Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2003 Adjourned Meeting / Joint Study Session 6'6 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING /JOINT STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 3, 2003 - 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. YAKIMA CENTER RED LION HOTEL - EAST BALLROOM 1. Roll Call Present: City Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Paul George, Bernard Sims, and Susan Whitman. Council Member Elect Dave Edler Absent: John Puccinelli and Ron Bonlender Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works; Paul McMurray, Assistant City Attorney; Kay Adams, City Engineer (Advisor /Committee Member); Shelley Willson, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager; Brett Sheffield, Surface Water Engineer; Max Linden, Wastewater Environmental Analyst; and Melynn Skovald, PW Office Assistant Yakima County Present: Commissioners: Jim Lewis and Ron Gamache Staff: Vern Redifer, Director of Public Works; John Knutson, Surface Water Manager; Don Gatchalian, Assistant Director of Public Works; Doug Cochran, Yakima County Administrator; Mike Mason, Yakima County Public Works; Dianna Woods, Surface Water; Elizabeth Sheppard, Public Works Union Gap Present: City Council: Aubrey Reeves, Mayor; Dave Butler; Dan Olson; and Kim Owen Council Member Elect Toni Webb, Staff: Kathleen Holscher, City Manager, and Dennis Henne, Public Works Director Interested Citizens: Jim Milton, Tri- County Water Resources; Tom Tebb, WSD Ecology Water Quality Programs; Skip Buckler, West Valley; Ron Anderson, Yakima Association of Realtors; Joe Walsh, Central Washington Home Builders; Al Brown, Yakima Greenway; Joe Moriarty 2. Joint Study Session with Yakima County and Union Gap regarding stormwater John Knutson welcomed everyone and opened the Joint Study Session on the Yakima Regional Stormwater Management Plan Project Update. The meeting began with a round of introductions from everyone in attendance. • Project Background Chris Waarvick provided background information about the state and federal mandates for stormwater management. In the beginning, the State of Washington had its own environmental law that defined what waters of the state were and how clean they had to 67 DECEMBER 3, 2003 ADJOURNED MEETING • be, with new policies and standards evolving from there. Then in 1972, a federal law for water pollution standards was enacted as Public Law 92 -500, known as the Clean Water Act. Since 1972, there have been subsequent amendments to the Clean Water Act, which is where many of the water law obligations are found for environmental cleanup that we deal with today. The federal Clean Water Act requires a stormwater program for each Phase II entity that must comply with numerous state and federal stormwater standards. The Washington State Department of Ecology is the agency that makes sure the broad array of environmental standards are met. There are also a number of other programs with mandated projects in place with a very wide spectrum of technical issues involving projects associated with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rules from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); activities required by Endangered Species Act (ESA) findings, and Yakima River Basin Watershed Management Plan. NPDES permit applications were individually prepared for the City of Yakima, the City of Union Gap, and Yakima County and were jointly submitted in March 2003. In November 2004, a Phase II Permit for stormwater activities is expected to be issued for the local jurisdictions via a census area designation that will include the City of Yakima, the City of Union Gap, the Urban Area of Yakima County, Selah, and maybe Moxee and Sunnyside. The permits will contain requirements to comply with EPA's six commonly known Minimum Control Measures. Local jurisdictions will continue working together toward a successful stormwater program. This is a good thing to do because it avoids duplication of services where possible and enhances the ability to negotiate effective standards with the regulatory agencies. During the 1970s and early 1980s grant programs were abundantly available for Phase I communities' projects that dealt with Wastewater Discharge Permits for point source discharges pretreatment and paid for stormwater projects for compliance for larger entities (with a population of 100,000 and over), such as Seattle and King County. However, those types of grants are not available for Phase II communities, which includes the Yakima area. Stormwater projects are so expensive and they cost a lot more than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Even though grants are not available, stormwater mandates are still in place. Even though relief is needed from federal and state mandated responsibilities, the state is still required to enforce the environmental obligations contained in the law. One thing for sure though — doing nothing is not an option. Not implementing a stormwater program has serious consequences involved. Financial policy issues are tough questions and elected officials are the ones who must determine whether to establish a stormwater utility, decide what funding source to use, and provide direction about implementation of policy issues for each individual entity's stormwater program. • Focus of Discussion Joe Simmler, with OTAK, narrated the PowerPoint presentation on the Yakima Regional Stormwater Management Plan. The purpose of stormwater management is to prevent stormwater runoff from ruining our drinking water, degrading the quality of surface water and groundwater, and polluting lakes, streams, and fish habitat. Another aspect of stormwater management has to do with flood control and water quality. The main 2 6 6 DECEMBER 3, 2003 ADJOURNED MEETING emphasis of the Yakima Regional Stormwater Management Program has to do with protecting and enhancing the quality of water resources in Eastern Washington as it relates to flood control, regulatory compliance for new construction, park operations, maintenance of existing drainage systems, correction of existing drainage problems, and public awareness with a cooperative regional approach. Consultant Simmler explained that the revenue source that is being recommended is the creation of a stormwater utility. The funding mechanism that is being recommended is a stormwater utility user fee that can readily be implemented through an ordinance and collected once a year through the County's billing system when property tax assessments are sent out. Consultant Simmler also outlined some of the activities involved in setting up a stormwater utility. A gap analysis was done comparing each entity's existing stormwater program elements and showing how each local program would be tailored to meet the specific needs of each jurisdiction. For example, the City of Yakima stormwater program needs to include an intense drainage system that requires much more Capital Improvement Projects; Yakima County, on the other hand, has a lot more fish - related issues so its focus is on the Endangered Species Act's requirements; and the proportionate amount that Union Gap has to pay is less because it is a smaller entity with a stormwater program with fewer regulatory requirements to meet. There was also discussion about how the proposed stormwater utility would compare to stormwater utilities already in place in other jurisdictions across the state. • Up- Coming Events Elected officials emphasized the importance of effectively informing the public about the mandated stormwater requirements and that the public will have to pay for those programs. One of the things that needs to be recognized is that outreach has already started. There have been numerous meetings held with various service organizations, non - profits, and with the media. More public education and outreach meetings will be held in the upcoming months. Everything possible will be done to encourage citizen involvement before the stormwater utility ordinance is passed and collection of user fees begin. Any groups that would like to attend a presentation were invited to contact Dianna Woods with Yakima County Public Works. Local jurisdictions will continue working together toward a successful program. Funding opportunities will be explored. Meetings will continue with each of the three agencies - the City of Yakima, the City of Union Gap, and Yakima County - to discuss the budget and how the stormwater utility user fees would be phased in. • Questions, Comments, and Suggestions Comments were received from both the local officials and community members in the audience about some of the challenges associated with a stormwater utility, including the user fee based upon the amount of impervious surface located on each property. It was also noted that it is important to remember whenever a user class or exemption is eliminated from the system it means that those who remain on the rolls pay more. There were comments and questions about established dedicated funding for state highways stormwater compliance activities. There was an inquiry about the status of the 3 69 DECEMBER 3, 2003 ADJOURNED MEETING Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual, although availability of a final draft would not affect what is being done at this Study Session. A question was also asked about the existence of the stormwater collection treatment system at the Airport, and where the revenue would come from for the Airport's permit fee. That is a policy decision for the elected officials to examine when that time comes. At the conclusion of the presentation, the local officials posed a variety of additional questions, expressed ideas, made suggestions, or indicated further review, clarification, or additional information was needed about the following: o Create a preliminary stormwater utility bill estimating the amount of the user fee to determine how much each industrial customer would be charged and what type of industrial activity is occurring. Since there are costs involved that would affect the whole community, outreach meetings or an engineering solutions forum would be held to provide an opportunity to address special needs for those industrial customers. Churches would also be included as interested parties in these outreach meetings so they would be aware of fees assessed to churches based upon the amount of impervious surface associated with parking lots. The preliminary bill concept would be a way to encourage the public to attend the public hearing and provide their input, although no consensus was reached about the feasibility of developing a draft billing event. o Check with other cities that have a stormwater utility already established to see how it is going and what the customer reaction has been. Those areas with a stormwater utility in place include Wenatchee, Richland, Pasco, Walla Walla, and Spokane. o Gather more information about how the funding mechanism for the stormwater utility would work and how the user fee would be collected if it was included with the property tax statement. It's important to make sure it is understood that the stormwater utility user fee would not be calculated the same way as property taxes are figured, going on so much per thousand. The collection process for the stormwater user fee would be similar to the way a sewer bill or flood control zone assessment is done. In addition, staff should inquire about the property lien process to see if it would apply to unpaid stormwater utility user fees. o Clarify the reasoning behind providing public education credits for schools and if it would perhaps be feasible to include public education credits for local government where there is information available to the public or public education programs are in place about stormwater management. This is where a stormwater user fee would be waived for educational involvement and a public education credit would be granted if a class about stormwater issues were included in a school's curriculum to educate students or maybe even by creating an illustrated flyer to send home. o Utilize an easy to understand format to clearly define policy issues for the stormwater utility program. Each entity would draft an ordinance for its stormwater utility so that it could be discussed and questioned during the public hearings. 4 7 0 DECEMBER 3, 2003 ADJOURNED MEETING o Check to see what would constitute a waiver for people who have paved their parking lots and have an effective drywell, or whether they would be eligible for some type of a discount if they could demonstrate to Ecology that they comply with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. • Six Minimum Control Measures John Knutson summarized the following six control measures for Phase II stormwater programs: o Public Involvement This is involving the public in drafting the elements of local stormwater programs, your basic public involvement. o Public Education and Outreach These are public outreach and education activities about Stormwater /Surface water Management. One example would be going to the schools that have a curriculum in place to educate their students and develop flyers about the proper handling and disposal of household hazardous wastes. Those flyers could be distributed at community events such as the Fair. Another example would be targeting certain industries within the community that have the potential to pollute and provide the informational flyer to them. o Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements This requires local governments to develop a set of standards for erosion sediment control in new developments. This prevents the dirt from washing off into the storm drain. These are technical standards. This standard would include a plan review and inspection process. This concept is similar to the building and grading permit process currently in place and could be done by those who already issue permits. o Post - Development Stormwater Management This is a planning tool used to control the amount of stormwater runoff to prevent flooding from over -full storm drains. This is about system design to minimize the impact that stormwater runoff has on water quality. This is also about monitoring stormwater runoff from new hard surfaces created during the construction phase of new development or redevelopment projects. It includes stormwater treatment systems; stormwater detention systems; and stormwater retention systems. o - Illicit Discharge Detection Elimination This is where stormwater outfalls are visited to look for evidence of unwanted things being dumped or discharged into storm drains. If an illicit discharge is occurring, it is eliminated through an ordinance enforcement measure that is probably implemented with the cooperative action of an agency like the Health District. 5 7 1 DECEMBER 3, 2003 ADJOURNED MEETING o Good Housekeeping for Public Operations This is road maintenance, parks and grounds keeping, and those types of things. It includes looking at the current operation and trying to develop methods to prevent pollution or to minimize the pollution potential that happens during an incident, such as a culvert clean or bridge maintenance or other public operations activity. • Additional Control Measures Added John Knutson indicated a few more measures have been added, as listed below: o Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Records of everything will have to be kept about compliance activities under the Phase II Permit. There will be a map of operations and annual reports submitted to Ecology indicating that everything is fine with the permit process, or if it isn't, then here is why and show what is being done. o Compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) This requires a cleanup plan for a polluted water body. When a water body is listed as polluted, a cleanup plan is developed. By law, this cleanup plan has to be incorporated into the stormwater management program. • How Will It Be Paid For? This is determining the funding source and funding mechanism for stormwater projects. • Stormwater Utility Setup' and Permit Fee Amount John Knutson asked direction from the elected officials to proceed with the formation of a stormwater utility. Separate utilities for each entity are being recommended under the guidance of interlocal agreements. This can be done regionally to avoid the duplication of efforts. • Concluding Comments Chris Waarvick noted that, even if no measures are in place, Ecology will be sending each local entity a permit fee that could be in the neighborhood of $35,000. Currently, discussion is taking place with Ecology about using the federal Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standards versus Washington State's All Known Available and Reasonable Technology (AKART) standards with regard to stormwater regulation. The 10- Cities group has submitted a list of policy statements to elected representatives for receipt before the next legislative session begins in 2004. Those statements summarize the direction that stormwater regulation is taking and the costs involved. In the 2004 Legislative Session, legislative officials will either ratify the current direction or amend the state law to lessen the financial impact of stormwater on Washington communities. They will still retain the key environmental protections to a level deemed appropriate by federal law, which is the less severe Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standard as opposed to the State of Washington's stricter standard, All Known Available and Reasonable Technology (AKART) found in RCW 90.48. 6 72 DECEMBER 3, 2003 ADJOURNED MEETING They discussed using a flat rate as opposed to a preset unit of square footage for the amount of impervious surface area as the basis of a stormwater user fee. Consultant Simmler explained that many cities have one flat rate for residential and then scale their industrial /commercial rates by whatever amount of hard surface they have. For the Yakima area, it was recommended not to have one flat rate for residential because it is not really fair to charge someone with essentially a mansion the same as someone with a very small home on a very small lot in a more depressed neighborhood. 3. Adjournment to December 9, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. for budget wrap -up An announcement was made that the December 23, 2003 Stormwater Steering Committee meeting is cancelled. The next stormwater meeting is Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at the County Courthouse. Invited to that meeting are the Homebuilders and other area industrial users who would be impacted by regional costs for stormwater programs. The meeting concluded at 7:30 p.m. City of Yakima Council members adjourned to December 9, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. for budget wrap -up session in the Council Chambers at City Hall. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY !� _r COU 1 IL MEMB. R DAT _j :.A : 3 36 OK CI NCIL ME , :ER 'A E ATTEST: >ef / CITY CLERK MARY PLACE, 'MAYOR Minutes prepared by Melynn Skovald. An audio and videotape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office 1 7