1. Call to Order

Chairperson DeVaney called the meeting to order at 2:03 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 (via video-conference)

Juliet Potrykus, Large City Representative, Present

Hilda González, Ed.D., City Representative, Absent
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 noted a public hearing concerning the 2026-27 budget would follow and asked if there were any general public comments.

Nancy Lust, Friends of Rocky Top, explained DTG Recycle has stated it may seek to drill a well to provide water for dust suppression, adding neighbors are concerned about dust, but also the quantity of water that might be withdrawn in order to implement effective dust control. She also noted DTG Recycle is currently the target of a lawsuit.

5. Public Hearing

DeVaney opened the public hearing and asked if there were any public comments concerning the agency fiscal year 2026-27 budget.

Lust encouraged more funds be allocated to compliance work. She noted letters from the Agency regarding odor complaints had been delayed because staff were addressing other matters and had not had time to complete them. Lust stated there should be monies dedicated to compliance in the budget.

With no other comments offered, DeVaney closed the public hearing.

6. Board Meeting Minutes for April 16, 2026

DeVaney noted a misspelling of Yakima on page 3, item 5. Thornsbury noted the correction. Potrykus expressed appreciation for the accuracy of the minutes. Potrykus moved to approve the April 16, 2026, minutes as corrected. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

7. Payroll Transfer Authorization for March 2026

Potrykus moved to approve the March 2026 payroll transfer. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

8. Vouchers for April 2026

Potrykus moved to approve the April 2026 vouchers. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

9. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget

Thornsbury noted there were no substantive changes to the budget resulting from the discussion at the last meeting and explained some additional details were added— including several graphs—that were not present in the preliminary budget. He noted there had been some modification to the reserve fund earmarks and explained the recent need for significant repairs to Agency vehicles suggested their replacement may be necessary sooner than anticipated. Thornsbury stated a preliminary review indicated vehicle prices have risen substantially since the original cost estimates, requiring the addition of funds for fleet replacement.

DeVaney asked if there would be a resolution adopting the budget at the next board meeting. Thornsbury affirmed.

Jones stated he does not favor COLAs [cost of living adjustments] implemented for everyone as described in the staff report pertaining to cost of living adjustments and merit increases. He expressed his belief a more fair and just mechanism for salary changes is through the use of merit increases and noted in the past the director had discretion to increase wages for some employees and not for others. Jones noted some employees have been with the Agency for a short time and questioned whether they should receive an automatic pay increase after being in their respective positions for only a few months. He stated he understood the cost of living issue, but believes a merit-based salary increase is more appropriate.

Thornsbury clarified that employees not having reached the level of training or experience that is anticipated by a position at its normal rate of pay are paid less than the median wage established by the Agency. He offered the example of a position where the median wage for a person with five years of experience and fully trained is $100,000, but the Agency is unable to find someone with those qualifications and hires a person who may be in the process of completing their degree or may need two years of training. Thornsbury added such a person would not be paid the median wage, but would start as low as seventy-five percent (75%) of the median wage, depending on the person and qualifications. He explained a COLA would be based on their actual pay and would not be based on the median wage for the position.

Jones noted different employees have different qualifications and levels of experience and expressed his opinion the director should allocate pay increases based on performance rather than a uniform increase.

DeVaney remarked that in an era of high inflation, maintaining pay parity with the labor market requires the implementation of COLAs. He added merit increases are about individual performance while COLAs are about preventing the buying power of employee wages from being eroded. DeVaney suggested the Agency, in the past, had not adequately addressed the latter, resulting in substantial retention problems. He attributed the progress made in retaining employees to the implementation of COLAs and expressed support for their use in addition to merit increases when appropriate.

Jones stated the director has broad discretion in setting wages for various positions including adjustments necessary when the responsibilities and/or requirements for a position changes and reiterated his dislike of COLAs.

Thornsbury reminded the Board in budget discussions in 2025 or 2024, Jones stated the Board should be responsible for determining if a COLA is implemented and, if so, in what amount. He explained that, as a result, the Board set the matter aside from the budget itself with staff providing information regarding current and projected inflation. Thornsbury noted this information formed the basis for the selection of a COLA amount by the Board that was commensurate with the rate of inflation [and adopted by resolution]. He explained the purpose was to maintain parity with the labor market and avoid employees leaving for positions with market-level pay only to have the Agency forced to ultimately match the market rate in order to attract a replacement.

Thornsbury stated the method for determining a COLA employed in the prior year—and expected to be used again this year—is not open-ended and is based on actual cost-of-living data, not merely his speculation. He added the two goals to be achieved—retaining people and rewarding performance—are addressed by COLAs and merit increases, respectively, and expressed his belief this two-pronged approach was most effective. Thornsbury remarked that the use of either one exclusively limits the ability to create a tailored solution to the unique elements present in a given circumstance. He added that to the extent Jones is uncomfortable using COLAs to address matters more appropriately handled using a merit increase, he would concur.

Potrykus stated her opinion the use of COLAs is acceptable while acknowledging the concerns expressed by Jones. She explained COLAs are common and she has supported them in the context of other boards on which she has served. Potrykus noted the Agency needs to retain employees and the director still has discretion to address merit increases where appropriate.

10. Permitting Process Review

Thornsbury noted that, over time, there has been recurring Board interest in becoming more familiar with the Agency permitting process, adding that it is often complex and detailed. He explained although some appear to believe permit reviews are conducted and decisions are made without sufficient rigor or careful consideration, that is not the case. Thornsbury acknowledged it is difficult to communicate this to persons who have not been involved in the process. He adding Agency staff spend considerable time reviewing the permit applications received and conducting the type of review required by statute.

Thornsbury reminded the Board of the old phrase, “There is no better way to learn than by doing”, and suggested the best method for the Board to learn about the permitting process is to—as a one-time-only event—engage in the process of reviewing and issuing an order of approval. He noted there is a pending permit already in process that would be suitable and the Board, with all the associated materials and the assistance of staff—including identification of the elements that should be considered and the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements—would have the opportunity to work through and see what Agency staff see when going through the process and understand the legal constraints under which it operates.

Thornsbury explained he was not advocating that every permit be reviewed by the Board and noted doing so would bring the business of the Agency to a standstill. He stated his opinion that because of the level of interest by the Board, the complexity of the process, and the nature of the permit currently in process, this is an opportune time for the Board to have some hands-on experience. He added there is no obvious alternative that would deliver a full and clear picture of the process to the Board.

DeVaney asked if the idea was to utilize a case study rather than an abstract approach. Thornsbury affirmed, adding this would take some time, but with the expected end result being a Board with a greater confidence level in the work of the Agency because the process currently seems like a “black box” where an application goes in one side, the hidden machinery grinds away, and an answer comes out the other side without an understanding of what transpired in between.

DeVaney expressed support for the proposal and stated his preference for having a specific example versus an abstract concept. He asked if other board members would like to go through the process for a specific, complicated permit. Potrykus expressed support, noting that even something similar to a flow chart would be helpful. Jones concurred, provided the involvement of the board does not delay a decision regarding the permit. He remarked it already takes too long for the Agency to issue a permit and cautioned business will not develop in the area if it cannot receive a timely permit. Potrykus stated reviewing an already-completed permit would be acceptable and explained she would not want to have a permit delayed.

DeVaney asked if the involvement of the Board would delay the permit. Thornsbury explained the Board only meets once each month so if needed information were received just after a meeting, it would not be possible to present that to the Board until the following month. DeVaney stated he would not want Board involvement to delay a permit and expressed his belief it would be valuable for the Board to review a high-profile permit.

Thornsbury suggested the process move forward with Board involvement and when staff reach a conclusion regarding the permit, if it does not coincide with a board meeting, staff will proceed without waiting for the Board.

Potrykus expressed support, noting the Board would be reviewing the permit without changing it as the outcome would be based on objective, scientific analyses. Jones concurred, adding the Agency should be doing the work with the Board reviewing it. DeVaney reiterated the Board would learn the general permitting process by looking at an ongoing permit without intervening in the permitting process undertaken by staff. Jones concurred.

Thornsbury stated staff would compile the information the Agency is reviewing internally so that it can be provided to the Board.

11. Executive Director’s Report

Thornsbury noted the addition of financial information to the board packet in response to the motion made by Jones during the prior meeting. He explained the other information requested was not provided due to employee illness and urgent matters that prevented him from compiling the remaining data and completing the related staff report. Thornsbury stated its absence does not mean it has been forgotten—only that it has been delayed. He added some interesting items will appear in the staff report when it is complete.

Thornsbury stated staff continue to work on processing existing permits and addressing current compliance issues. He explained staff has been working on providing additional information and guidance to permittees and others—particularly in regard to common questions fielded by staff so the latter spends less time responding to similar recurring questions. Thornsbury noted this will be an ongoing project and explained this would allow staff to use its time more efficiently.

Thornsbury remarked the effort to improve permit language that was started some time ago continues and noted that along with the special items mentioned, there is always the common ongoing work—often statutorily required—such as public records requests.

DeVaney asked for an estimate of the staff time required to produce the financial information provided in the board packet. Thornsbury stated the time required for production was minimal and most of the time consumed was used to find a report already available within the accounting system that met the requirements established without requiring substantial staff time to produce. He added staff can provide this each month with a modest time investment while noting the other elements requested are more complicated and the systems necessary to produce them without requiring substantial staff time are not yet in place.

Potrykus asked if the Agency used workflow management or other technology systems to assist in automating its processes. Thornsbury explained that work on such systems has been ongoing for some time, but has suffered delays as a result of other demands for resources. He noted the Agency is addressing these needs while at the same time it must continue operating—offering the analogy of a person repairing their vehicle as it travels down the road at sixty miles per hour. Thornsbury remarked the Agency cannot close its doors for a year and retool with new procedures, processes, systems, and documentation. He explained his vision for the Agency includes these elements and it is his desire to see them through to completion, but day-to-day operational obligations and statutory requirements must be met and, as a result, progress in these areas takes more time than desired.

Thornsbury remarked that when he came to the Agency, there were more people assigned to administration than to operations and many were unhappy—not unreasonably—that more resources were not dedicated to the core mission of the Agency. He added his nearly immediate response was to reverse that so more staff were assigned to operations, but since that time there have been complaints that the Agency should provide more information, statistics, etc. Thornsbury noted it is not possible to have more of both without a substantial increase in the number of staff and suggests the fundamental question facing the Agency is whether its focus will be on actually getting the job done or on talking about getting the job done. He reiterated having well-aligned procedures and systems in place is his goal, but there is inadequate time to achieve it as quickly as desired.

Jones noted the time stamp on the financial report and asked Thornsbury if he had a staff member that could produce the reports without the director staying in the office until 3am. Thornsbury explained the work had been done in conjunction with the Agency staff accountant who would take over production of the report in the future. He added it was the complicated minutes resulting from the last meeting that required the long hours, not the financial report.

12. Other Business

None.

13. Adjournment

Potrykus moved to adjourn. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0. DeVaney adjourned the meeting at 2:44 p.m.

Jon DeVaney, Chairperson Marc Thornsbury, Executive Director