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