HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1996 Special Joint Meeting 13:9.
CITY OF, YAKIMA, , WASHINGTON
SEPTEMBER 17;
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH
YAKIMA COUNTY AND UNION GAP
The City Council met on this date at 7:30 a.m. at the ESD #105
• Administration Building Conference Center, 33 South 2nd Avenue, Yakima,
Washington. Yakima City Council Members present were Mayor Lynn
Buchanan, Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Ernie Berger, John
Klingele, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims. City staff members
present were City Manager Zais, Assistant City Manager Rice, Chris
Waarvick, Wastewater Superintendent, Ray Paolella, City Attorney,
Marketa Oliver, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager, Doug
Mayo, Project Engineer, Judy Duval, Municipal Producer, and Deputy City
Clerk Skovald. Yakima County Commissioners present were Jim Lewis,
Chairman, Bettie Ingham, and Bill Flower. Yakima County staff members
present were Dan Hesse, Director of Public Works, Dick Anderwald,
Director of Planning and Special Projects, and Vern Redifer, Assistant
Director of Public Works. Union Gap Council Members present were Mayor
Dan Olson and Betty Boyd. Union Gap Staff Member present were Paul
Burlingame, City Manager, Kathleen Holscher, Assistant City Manager and
Sherrie Testerman, Executive Secretary. Representatives from the West
Valley Community Council present were Shirley L. Doty and Gene Hull. -
Representatives from the Terrace Heights Sewer District present were
Norman Alderson and Warren Wayenberg. There were also members of the
media present as well as a number of concerned citizens who attended
this meeting.
Commissioner Lewis welcomed the group, everyone in attendance
introduced themselves, and the meeting began.
Wastewater Issues
Dick Zais provided some background information about the Agreement For
Wastewater Treatment And Disposal Service (4- Party Agreement). He
referred to the agreement as a milestone document because it is a plan
for the extension of regional planning and wastewater services in the
Urban Area of Yakima. Encompassing the many documents and material
prepared during the past twenty years since the 4 -Party Agreement was
signed, Mr. Zais directed attention to a report provided for this
meeting which summarizes the investment and activity of the wastewater
capacity and delivery system. He,pointed out there are significantly
higher local water and wastewater rates in other communities because
those communities had to do more on their own and did not obtain the
kind of federal and state grant funding that this community has
received and built into the system. The investment from the partners
in this agreement is built back into the system in terms of resources
that also help to offset the costs of providing service. The report
also includes documents and charts that relate to where those resources
have gone. He indicated further explanation about past upgrades,
investments, or capacity improvements is available if there are any
questions. Mr. Zais directed attention to future needs in an era where
there are now significantly diminished federal and state resources and
the demands are no less greater. That is the challenge -- how to pay
for growth and provide continued service.
140
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
Chris Waarvick displayed several maps depicting the future location of
interceptor lines needed to serve new growth in the Urban Area. On
another map he explained where existing sewer lines are located
including Union Gap and Terrace Heights data indicated in the
Geographical Information System format. He also pointed out where the
City has its collection system and its jurisdiction of obligation to
maintain Terrace Heights and Union Gap. He showed the understood
Interim Urban Area Boundary as well as the Urban Area Boundary and the
City Limits of Yakima. Mr. Waarvick also provided general and
technical background information about treatment capacity, provided
figures on the maintenance and operations budget, and answered
questions about the location of the various pump stations.
Mr. Waarvick directed attention to the proposed Wastewater Connection
Charge Program which is a system whereby the cost of new growth would
be assigned to new customers wherever they resided in the service area.
There would be a connection charge no matter whether residence is in
the Interim Urban Area, the Urban Area, or the City Limits.
Mr. Waarvick explained some of the differences associated with the
proposed charges. Everybody pays for rehabilitation at the Treatment
Facility; the portion of the charge that is for treatment is the same
in each area; however, charges associated with the cost for expansion
or system buy -in would be different, such as application of historical
grants and the costs of interceptors and collectors. The City of
Yakima has invested significant capital, not only into the treatment
plant since the early 1980s, but after the Federal grant process. The
City has also invested significant cash into interceptors and
collectors in areas outside the City Limits. Those also play a factor
in establishing what connection charge rates will be. Mr. Waarvick
continued his presentation by explaining the rationale behind the
Connection Charge concept versus significant across the board rate
- increases for the rate paying body. Mr. Zais compared the amount
committed to debt service payments for the Wastewater Operating Budget
'" (approximately 25 percent) to debt payments and interest on the
National Debt (approximately 15 percent). He touched on the philosophy
behind the proposed Wastewater Connection Charge. This was developed
in order to assign costs to new customers for necessary system growth
and to address the major concern about how much more that the rate
payers of Yakima can afford to subsidize growth on the premise of long
term recovery. He again mentioned the absence of significant Federal
and State investment for the future that's not any where near the
degree that once existed. Mr. Waarvick reported there is cost recovery
coming from the Federal and State governments for the industrial waste
sprayfield which was significantly damaged in a flood earlier this
year. The dike that protects the Treatment Facility has just recently
been repaired as part of a significant cost participation program with
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. So the point being that while
federal and state grant moneys are not available, they are sought after
wherever they exist and are used to their fullest.
Glenn Rice explained that the Terrace Heights Sewer District and the
City of Union Gap are wholesale customers and are charged wholesale
rates. How they distribute that cost to their rate payers is decided
by them.
Council Member Beauchamp commented about the increased local
participation in the future for not only sewer, but also streets and
other services and the increased costs to the rate payer, particularly
2
141
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
the older citizen tax base. ,,Mr. Zais explained that proposals brought
to the Council over time on - .th rate adjustments don't just get put on
the table in a short amount of time and acted upon. The City Council
has taken very significant care and time to evaluate, study, and
analyze this data and the recommendations. To go through a rate study,
a cost of service study, the rate analysis, rate recommendations and
II decision making is as long as a year for a major rate increase to be
considered that might cover multiple years because of all the impacts
required to be considered. That is done with a lot of very deliberate
and conscience evaluation of the impact that creates on the community
and on the individual that are paying those costs.
Bettie Ingham asked representatives from the Washington Department of
Ecology, Ray Hennerey and Max Linden, to explain Ecology's position
concerning independent systems within the new Urban Area that have been
driven by the Growth Management Plan. They explained they will
consider independent systems as an alternative to hooking to City
service if it is cost effective; however, a public entity has to
operate that independent service. There are parameters on whose
jurisdiction; it is State held if the system is 14,500 gallons or less
(about 30 residential hookups) and it is Department of Ecology held
above that break. In response to several questions from Shirley Doty,
the WA Ecology representatives explained there are various alternatives
that could be considered. There are packaged plants that can be used
to treat wastewater; there are lagoon systems; and there are water
reuse systems.
Tony Leita, West Valley Community Council, asked what would be the most
logical answer from a clinical standpoint to meet the future demand for
sewage in West Valley in the next five to ten years. He also asked if
there should be a moratorium on hookups. Mr. Waarvick did not see the
need for any sort of moratorium., .•:,.Although there are some restrictions
to the West Valley interceptor line, 'they are only temporary or short
term and those can be improved to allow for more flow. The Connection
Charge proposal basically calls for hook up when the development is
ready to hook up. Council Member Sims asked how many people could hook
up in the West Valley area based on the $14 million investment. Doug
I Mayo explained it is at about 50 percent capacity right now.
Approximately 2,000 more homes could be hooked up on the existing
capacity. The Capital Facilities Plan, prepared for Growth Management
over the next 20 years, anticipates expanding the capacity of the plant
by about another 6 million gallons to accommodate what is envisioned to
be the service needs. A lot of the service needs will be from the west
,
and also from the east and from the south.
Council Member Barnett requested clarification on the chart showing the
number of available hookups in West Valley. Mr. Mayo explained the
reference is to the household residential equivalent of 650 gallons per
day which is the number used on existing houses in that area is an
estimate. The 2,000 is a conservative number to estimate the future
demand five to ten years and to prepare for that. Mr. Mayo also
explained the course of action for hookups utilized currently.
There was a considerable amount of discussion concerning various
questions raised by West Valley Community Council members and Yakima
County Commissioners and,taff. Included in that discussion included
options for West Valley to meet future service needs in the next five
1
3
14.2
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
to twenty years. West Valley Community Council plans to hold a study
session to raise awareness of the issue and to correct misconceptions.
Shirley Doty asked about holding back capacity of the remaining
equivalent households in the West Valley area inside the Urban Area
Boundary. She also indicated that this is an extremely critical
subject for the West Valley citizens whether they live inside or
outside the Urban Area Boundary. Mr. Waarvick explained the need to
educate the public that if development occurs farther out then the
logical consequence will occur and there will be less hookups
available. Mr. Mayo explained another way to look at it is that the
system will continue to expand and the basic premise is to try to
estimate where these new people would live in the area.
There was a considerable amount of discussion about the future demand
and the system capacity in the West Valley area as well as the costs
involved to provide the service. Bill Flower stated it is more and
more expensive for Yakima to treat this waste and it becomes more and
more an option for those people who are not on the regional system to
consider new systems and new technology. Those are smaller systems and
are going up everywhere and they are effective and cost effective.
There are residents that have a need, and it would also open up an
option for the people in West Valley to consider what other kinds of
services are available.
There was continued discussion about the current available capacity at
the Treatment Plant and the need to expand and the plan to improve
capacity as required by DOE. There were also questions and discussion
about the impact of Capital Investment from utility debt which is based
on revenue assessment.
-
Mayor Buchanan stated that as he sees it, the City has put the pipes 2 ''
out into the area with the idea that it would serve what was then "
called the Urban Area and it would serve the area within those
boundaries. If the County wanted to put in an additional plant that is
beyond that Urban Area if that was cheaper, they would have to
calculate where they would have to put the outfall from that, but that
would save an awful lot of expense on expanding the current plant and
it would save an awful lot of pipeline running out into the even
further reaches of Yakima Valley. So that is a valid option for
expansion.
Dan Hesse referred to the issue of cost effectiveness from Ecology's
view for a satellite independent system. He asked what are the
guidelines associated with that, and when is it cost effective to site
a satellite system versus connect to the regional system. Mr. Linden
and Mr. Hennerey explained that it would have to be truly shown that it
is a lot more cost effective than`hooking to the City system. The
goal, looking within the existing Urban Area, is that anything within
that area is hooked to the City system because a lot of finances,
backing and support have been put into the Regional Plant in Yakima to
serve the growth needs in this area. There's a lot of problems out in
the outlying areas, such as the problem of outfall. Trying to find a
place to try to take wastewater after it is treated is an issue. There
are certain systems which can be considered such as water reuse, but
there are certain requirements that have to be met to reuse water which
makes it more costly.
4
143
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING.- SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
t .
Dan Hesse asked Mr. Waarvick"s to?'' address``the issue of capacity from a
biological standpoint and talk about the hydraulic capacity of the
treatment facilities. Mr. Waarvick reported the Treatment facility is
well positioned in organic suspended solids capacity.
Bettie Ingham explained that they need to plan for the service needs
for the next five to ten years within the new growth areas in order to
be responsive to the needs of the customers. There is a need to
educate the community about what the existing service is, what the
plans for expansion are over the next 20 years, and what the Growth
Management Plan encompasses. There is a need to do some type of
community assessment of the development community and potential users
of these new services to find out what some expectations are on time
frames and bring this discussion 'together. She asked how can we be
responsive to the development that we say is going to happen in these
boundaries because with Growth Management, what were saying is, it's
going to have to be ,within those confines. It ;seems as though that
sets a tremendous expectation on local government for service, and
there is a need for a vehicle of communication with our potential
users. People who currently don't have service have an expectation for
service. People who have made land investments and want to see an
opportunity within some sort of concrete time frame when they can
market that land and be able to sell the service and put the services
on the land. Commissioner Ingham asked the group to discuss her
request. Mayor Buchanan felt the wastewater issue should be made more
readable for people who are not used to looking at this type of
information and thought that would be a good place to start.
There was a considerable amount of discussion about the request to
develop a working group to talk about an assessment of the growth need
and to identify and clarify the various aspects of the wastewater issue
to make it more understandable ?Bettie also requested that the
Development Community be included along with the same representation
from Yakima County, the, City of Yakima, Terrace Heights Sewer District,
Union Gap and West Valley.
Council Member Barnett pointed out there are certain materials already
available for the next five or six years. He asked if Yakima County
wants to project it 20 years instead. Commissioner Ingham stated she
wanted to be able to be responsive to constituents that ask when an
area that they live in is going to be able to be developed. Shirley
• Doty stated it needs to be well defined due to the County Comprehensive
Plan process. In the' County Comprehensive Plan ,there .is a major issue
of whether non - economically viable orchard lands or farm lands should
be allowed to be subdivided and developed.
' Dick Anderwald explained the Interim Urban Growth Boundary is the area
which utility service is expected to be provided. He felt expansion of
the wastewater system or development of individual systems will not
provide individuals the ability or meet their needs to subdivide land
out of the Urban Boundary. There is no public commitment to provide
urban level services outside that boundary. Mr. Anderwald explained
the Interim Urban Growth Boundary is the boundary and the Urban Reserve
is the frame of reference given to the land outside the existing
service boundary. Shirley Doty pointed out that the service area has
been expanded from the Urban Area Boundary to the Interim. Urban Area
Boundary. Mr. Anderwald explained the distinction needs to be made
5
144
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
that the focus of the utility discussion has to be from the Interim
Urban Growth Boundary inward rather than outward. He wanted to make
sure that testimony received during a recent County Planning Commission
meeting from a farmer who lived beyond the Interim Urban Growth
Boundary, was not characterized as solving his need to sell off his
cold orchard area and develop it to its fullest potential based on some
expectation of public utility services. If he was able to somehow do
that it would be the result of some type of a small system that might
serve his particular project. Under Growth Management, the County is
obligated to not permit urban level development outside urban growth
boundaries or development that would lead to urban growth over time.
So while those needs of rural residents are addressed, it is not going
to be at urban density. It just can't happen.
Mayor Buchanan pointed out that the pipelines are already out in the
West Valley and development in that area can be relatively easy and
price will be one of the things that drives it because they are going
to have to pay the cost of getting hooked up. Beyond that it is a
matter of cost to extend the pipelines. More pipes can be added on to
the end of the pipeline, but if it is added onto long enough, expansion
will have to happen closer into the Treatment Plant. So beyond where
the pipelines are now, people are going to have to make a decision
whether they want to try to go for a satellite plant or if they want to
hook on to the end of existing pipelines. Then if they expand out there
far enough and there are enough users, then some of these other people
are going to come into play because the plant has to be expanded in
time to serve that or it starts to cut into the allocation for Union
Gap and Terrace Heights. So it is not something that will show an easy
answer. It's going to be a fluid situation all the time.
Council Member Puccinelli explained the City of Yakima also wants to
know what are the desires out in West Valley. Yakima County is looking
at the possibility of its own plants out there and he asked does West
Valley want regional service. Mayor Buchanan reiterated that there are
plans for expansion now and it is a matter of who wants to hook on and
where and that means how much money do we want to pay to put pipes in.
Doug Mayo explained the assumption is that the Yakima service area goes
through the Urban Reserve Area. Mr. Zais commented that the City of
Yakima would be willing to be part of a vehicle where constituents
would meet about this program and whoever wants to communicate to get
to an understanding. Commissioner Lewis commented that the 4 -Party
Agreement does mention an Urban Area Joint Board. Council Member
Barnett commented that the Joint Board does have some responsibility on
disagreement. He would prefer this group include participants.
Commissioner Lewis commented that the four parties should be
represented and asked how should that group come together. He
suggested an ad hoc committee to include suggestions from participants.
Council Member Barnett felt that the staffs should get together.
Commissioner Lewis felt the elected officials should decide and then
get back to the city and county staff with one or two people from each
jurisdiction and include West Valley and Terrace Heights. Council
Member Barnett stated that the Joint Board needs adequate support
staff. Commissioner Lewis commented that representatives of the City
Council, County Commissioners, Terrace Heights Sewer District, West
Valley Council, and Union Gap should be identified by the end of this
week to get a formulation of the ad hoc committee. Council Member
Barnett asked if this committee will go into the issue of wastewater
facilities as it relates to the GMA plan. Commissioner Lewis commented
6
.
145
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
Vii,
I
that they will be looking how ti.to increase the participation to
provide the necessary capita'ltzation forthe future of the Urban Area
where the growth is going to occur which will involve some GMA issues
with DOE and Department of Health; however, the main focus will be how
to fund the wastewater facilities -- whether it be the Yakima Regional
Treatment Facility, or independent systems; or semi - independent systems
-- in the next decade. He felt there probably will not be direct
involvement in other policies, but rather making recommendations that
may impact those policies in order to increase the levels of
communications and participation among Yakima County, the City of
Yakima, West Valley Council, and the City of Union Gap. Shirley Doty
commented that the West Valley citizens would like to be a part of the
work group. To simplify the process Commissioner Lewis asked if each
jurisdiction would advise who will be representing them on the Ad Hoc
committee, hopefully, by the end of this week including Terrace Heights
Sewer District, and Union Gap. He noted Council Member Barnett's
request that a framework of operation needs to be developed:
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
' READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: ,-- ;'��'G G1 -� F
, t2
COUNCIL MEMBE DATE
t )
6,
,,,(„/__________
COUNCIL MEMBER DATE
ATTEST: "0(
X 6 t } t------ ›2 ---c,9----6--P--11--- _ ,
CITY CLERK / N N B C' MAYOR
Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio tape of this meeting is available in the City
i
Clerk's Office.
7