1. Call to Order

Chairperson DeVaney called the meeting to order at 2:02 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, Present (via video-conference)

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

Juliet Potrykus, Large City Representative, Present

Hilda González, Ed.D., City Representative, Present (via video-conference)
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.

Sandy Braden, Friends of Toppenish Creek, stated it was unfortunate the March 25 meeting was held at the [YRCAA] office and not at City Hall so there would have been more room. She questioned why the Board was not in attendance at that meeting.

Mendoza quoted from the City Selection Committee minutes that “Bell opened the floor to nominations for a city representative to the YRCAA Board of Directors and reminded committee members anyone nominated would need to be an elected councilor of the City of

Yakima”, adding the document provided is a copy of an opinion from the Office of the Washington State Attorney General that contradicts that statement.

Mendoza stated it takes her half a day to attend the board meetings, adding this includes preparing for the meeting and collecting useful information for the Board. Mendoza stated this was her way of showing respect for the Board. She expressed the opinion when the Board does not respond to her, it is disrespect. Mendoza added when she sends the Board written comments she considers informative and important and no response is provided, it is disrespect.

Mendoza remarked she had sent the Board an important request that it look at guidelines for public hearings and public meetings, adding the Agency has no such guidelines. She explained members of the public attending the March 25 [public hearing held by the Agency] were told there would be no opportunity for questions and stated she has “never heard of a public hearing where people cannot ask questions” and asked “how else are we supposed to get information if we don’t have an opportunity to ask questions?”

Mendoza stated during the meeting, one of the proponents of the biodigester texted that he had never seen so many uneducated people spouting “facts”. She added the public is not uneducated by choice and there have been many questions regarding, and requests for information concerning, the biodigester for which a response has not been received. Mendoza stated her belief this is an error on the part of the Agency and others.

Mendoza noted each year when the budget comes before the Board she sends questions to the Agency and does not receive any answers. She explained she cannot comment appropriately because she does not have adequate information. Mendoza requested the Board direct staff to answer, or to answer itself, the questions she provided.

Nancy Lust, Friends of Rocky Top (FoRT), noted when a public hearing was held regarding the Order of Approval for DTG Recycle, Agency staff answered questions and expressed her opinion this was helpful. She explained for nearly four years the FoRT and other neighbors of the DTG landfill have been holding quarterly meetings with the agencies regulating the landfill. Lust stated FoRT initiated these meetings when Agency staff learned something from her concerning DTG she had learned from another regulator, adding when she told the former it seemed regulators were not talking with each other, she was told they were not.

Lust stated FoRT has built good relationships with the Yakima Health District and the Wash. Dept. of Ecology. Yakima County Planning frequently misses the meetings, and the Agency has stopped attending. She added Thornsbury asked her to send her questions to him via electronic mail and she sent five questions on March 26, 2026, but has not received a response. Lust stated she had suggested the Agency hold a community forum concerning the biodigester project that would be attended by farmers, the project proponent, and all of the regulators so the public can learn about the project, adding it is unclear if that will take place as she has received no information.

Lust stated DTG is required to submit an annual report to the Wash. Dept. of Ecology including the total volume of material accepted into the landfill, source counties, and waste types and noted the format of the report was changed in 2022-23 and is now practically useless. She explained while the Agency had placed an annual one million cubic yard limit on waste accepted into the landfill, it is virtually impossible to find out how many cubic yards of material is going into the landfill. Lust stated the 2023 report showed the landfill lifespan at 29 years while the 2024 report showed the lifespan at 87 years. She added there are thirty trucks each day coming into the DTG landfill from Canada, but the reports for 2024 and 2025 did not report any waste received from Canada.

Vanessa Cervantes, owner of Whispering Wires Ranch (WWR), stated her demand the Agency deny the permit [order of approval] for the proposed Sunnyside RNG plant. She added the application [notice of construction] is a legal and medical bait-and-switch, the SEPA [State Environmental Protection Act checklist] is essentially void, and the [permitting process] should be restarted from the beginning because it shows no homes or businesses adjacent to the location of the project or who will be affected and highly impacted. Cervantes noted a MDNS [Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance] submitted on June 22, 2023, is being used for an application [notice of construction] submitted on April 24, 2025, when the project has doubled in size. She added a revision was done March 22, 2024, that stated concerns had been mitigated when that was not the case.

Cervantes stated the permit is legally invalid as it was based on half the production now proposed and half the size described in the application submitted to the Agency. She added a finding from a MDNS in 2023 cannot be used for a 2025 project that has doubled its emissions and plans to release 38.5 pounds of NOx [nitrogen oxides] per hour—an amount that was not properly mitigated in the original SEPA process. Cervantes stated the site map used and produced by HLA Engineering is potentially fraudulent and excludes the Whispering Wires Ranch processing plant and several residences approximately 425 feet from the proposed location.

Cervantes noted her children work at WWR and have a genetic heart disorder known as BAV [biscuspid aortic valve]. She expressed her belief RCW 70A.15.1005 requires the Agency to protect the most sensitive members of the population. Cervantes added a 2024 statement by the American Heart Association identifies the levels of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in question as triggers for the hypertension and calcification that results in heart failure for those with BAV.

Cervantes stated WWR is seeking USDA certification—which would subject it to the requirements of 9 CFR 146.2—and must remain sanitary. She added the location of the digester adjacent to the facility would make it legally impossible to meet any type of state or federal food safety laws. Cervantes stated the project proponent has failed to provide adequate data showing her children with BAV are protected and provided copies of various documents.

(McKinney joined the meeting)

Reagan Hernandez, Whispering Wires Ranch (WWR), stated her husband has hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a pacemaker, and works at WWR which is a WSDA [Washington State Department of Agriculture] regulated facility located 0.3 miles from the proposed Pacific Ag [biodigester] site. She stated the project is being evaluated against regulatory limits, not real-world impacts. Hernandez noted the project would be permitted within air quality standards of 9 (annual average) and 35 (24-hour average) micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 [fine particulate matter], 2 (24-hour average) micrograms per cubic meter hydrogen sulfate [sic], and up to 500 (24-hour average) micrograms per cubic meter of ammonia.

Hernandez noted these amounts are considered compliant, but for the general public, not for medically vulnerable individuals. She added medical research shows even at these levels, fine particulate matter and regulated pollutants increase inflammation, trigger arrhythmias, and place additional stress on the heart and under the SEPA, the Agency is required to consider impacts to human health and existing uses. Hernandez stated WWR and several nearby homes were not identified and not considered in the SEPA review process and undermines its validity.

Hernandez stated WWR operates under strict WSDA sanitation requirements and must prevent contamination from dust, odors, pests, and other environmental exposures and the proposed project introduces fugitive dust, odor compounds, and pests adjacent to the WWR facility, placing its compliance and ability to operate at risk.

5. Large City Representative Introduction

DeVaney introduced newly appointed board member Juliet Potrykus, Councilor for the City of Yakiam, and asked if she wished to provide any information on herself, her background, and her interest in serving on the board. Potrykus stated her interest in serving was based on the importance of air quality and pollution control and noted she had worked on natural resources issues [as a congressional staffer]. She added she is now a teacher and pleased to be able to work with the other board members.

6. Board Meeting Minutes for March 12, 2026

DeVaney asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. Jones moved to approve the March 12, 2026, minutes. González seconded. Motion passed 4-0.

7. Payroll Transfer Authorization for February 2026

Jones moved to approve the February 2026 payroll transfer. Potrykus seconded. Motion passed 4-0.

8. Vouchers for March 2026

Jones asked if Scout Environmental was an environmental advisory group. Thornsbury stated they are a professional engineering firm. Jones asked what services it provides. Thornsbury explained all orders of approval issued by the Agency must be reviewed by a license professional engineer. Jones moved to approve the March 2026 vouchers. Potrykus seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Thornsbury clarified his reference to professional engineer meant a licensed professional engineer as the term is used under Washington State law, not a person who is an engineer by profession.

9. Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget

DeVaney acknowledged the changes made at the request of the Board—including filling all open positions—and noting the Agency would run a deficit in the coming year but this would be offset by the addition to reserves in the current fiscal year.

Jones noted the staff report made reference to a nine and seventeen hundredths percent (9.17%) increase in inflation over a four-year period. He added a portion of that had been covered by previous four and one-half percent (4.5%) and three percent (3%) cost of living adjustments (COLAs) leaving a balance of one and sixty-seven hundredths percent (1.67%). Jones asked why the budget includes a three percent (3%) COLA. Thornsbury reminded the Board the budget allocates funds for a COLA, but it is the board that adopts the COLA. He explained inflation is expected to increase by one percent (1%) in March alone and this, combined with the one and six tenths percent (1.6%) balance equals two and six tenths percent (2.6%) which is just under the three percent (3%) figure included in the budget and leaves a little extra for increases in April and May.

Jones stated the Agency has not historically adopted COLAs and the only thing the Board can do is budget for a COLA because it does not set salaries for employees—something that is done at the discretion of the Director. He added the Board gives the Director considerable discretion to change salaries within the Agency so as to pay employees commensurate with their abilities or change salaries for other staff. Jones remarked this is a concern and the basis for his opposition to an across-the-board COLA for all employees.

Jones noted the $49,000 per year reduction in the core grant line item and that although the Agency assesses civil penalties that may represent significant revenue, it does not budget for them explicitly. Thornsbury explained civil penalties are dependent upon the actions of others and cannot be relied upon to fund Agency operations, adding that budgeting for civil penalties can lead to an appearance the Agency is assessing them based on a need to fund operations rather than on merit.

Jones expressed concern $550,000 is allocated for building acquisition and the unallocated reserves totaling $693,000, adding this means the Agency holds just over $1.2 million in reserve. Thornsbury reminded the board the reserve funds are primarily intended to be spent for the purposes listed and are shown separately—rather than included in the operating budget—because they are large, one-time purchases. Jones stated his support for fully staffing the Agency and using the reserve funds to pay for the positions where revenues are inadequate to do so.

González requested clarification concerning the items for which the unallocated funds are expected to be spent and why those funds are not being used to address the shortfall in revenue versus expenses. Thornsbury explained the line item for unallocated reserves is simply that portion of the reserves for which staff has not made a recommendation with regard to their use. He added those reserve funds are, in fact, being used to make up for the projected deficit. Thornsbury noted any time expenses are greater than revenues, the balance must come from those funds set aside in reserves and this is why the amount of reserve funds declines in the coming fiscal year.

Thornsbury stated there was nothing special regarding the unallocated reserves, noting several line items were self-explanatory [such as the operating, legal, and capital reserves], and reviewed the purpose of the other line items including vehicle replacement to fund replacement of the Agency’s aging vehicle fleet, major vehicle repairs to fund substantial repairs expected to be necessary before new vehicles can be acquired, equipment acquisition to fund specialized and costly—eight to fifteen thousand dollars each—scientific equipment the Agency has not previously possessed and is needed by staff, and employee cash-out liability that covers the costs to the Agency of meeting its obligations to departing employees under the terms of long-standing Agency policy.

Thornsbury explained the latter is a relatively new item as the Agency had not previously calculated its potential liability or set aside funds to meet it, adding because the expense is generally triggered upon the departure of an employee, it is often beyond the control of the Agency and, thus, difficult to anticipate. He noted the amount is smaller than in years past as several employees with large accrued balances had left the Agency and the liabilities have already been satisfied, but cautioned as employee tenure increases, accrued balances will grow and this will require more funds be set aside.

González asked if the figures identified as “Projected Actual FY 2025-26” were for the remainder of the 2025-26 fiscal year. Thornsbury confirmed the amounts are projected through the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2026. He explained the figures are based on various calculations depending on the type of expense and its frequency. Thornsbury noted staff assesses how the amount for each expense may be affected in the period between when the proposed budget is prepared and the end of the fiscal year. He offered examples including an annual payment made every November which would not affect a projected annual total in the fourth quarter because there would not be another payment until the following November and a relatively consistent monthly charge where a charge equal to one-third of the expense for the prior nine months would be added as a projection for the fourth quarter.

DeVaney asked Thornsbury to review the budget schedule. Thornsbury stated preliminary internal discussion typically begins in February with work on a proposed budget beginning in March for presentation to the Board at the April meeting. He noted any changes requested by the Board at that meeting are incorporated into the draft budget presented to the Board at the May meeting where a public hearing is held to accept public comment regarding the budget. Thornsbury added any changes resulting from the May meeting are incorporated into a final budget presented to the Board and adopted at the June meeting and the budget takes effect a few weeks later on July 1.

10. Executive Director’s Report

Thornsbury noted staff has spent much of its time preparing the budget for presentation, continuing to process annual registrations, working with other jurisdictions—primarily cities—to assist them in determining when a project proponent should be approaching the Agency and working to ensure early involvement when necessary to address issues proactively, working on a variety of compliance matters including operations that should be either registered or permitted by the Agency, and dealing with a large number of anticipated notices of construction—all of which require careful review with some more complex and time-consuming than others.

DeVaney asked for a staffing update. Thornsbury stated he will be posting for the upcoming vacancy due to retirement in the near future and anticipates posting for the two currently vacant positions in tandem with adoption of the budget. DeVaney asked which positions are or will be vacant. Thornsbury stated the current Compliance Supervisor will be retiring soon and one of the open positions is described as a Permit Writer—though it will likely be more of a hybrid position due to the size of the Agency.

González inquired as to whether the permit writer position would be a hybrid with engineering and if that would be an outside engineer. Thornsbury stated that while it would likely be a hybrid position, it would not likely involve engineering component.

Potrykus asked if the budget deficit was largely due to filling the two positions. Thornsbury stated that was correct, but in tandem with the state funding reduction over the next two years. Potrykus asked if the reduction is likely to change next year. Thornsbury explained it would be unlikely, but if revenues from the Hazardous Substance Tax that help fund the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) account were to return to prior levels, it is expected funding would be restored in the subsequent biennium. He added the MTCA account balance tends to fluctuate under normal circumstances—though the current trough is an unusually deep one—and this fact offers a reasonable basis to believe funding will be restored at some point.

11. Other Business

Jones stated the Board has access to limited information with regard to the performance of the Agency and, with the exception of specific items presented at each board meeting, other activities of the Agency are difficult to observe. He added there are several new members on the board and the members should see more clearly many of the activities within the Agency so they can understand the function and requirements of the Agency. Jones moved the Agency provide the board, at each monthly meeting, the following: (1) An updated budget including the previous annual budget, the current annual budget, and the current fiscal year to date accounting; (2) A monthly activity report including the previous fiscal year total, the current monthly total, the prior two months totals, and the current fiscal year-to-date total; (3) A chart on the monthly exceedances and prior twelve months accumulated data for PM2.5 and PM10 for the Yakima and Sunnyside air monitors. González seconded.

DeVaney asked Thornsbury how much time it would consume providing the information requested. Thornsbury stated he was not able to provide such an estimate on the spot and noted the Agency had previously spent considerable staff time compiling such data. Thornsbury noted so much staff time was consumed preparing the budget it was not possible to address the matter of resource allocation and such a request lies at the heart of that issue.

Thornsbury explained he has no particular perspective concerning how the resources of the Agency are consumed, only that there are limited resources available to apply to the many things that everyone wants. He noted even at full staffing with no vacant positions, the various demands on the Agency simply cannot all be fulfilled and while staff will provide whatever the Board requests, the Board must spend as much time discussing what it does not want—or what it can live without—as it does what it wants. Thornsbury reminded the Board there is a long list of items various people want the Agency to provide that predates his arrival at the Agency and it far exceeds the capabilities and resources of the Agency.

DeVaney stated his preference for receiving as much information as possible, but expressed concern regarding the amount of staff time required to compile and provide such information on a monthly basis. DeVaney suggested requesting staff compile and provide this information with a report on the time required at the next meeting to allow the board to discuss resource allocation. Jones stated the budget information is an accounting process that has to occur daily without additional effort. He added the same is true for the monthly activity report since funds must be allocated based each activity.

Thornsbury explained the accounting information does reside in the system, but cannot be automatically produced in the same format at the budget because the budget, as a document, is not produced out of the accounting system. He added the information can be provided with little staff time as long as it is understood the presentation will be slightly different. Thornsbury reminded the board accounting for the work of the Agency is based on time and expenses—not counts—so the latter are not tracked in the normal course of operations. He noted that while it is possible to do so, this would require additional resources reassigned from other Agency work.

(McKinney left the meeting)

DeVaney asked Jones how he wished to proceed. Jones stated he would amend his motion to request the information only be presented at the next meeting for review by the Board. González concurred. Motion passed 3-0.

González stated she would like to know more about the permitting process. DeVaney suggested the matter be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

12. Adjournment

Jones moved to adjourn. Potrykus seconded. Motion passed 3-0. DeVaney adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.

Jon DeVaney, Chairperson Marc Thornsbury, Executive Director