The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/16/2004 Adjourned Meeting 167 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 16, 2004 - 7:30 A.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL Roll Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, Bernard Sims, and Susan Whitman Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Chris Waarvick, Public Works Director; Kay Adams, City Engineer; Brett Scheffield, Surface Water Engineer; and City Clerk Roberts County: John Knutson, Yakima County 2. Study Session stormwater utility policy issues Chris Waarvick narrated a PowerPoint presentation providing historical information on the mandated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II rules issued in 1999. The program build -out cost was calculated to be $2.6 million annually. The program would address the NPDES Clean Water Act Program, Endangered Species Act, and Injected Wells. He stated they considered the alternatives of ignoring the new mandates or comply with the mandates and apply for coverage under an NPDES municipal stormwater permit and create a funding mechanism. We would initially apply individually, separate from the County. There are some pros to ignoring the NPDES regulations: 1) Minimal stormwater activities, and 2) less cost. The cons: 1) The City could be assessed fines and penalties, as well as face the potential loss of federal and state funds; 2) Impacts to the environment and public health; and 3) May become involved in third -party lawsuit as was experienced in Clark County. The pros to complying and obtaining a permit are: 1) Puts the City in compliance with the Clean Water Act; 2) Provides a healthier environment; and 3) Assists in compliance with Underground Injection Control Program and Endangered Species Act. The cons to complying are: 1) Money; and 2) Public perception is that this is unnecessary since we only get seven inches of precipitation per year. The staff recommendation is to acquire coverage under an NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit and comply with the provisions, particularly since we worked hard to have them amend the regulations to fit the conditions of the dryer climate on the east side of the mountains. Staff recommends establishing a stormwater utility to pay for the program using a regional approach to consolidate as many of the features and elements of the program as feasible. Council Member Place reported that the Airport Manager advised her that they would be exempt from the stormwater utility fee. Mr. Waarvick stated he would like to see the letter the airport provided her since they are probably referring to industrial NPDES stormwater. He will call them to clarify the issue. 166 MARCH 16, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING City Manager Zais reported that the Council Sub - Committee reviewed these policy issues and provided its recommendations. He reminded Council that their votes are advisory only to staff, giving staff direction to place it into the ordinance for consideration by the Council after public comments are received at the public hearings. Brett Scheffield reviewed the stormwater policy issues and received direction from Council on the policy issues. Policy Issue #1: Should commercial /industrial sites that retain and infiltrate their stormwater on -site be given a credit? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Give a 20% credit if they are in compliance with the UIC rule. Council Decision: Edler moved and Place seconded to accept #1 recommendation for 20% credit. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #2: Should schools be given a credit or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: BONLENDER MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT SCHOOLS NOT BE GIVEN A CREDIT. The motion carried by 6 -1 voice vote; Edler voting nay. Policy Issue #3: Should holders of industrial stormwater permits be given a credit? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Give a 20% credit if they have a valid NPDES stormwater permit (Credits will not be cumulative, only eligible for one credit.) Council Decision: SIMS MOVED AND EDLER SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #4: Should churches be given a discount or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: BONLENDER MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION. The motion carried by 5 -2 voice vote; Edler and Sims voting nay. Policy Issue #5: Should senior citizens be given a discount or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Low - income senior households shall be given a credit between 20% and 50 %. Council Decision: SIMS MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED TO APPROVE A 20% DISCOUNT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #6: Should low- income households be given discount or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: PLACE MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMS NOS. 6, 7 AT 20 %, 8, 9, AND 10. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #7. Should disabled persons be given a discount or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Low - income disabled person households shall be given a credit between 20% and 50 %. Council Decision: 20% approved; see motion under Policy Issue #6. 2 169 MARCH 16, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING Policy Issue #8. Should DID members be given a discount or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #6. Policy Issue #9. Should businesses that installed stormwater treatment facilities that discharge to the City storm drains be given a credit? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Give a 20% credit to businesses that have facilities that are in compliance with the 2004 Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #6. Policy Issue #10. Should government -owned buildings be exempt from the utility? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #6. Policy Issue #11. Should city roads be given a discount or waiver? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation. Waiver Council Decision: EDLER MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR NO. 11. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #12. Should state roads be exempt from the utility? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Waiver Council Decision: MC CLURE MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR #12. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #13. Should there be a cap on the maximum amount that a business will pay, regardless of the number of ERUs they have? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Yes. Look at $10,000 /year, $12,000 /year, and $15,000 /year. Discussion: Mr. Waarvick stated that the Legal Department informed him there can be no cap placed on a fee; different from a tax that allows a cap. Council Decision: SIMS MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED THAT THERE BE NO CAP IN #13. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #14. What should the initial rate amount be and what should the timing for future rate increases be? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Begin at $1.50 per month per ERU and increase by $0.75 per month per ERU each year for four years. Council Decision: SIMS MOVED AND MC CLURE SECONDED TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR #14. The motion carried by 6 -1 voice vote; Place voting nay. Council Member Place commented that we don't really know about the rate. 3 170 MARCH 16, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING Policy Issue #15. Should agricultural parcels be exempt from the utility? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: PLACE MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMS NOS. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Policy Issue #16. Should vacant lands be assessed a fee? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #15. Policy Issue #17. Should parks be assessed a fee? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #15. Policy Issue #18. Should public trails and bike paths be billed? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: No. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #15. Policy Issue #19. Should residential properties be divided into three classifications? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Yes. Council Decision: Committee recommendation see motion under Policy Issue #15. Policy Issue #20. How should billing be done? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: Annually, as an assessment on the County property tax bill. Council Decision: Committee recommendation approved; see motion under Policy Issue #15. Policy Issue No. 21. Should a tax be imposed on the stormwater utility? At what rate? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a tax be imposed at 10 %, and directed to the street fund for maintenance purposes. Council Motion: EDLER MOVED AND PLACE SECONDED TO NOT IMPOSE A TAX. Discussion: Council Member Place stated that she could not vote to place a tax on something that is mandated; if more money is needed, it should be added to the rate. Mayor George noted that it was 8:45 a.m. and asked for comments from citizens. 3. Audience Comments (8:45 a.m. — 9:00 a.m.) Clarence Barnett, 916 S. 17 Avenue, asked for a copy of the Yakima Drainage Manual that was mentioned in the ordinance. Brett Scheffield advised that the manual is still being created and until it is approved, we will use the State's Eastern Washington Stormwater Management Manual. John Knutson added that we have a draft stormwater design manual prepared by HDR, which will be a simplified version of the State's manual. Mr. Barnett requested clarification be provided in the ordinance regarding the requirment that revenue generated by the fee be used exclusively for stormwater utility, and Section 4 171 MARCH 16, 2004 — ADJOURNED MEETING 7.80.090 and the definitions listed in the ordinance regarding fee for large single family residential parcel. Another item he felt was not clear was in Section 7.80.150 regarding the involvement of the Hearing Examiner in the appeal process. Mr. Scheffield stated he would review those sections. No other citizen came forward to address the Council, therefore, the Council resumed its discussion on Policy Issue No. 21. Policy Issue No. 21. Should a tax be imposed on the stormwater utility? At what rate? City Manager Zais responded to Council Member Place's remarks, stating that other mandated fees, such as water and sewer, are taxed. The issue is purely a revenue adjustment because we have faced resource reductions. In the General Fund, we had 10% in utilities to support all operational divisions of the City. We proposed 10% and that it be directed to the City Street Fund for general operation and support of streets, including street sweeping. 75% of the Street budget comes from property tax. Council Members expressing support for not including, or were unsure about the tax, were Mary Place, Ron Bonlender; Dave Edler, and Neil McClure. Mayor George and Council Member Sims supported the tax. Council Member Sims suggested amending the policy so that the taxes must be a part of the overall Street program. City Manager Zais suggested postponing the decision on this issue. SIMS MOVED AND BONLENDER SECONDED TO DEFER THE VOTE ON ITEM #21 FOR UP TO 30 DAYS. The motion carried by 5 -2 voice vote; Edler and Place voting nay. Policy Issue #22. How much money should be borrowed from other funds during 2004? Council Sub - Committee Recommendation: $250,000 to be paid back within the first four years of the utility. Council Decision: PLACE MOVED AND BONLENDER SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE SUB - COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 4. Adjournment • Mayor George adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m. # 71 /09 READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY COUNCI r MBER/ DATE A MI — 7" ,iU �MEMBE � DATE 4 ATTEST: g (1 0 - g - N" /6 CITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORGE, M YOR Minutes prepared by Karen Roberts. A video tape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office 5