1. Call to Order

Chairperson DeVaney called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. in the council chambers, Yakima City Hall; 129 N Second St.; Yakima, Washington.

2. Roll Call

Thornsbury conducted roll call and declared a quorum present.

Board members: Amanda McKinney, County Representative, Absent

Steven Jones, Ph.D., County Representative, Present

[vacant], Large City Representative, Absent

Hilda González, Ed.D., City Representative, Present
Jon DeVaney, Member-at-Large, Present

Staff present: Marc Thornsbury, Executive Director

3. Changes to the Agenda

DeVaney asked if there were any changes to the agenda. None were requested.

4. Public Comment

DeVaney asked if there were any public comments.

Jean Mendoza noted McKinney had previously requested the Board begin consideration of the budget earlier in the year and recalled Thornsbury stating that might be possible at the March meeting. She added she did not see the budget on the agenda. DeVaney directed Mendoza to the agenda item “Budget Objectives Discussion”.

Mendoza stated each year she has questions concerning the budget that are not answered and expressed concern Agency staff does not provide the Board with monthly reports concerning their activities such as notices of construction received, permits issues, and inspections conducted. She suggested it is nearly impossible for her—or for the Board—to evaluate how well the Agency is doing its job without that information and that it should be part of evaluating the upcoming budget.

5. Board Meeting Minutes for February 12, 2026

DeVaney asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. Thornsbury noted a scriveners error in the first full paragraph of the second page where the end of the next to the last sentence should have read “until such time as they are received” and the last sentence should have read “such time as funding is restored” instead of “such time and funding is restored”. Jones moved to approve the February 12, 2026, minutes as corrected. González seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

6. Payroll Transfer Authorization for January 2026

Jones moved to approve the January 2026 payroll transfer. González seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

7. Vouchers for January 2026

Jones inquired regarding the payment to Mr. Zuniga. Thornsbury stated he concluded his work for the Agency before the end of December 2025 and his contract expired at the end of the year. Jones moved to approve the February 2026 vouchers. González seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

8. Budget Objectives Discussion

DeVaney explained this item was included on the agenda to allow time for the Board to discuss budget priorities or concerns before staff began work on the budget. He asked if Thornsbury had any remarks or questions for the board. Thornsbury replied he did not, but cautioned the Board any discussion of priorities that includes adding or increasing in one area must include removing or decreasing in another area as the budgetary “pie” is largely fixed in size. DeVaney acknowledged the limitation.

Jones stated he reviewed the previous budgets adopted for fiscal years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25 and found it difficult to compare them because each was slightly different from the others. He noted the 2022-23 budget showed “available funds” to be equal to one hundred nineteen thousand dollars ($119,000), the 2023-24 budget showed this had grown to three hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars ($337,000), and the 2024-25 budget showed a building fund in the amount of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) with all other reserves covered with increases to several including the legal reserve. Jones stated he did not know the source of these funds.

Thornsbury stated most of the monies that have appeared in the reserves over the last two years have been the result of the lower amount of wages and benefits paid due to open positions at the Agency during that period. He explained if the Agency had been fully staffed with fully trained individuals earning the median wage for their position, those funds would have been consumed and would not have been allocated to reserves.

Jones asked if there was a board resolution establishing a building fund. Thornsbury explained when he came to the Agency, there was some discussion regarding the expense of leasing office space and what would occur at the conclusion of the current lease agreement. He noted that, at the time, there was some cursory discussion as to whether the Agency should consider acquiring space as a way to manage its future expenses. Thornsbury added that, based upon this interest, when additional funds became available as a result of temporary staff reductions, these excess funds were identified for that purpose so they would be available if needed. He stated the various items listed for the reserve funds—with the exception of the operating reserve fund which is set by policy—are suggestions and do not represent a commitment of those funds for any specific purpose.

Thornsbury noted if the Agency had the opportunity to secure monies to fund significant items beneficial to, and needed by, the Agency as a result of savings—the costs of which were borne largely by staff—without the need to increase fees to industry, it seemed prudent to do so and allow the Board to act without the need for future fee increases to cover the expenditures [such as acquiring a building]. He reiterated that under normal circumstances the fees collected would have been consumed and did not represent an added burden on industry. Thornsbury added this simply allowed for special one-time projects to be paid for using special one-time funds without substantially altering the Agency fee structure.

Thornsbury acknowledge the appearance of the budget has changed from year to year. He noted when he arrived at the Agency there were a number of complaints regarding the budget and staff has made incremental improvements to it over a period of several years. Thornsbury stated the current budget incorporated what is expected to be the last substantive change with the addition of prior year actual amounts along with projected current and proposed future amounts. He added the coming proposed budget would retain a similar format and stated his belief staff is now providing the information desired by the Board. Thornsbury explained that while such changes made it difficult to do an “apples-to-apples” comparison for the recent years, the problem is not expected to continue going forward. Jones stated he has no complaint regarding the current format of the budget, but it is difficult to compare across years.

González asked Jones if the 2024-25 budget had any available funds in addition to the $450,000 for building acquisition. Jones noted the budgets for prior years did not specifically identify all of the reserve line items that appear in the most recent budgets so it is difficult to tell. Thornsbury reiterated all of the amounts shown for various items are unallocated funds—with the exception of the operating reserve—and represent only a suggested use of the funds. He noted the anticipated expenditures are special rather than recurring as the Agency does not frequently purchase vehicles or buildings.

Thornsbury explained legal costs have grown significantly and, as a result, non-recurring legal needs are more appropriately funded through reserves rather than operations as was previously done. He added while the reserve percentage has remained the same, total Agency operating expenses have grown over time, necessitating an increase in the amount of the operating reserve. Thornsbury stated his recollection the discovery the operating reserve amount had not been increased as needed occurred in 2023-24 and the subsequent increases in the amount were to maintain the percentage required by policy.

González asked Thornsbury if the remaining funds each year were reallocated to other line items and if any remaining funds in 2024-25 were absorbed into the building acquisition item. Thornsbury explained unallocated funds from a prior year remain and any excess funds from the current year are added to them. He added these funds can be used for any purpose the Board may choose. Thornsbury reiterated none of the staff recommendations concerning reserve funds are a commitment by the Board which may do with them as it sees fit. He added the recommendations are based on the anticipated needs of the Agency and discussions with the Board over a period of years.

Thornsbury explained that in a year where the Agency, for example, acquired several pieces of equipment, the Board would see a large expenditure in the line item for such expenses that exceeds the budgeted amount and there would be a corresponding reduction in the equipment acquisition reserve amount as these funds were used to cover the overage and bring the budget into balance.

DeVaney suggested the funds earmarked for building acquisition would be better allocated to legal expenses as a need for the former seemed less likely than a need for the latter. He added acquiring a building would relieve the Agency of rent costs, but require maintenance of the building. Thornsbury expressed his intent to provide an overview at the next meeting, adding it would not be a deep-dive, but would cover basic elements such as rent and maintenance costs so the Board can engage in a discussion of the financial impacts of various alternatives.

Jones asked Thornsbury the legal entity type of the Agency. Thornsbury explained the Agency is a political subdivision of the State of Washington and considered a “municipal corporation”. He noted it is its own separate entity and is authorized under state law to acquire and own assets. Jones asked what would happen if the Agency were dissolved. Thornsbury stated his understanding the assets of the Agency would revert to Yakima County, adding he would need to confirm his recollection.

Jones asked if most of the unallocated funds were the result of wage and benefit expenses not incurred by the Agency due to unfilled positions. Thornsbury affirmed. Jones remarked the budget contains funds for those positions. Thornsbury explained that would normally be the case, but this year would the budget will show a reduction in state funding and a corresponding reduction in employee costs for one position that is expected to be left vacant until state funding is restored.

Jones stated the Agency is able to fund that position with the funds it currently holds. Thornsbury concurred, noting an employee could be hired in anticipation that funding will be restored. He added he has tried to present a budget that did not rely on what the future might or might not hold and to ensure the Agency was able to sustain its operations at the level of available funding. Jones noted the Agency had raised fees to cover increases in the cost of wages and benefits and urged the Agency to spend those funds for that purpose, adding he would support setting aside funds for legal expenses, but does support having the Agency own real estate. Thornsbury stated he did not have a position on whether the Agency should or should not own the space it occupies and the matter is one for the Board to decide.

Jones noted the state would be reducing its funding to the agency by approximately $25,000 per year. Thornsbury stated he recalled the reduction at $50,000 per year, but could not be certain. DeVaney asked if the funds were for general operations or limited to any specific program. Thornsbury stated they were for a variety of purposes considered part of the core operations of the Agency. He explained that adjusting for reductions in funding is easier in larger organizations—where there may be multiple people assigned to a program and reducing that by one is relatively easy—versus smaller organizations—where a person may be responsible for multiple programs and it is impossible to simply cut them by one-third.

DeVaney expressed his belief that while the future can never be known with certainty, it would seem prudent to utilize some reserve monies to fund the position in question through the biennium. He also expressed concern if the Agency does not have all its positions filled, existing staff will be overworked. Thornsbury noted positions had been left vacant due only to concerns over future funding and not in an attempt to funnel them into reserves. DeVaney stated he was not suggesting they had been left unfilled in order to reallocate the funds for another purpose, but that using funds available in reserves to fully staff the Agency should be considered.

Jones concurred and requested the budget include full staffing. DeVaney expressed support for such a budget and a discussion of the impact of full staffing on the reserve funds. González concurred and asked for confirmation the County would receive the assets of the Agency were it dissolved. Thornsbury affirmed, noting that was his unconfirmed recollection. González asked if the County have any governance with respect to the Agency. Thornsbury explained the Agency is formed and may be dissolved by the County, adding there is little history of an agency being dissolved—though there have been counties that withdrew from an established multi-county agency. He noted while the County has authority to establish the agency, that does not infer governance by the County and the agency is its own independent entity.

González suggested the Agency might be able to partner with the County to secure unused space in a county-owned facility. She asked for confirmation the Agency currently leases from a private entity. Thornsbury affirmed. González stated the use of County space could reduce Agency expenses and the funds made available could be used to ensure the Agency is fully staffed. DeVaney concurred.

Executive Director’s Report

Thornsbury noted staff has been preparing for the coming residential burn season that will start the following weekend and processing the incoming registrations that were being sent out at the time of the last meeting. He added a substantial number of registrations had been received the prior week and noted the deadline would be coming up the following week with time yet for more to be sent. Thornsbury stated some may be in the mail and have yet to be delivered.

González inquired as to whether the budget included funds for unfunded mandates from the state. Thornsbury stated there is no line item to address potential new state or federal enforcement or other requirements, adding these are not common and there have been few changes to the state or federal clean air acts. He noted the most recent changes were the state statutes related to overburdened communities, but these primarily involved new obligations pertaining to the Dept. of Ecology—though local agencies may have some enforcement obligations that may result in some additional cost. Thornsbury explained the potential impact is unknown until there is greater clarity as to how implementation will take place. He stated his understanding is that Ecology hopes to have completed its work by the end of the year.

9. Other Business

None.

10. Adjournment

Jones moved to adjourn. González seconded. Motion passed 2-0. DeVaney adjourned the meeting at 2:41 p.m.

Jon DeVaney, Chairperson Marc Thornsbury, Executive Director