update contract with CH2M-Hill. This topographical information
is critical in planning for the layout and generalized costs of sewers in the urban area. The
grant application is for $250,000 (maximum allowed for any one jurisdiction) to be used in
conjunction with existing resources to prepare the Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update.
The grant resources would be put to work to accomplish the following ongoing work activities:
1) Prepare detailed orthophotographic contour maps within the entire Interim Urban
Area Boundary.
2) Ultimate design of new collection systems.
3) Determine collection and treatment needs under GMA and expanded service area.
4) Prepare Capital Improvement Program for wastewater collection and treatment
needs.
The City's grant application will be evaluated using the following three Outcomes as guides:
) Rest .r..+i'... of +he state's .■wn+nr ni �nli+.. .end nn_nninel efforts to prevent nnlll Itinn• 71
I/ r7GJlvIQlIV11 vl 111G QLCLGJ •11CalGl up.icin Ly cal vIa-yviu v��vi av av tow •vita �/
Personal responsibility for protecting water quality is taken by citizens; and 3) The
commitment of local resources is adequate to protect water quality.
If the City's grant application were successful, certain portions of the present engineering
service contracts with HDR Engineering, Inc. and CH2M-Hill would require minor
adjustments in language to conform with grant requirements concerning consultant
reimbursement protocol. The resolution attached anticipates this need and authorizes the
City Manger to execute the necessary amendments in contract language. These changes
will not affect the presently authorized expenditure limits contained within the contracts.
Detailed contour data generation for the new land mass within the Interim Urban Area is
presently slated for the 1995 Budget. If, however, the grant application is successful, a
contract amendment with CH2M-Hili for additional topographical services may be requested
(at a later date) reflecting the increased study area.
centennial '94 grant app.
February 17, 1994 cw
page 2
DATA SUMMARY FOR YAKIMA INTERIM URBAN GROWTH AREA
The following summary compares the existing Yakima Urban Area with the
proposed Yakima Interim Urban Growth Area, as recommended to Yakima County
by Yakima City Council on December 14, 1993.
EXISTING YAKIMA PROPOSED INTERIM
URBAN AREA GROWTH AREA1
SQUARE MILES 40 52
POPULATION2 84,972 88,529
HOUSING UNITS 35,376 36,623
VACANT ZONED3
ACREAGE 8,054 3,508
PERCENT OF ZONED
ACREAGE VACANT 38% 48%
LANDS WITH POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS:4
AGRICULTURAL
DESIGNATIONS (acres) 1,111 0
FLOODPLAINS (acres) 3,869 7,780
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS6 672 1,219
WETLANDS 676 1,619
subtotal 6,328 10,618
1 Data are cumulative for square miles, population, and housing units
2 Population and Housing data from 1990 Census
3 Assumes improvement value of less than $1,500 / parcel
4 Includes both vacant and developed lands
5 Designated by Yakima County
6 Geological hazards and wetlands have not been designated - these are inventory figures only
CENTRAL OFFICE — 575-4040 — 104 North First Street — Yakima, Wash. 98901
OFFICE — 537-3411 — 1319 Saul Road — P.O. Box 821 — Sunnyside, Wash. 98944
February 1, 1994
Douglas Mayo
Yakima Waste Water Treatment Plant
2220 E. Viola
Yakima, Wa. 98901"
Ref. GMA Comprehensive Sewer Planning
Mr. Mayo,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the forthcoming update of the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan. There are several issues in the plan update that are of special
interest to this agency. The preliminary design of the additional collection and
interceptor systems, if complete enough, will allow better planning for future
connection of new developments when the sewer is available. Of major importance is
the depth of future City sewer lines so dry sewers can be constructed in anticipation
of future hook up. Also, it would be helpful if anticipated completion dates of
individual sections of expansions would be listed. This would allow us to better
evaluate the appropriateness of any new on-site septic systems.
An additional issue I believe needs special consideration is to develop a method to
extend city sewer service to the low income areas of the City and the UAB without
waiting for formation of LID's. The LID process as it exists is very time consuming
and does not allow speedy correction of sewage problems. These low income areas
also less likely to be able to form a successful LID. If problems occur in these
areas and sewer is available, the properties involved can be required to connect to
the sewer, if sewer is not available, drainfields will be repaired to eliminate the
immediate health hazard. The properties which do repairs historically do not want to
form a LID after the completion of the repair. This office may, under special
circumstances, order existing properties to connect to city sewer even when failure of
the existing drainfields is not evident. This action could only be taken after
ar existing
the situation with concurrence of the Health Officer.
careful analysis of ��•_ �1���-�---- andOne more item to keep in mind that will help in planning and implementation of city
sewer extensions is that all new plats, new houses, and many existing ones have
covenants attached which require participation in LID's when they are proposed and
connection to the sewer within one year after the sewer is available.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or need more information, please call
me at 575-4265.
Sincerely,
Skip Steinmetz R.S.
Director of Environmental Health
Yakima County
Yakima City
SUPPORTING GOVERNMENTAL. UNITS
Harrah Selah Union Gap
Mabton Sunnyside Wapato
Mnwpp Tieton Zillah
650
600
550
500
450
i
400
350
300
250
200
Budget 93 Flom Art 1
WWTP Flows
Peak Flow Period
t.
i
T.
Month
Page 1
i
Q
ti
n
o
8
z
1990
1991
1992
X1993
Lu : uu Ruin w u►auu uGuver your application, our location is:
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
You may want to call us first so we can send you a map. Our number is (206) 407-
6500/SCAN
-
6500/SCAN 407-6500.
HOW ARE PROJECTS EVALUATED?
As we said in the introduction, we at WQFA consider ourselves to be investors in water
quality. Three specific outcomes we hope to achieve through careful investment of the
Centennial Fund are:
Restoration of the state's water quality and on-going efforts to prevent pollution.
Personal responsibility for protecting water quality is taken by citizens.
The commitment of local resources is adequate to protect water quality.
As we review each project proposal, we will be looking for results that will provide the
greatest water quality benefit and that will contribute the most to these outcomes. For
this reason, the single most important part of the application is the Water Quality
Outcome. This is the only question for which a narrative answer is required, and it is
the question that will be used to evaluate projects. We will consider the answers to the
other questions only in the case of a tie between two projects.
Water Quality Outcoffie
The water quality outcome section of the application is used to assess the water
quality benefit that would result from the project and the potential effectiveness
it would have in helping to reach Centennial Fund outcomes. Each applicant is
asked describe the specific water quality results that will be achieved, and to
to describe
_L methodology be used is based on a sound
back this up by snowa��g that the ...��..,..�.--�, to - - - -
understanding of the problem, that staff with the skills required to successfully
complete the project are available, and that the applicant will be able to assess
whether or not the proposed results were achieved.
For the following questions, only a yes or no response will be required:
Public Health
The application asks if a Public Health Emergency has been declared by the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH). If the answer is yes, a copy of
14
111
VASNINiTOI STATE
ECOLOGYEATET
Focus
Centennial Clean Water Fund: Prototype
Outcome Funding
Overview
In the 1994 funding cycle the Department of Ecology will invest up to $1.4 million of its
Centeriztial Clean Water Fund monies in comprehensive planning projects using a new
approach known as Outcome Funding. We will work closely with these projects to test a
model that has had enormous success in other states. Based on the results, we may
expand Outcome Funding to other parts of our Centennial program next year.
If you are seeking funds for a comprehensive planning project like watershed planning or
planning for ground water management, wellhead protection, lake restoration, general
sewers or stormwater, use the Outcome Funding application. Instructions are attached to
the application.
Focus on Results
Outcome Funding, a program developed by the non-profit Rensselaerville Institute of New
York, is a new approach designed to help public bodies focus our limited dollars where
they count most -- on restoring and protecting water quality.
Outcome Funding changes Ecology's role from funding activities to investing in results. It
changes the role of the grant or loan recipient from carrying out activities to achieving
results.
Application Highlights
As you can tell from the new application, the Outcome Funding approach seeks different
information from standard planning applications. It asks for less financial information and
focuses more on:
• the planning area
• the people who must act to achieve the results you intend
• the results you intend to accomplish
• how you will verify whether you've achieved your results
• the key individuals working on the project
During this test of Outcome Funding, the standard requirements for the particular type of
comprehensive plan you intend to develop will still apply. See chapter V of the
"Centennial Clean Water Fund Guidelines" for more information.
December 1993
F-WQFA-93-106 %� Printed on Recycled Paper
Two of the main changes in the new application, performance targets and key people, are
described below.
Performance Tareets
Perhaps the biggest change you will notice is performance targets. These are your
commitments to results.. Performance targets include planning targets such as short-term
recommendations which can be accomplished with existing resources and tests that will be
conducted during planning. Performance targets also include implementation targets.
These are the results you are willing to commit to as a result of your plan. They should
directly contribute to clean water. Examples include "a majority of lake property owners
vote to create a local improvement district" and "fecal coliform levels in Clear Creek
decline by 50 percent within three years".
In developing performance targets, consider how directly they contribute to water quality,
how likely it is that they will be achieved, and how cost-effective they are. These are the
main criteria we will use to select projects.
Kev People
Unlike many planning strategies, Outcome Funding emphasizes the people who lead a
project. We are not looking for a resume. Instead, the application asks you to describe
the strengths of the key individuals in your project -- why you expect them to achieve the
performance targets. Include this information for individuals and consulting firms if you
think they will play a key role.
Our Commitment To You
Outcome Funding is a change for Ecology, too, and we are committed to make every
effort to make it a success. Our staff will work closely with you to make sure we
understand your application and give you an opportunity to add information. Please
contact one of the people listed below if you need help filling out your application or you
want to give us feedback on this new approach.
For More Information
Contact Helen Bresler (206) 407-6519, Carrie Bert (206) 407-6499 or Cheryl Strange
(206) 407-6506 or write to: Department of Ecology, Water Quality Financial Assistance
Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA. 98504-7600.