1. Call to Order

Chairperson DeVaney called the meeting to order at 2:00 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

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 asked if there were any public comments. None were offered.

5. Board Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2026

DeVaney asked if there were any corrections. Potrykus moved to approve the June 11, 2026, minutes. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

6. Payroll Transfer Authorization for May 2026

DeVaney asked if there were any questions. Potrykus moved to approve the May 2026 payroll transfer. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

7. Vouchers for June 2026

DeVaney asked if there were any questions. Potrykus moved to approve the June 2026 vouchers. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

8. Resolution 2026-04 Adopting a Cost of Living Adjustment

DeVaney noted the resolution did not specify a percentage as requested by the Board at the prior meeting. Thornsbury stated the basis for the staff recommendation was set forth in the accompanying staff report and explained inflation was greater than the amount budgeted, meaning the budget amount serves as a cap on the increase. He noted the Agency would likely have to address the shortfall next year to avoid falling behind.

Jones noted the minutes from the prior meeting described the Board as responsible for adopting any cost of living adjustment (COLA) and asked if that language appeared in the resolution. Thornsbury stated it did not, but was included in the staff report.

DeVaney asked for confirmation the staff recommendation was for a three percent (3%) increase. Thornsbury affirmed and explained while inflation was substantially higher, three percent (3%) was the amount adopted in the budget. DeVaney asked for confirmation the adoption of a lesser amount would be possible and the adoption of a greater amount would be an authorized, but unbudgeted, expenditure. Thornsbury affirmed the former, but noted a greater amount would likely trigger an amendment to the budget as it was not considered in the budget as adopted. DeVaney asked if there were sufficient reserves to cover a COLA equal to the five and four-tenths percent (5.4%) rate of inflation. Thornsbury affirmed. DeVaney stated his preference for adopting the full three percent (3%) to retain staff and taking into account the greater rate of inflation.

Potrykus stated the COLA for state employees effective July 1, 2026, is two percent (2%) and in 2025 it was three percent (3%). She added the increase in military pay is two percent to three percent (2%-3%) and expressed her belief the Agency should not increase wages more than that received by soldiers.

Jones expressed support for a two percent (2%) increase and moved to amend the proposed Resolution 2026-04 to establish the amount of the cost of living adjustment at two percent (2%). Potrykus seconded.

DeVaney noted the budget includes funds for a three percent (3%) increase and the Agency has sufficient reserves available. He expressed his preference for an increase equal to the budgeted amount and added with a two percent (2%) increase the Board will need to be mindful in the future so wages do not fall behind relative to similar positions. DeVaney noted there is currently some fiscal uncertainty and expressed content with a two percent (2%) increase provided the board reviews the matter annually.

Thornsbury cautioned if the Board wishes to index COLAs to something other than the consumer price index (CPI), it should do so consistently so as to avoid selecting whichever comparable is lowest at the time. He offered an example where the CPI is lower than the state wage increase in one year so CPI is chosen as the benchmark and in another year the state wage increase is lower so the state wage adjustment is chosen as the benchmark. Thornsbury noted this would, over time, result in the decline in wages compared to similar positions as described by DeVaney.

DeVaney concurred and asked if other adjustments should be provided to the Board in the next budget process for comparison. Potrykus suggested using inflation and the market rate for comparison would be helpful. She reiterated support for adopting a two percent (2%) COLA.

The motion to amend Resolution 2026-04 setting the COLA amount at two percent (2%) passed 2-0.

Potrykus moved to adopt Resolution 2026-04 as amended. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0.

9. Executive Director’s Report

Thornsbury stated staff continues to address a variety of permitting and a couple of unique asbestos-related issues and noted the office is functioning a bit slower as it is the height of the summer vacation season with various staff members out on leave. He added the Agency has a very large number of pending public records requests that are being worked on and efforts to compile the statistics and draft a staff report for Jones continue. Thornsbury explained work has started on a staff report concerning Agency vehicle replacement as this will need to be addressed by the Board in the near future.

DeVaney noted there appeared to be a number of competing projects facing staff and asked if input from the board was needed regarding prioritization. Thornsbury stated a broad discussion of Agency priorities was likely overdue, particularly with regard to how deeply the Board may wish to go in assigning individual priorities. He cautioned some boards have gone into great detail in developing a schedule of priorities only to find circumstances arise later that were not foreseen at the time that do not fit within the schedule or involve factors that indicate they should be handled with greater or lesser priority than the schedule permits.

Thornsbury explained some boards, to avoid this, establish broad, general priorities while leaving staff to prioritize individual elements—and particularly unusual circumstances—within them. He added another matter to be considered is how to address items that may not be considered a priority until they have been left unaddressed for a sufficient period of time they ultimately become a crisis and, thus, a priority. Thornsbury noted there are two alternative perspectives that often come to the fore: (1) If it is not a crisis, it does not need to be prioritized until it is; and (2) Some progress should be made on such items to prevent them from becoming a crisis and forcing other items to be unexpectedly delayed.

Thornsbury stated neither point of view is right or wrong, but remarked that his personal inclination was to attempt to set aside some time, when possible, to advance low-priority items in the hope of avoiding a crisis—the idea being that although some time and resources are not expended on high priority matters, the difficulties inherent when an issue reaches crisis proportions can be avoided. He noted that is the manner in which he has attempted to operate the Agency, but whether that is in line with the perspective of the Board may be a matter for discussion.

Jones asked Thornsbury to describe what the latter considered to be the priorities for the Agency. Thornsbury noted individual priorities can be grouped into classes and noted, for example, that some elements of Agency work are subject to deadlines established in statute and regulation and their priority is set by others rather than the Agency. He offered certain permitting and public records deadlines as examples of these, noting the Agency could ignore them, but doing so has consequences. Thornsbury stated he views these non-discretionary elements as the highest in priority.

Thornsbury explained the next lower class of priorities includes two sub-groups with the first (higher priority) being matters of an urgent nature such as an ongoing illegal activity, the investigation of a complaint concerning an acute condition, a violation of a significant permit condition, or a potential asbestos release. He added the second (lower priority) group includes those items that are part of the normal operations of the Agency—the work it performs on a regular basis—such as those aspects of permitting and public records requests not subject to statutory deadline, annual registration, or monitor maintenance.

Thornsbuty stated the third class (lowest in priority) includes non-critical items including those portions of normal operations that are of low importance or need, housekeeping elements (e.g. electronic and paper file management), and special projects not included in another category (e.g. vehicle acquisition, system enhancements, and data reporting).

Jones asked where Thornsbury would categorize the processing of notices of construction. Thornsbury stated the deadline-related aspects would be in the first class and the remainder would be in the second class.

Jones noted there are two regulatory air quality monitors in Yakima County located in the City of Yakima and the City of Sunnyside and added the Agency receives funds to monitor this equipment which is used for salaries and benefits. Thornsbury clarified the Agency does not own the monitors and does not collect data from them. He stated his understanding the Wash. Dept. of Ecology owns the monitors and is responsible for determining their location. Thornsbury explained Ecology contracts with the Agency, and other air pollution control authorities in the state, to conduct the onsite operations work (e.g. collecting filters, checking equipment to ensure proper operation, etc.) on its behalf. He noted data from the monitors is collected and processed by Ecology, not the Agency.

Jones stated his recollection was that the Agency was initially involved in getting a monitor sited in Sunnyside. Thornsbury concurred. Jones explained the monitor was installed because of concerns the air quality in the Lower Yakima Valley (LYV) was substantially different than the air quality in the Upper Yakima Valley (UYV). Thornsbury noted such statements have been made on numerous occasions, but data has not been found that supports a claim the average air quality in the LYV is worse than the average air quality in the UYV. He added the data available, as illustrated on the graphs provided in the packet, shows the average fine particulate matter (aka PM2.5) levels in the UYV to be slightly worse than those in the LYV.

Thornsbury noted there are nuances and repeated the cautionary phrase attributed to the British politician [Benjamin] Disraeli that “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics” and explained the need for care when reading and understanding statistical information. He described two examples from the graphs provided to the Board: (1) The information presented is not necessarily what counts when determining whether the County is or is not in attainment; and (2) The period over which the data are considered can alter the result. Thornsbury offered the example of monthly averages versus daily peaks where the UYV generally has a higher monthly average while the LYV generally has more days where it is substantially higher than the UYV.

Thornsbury noted the results of the US Environmental Protection Agency mobile lab (deployed in the UYV and LYV in early 2024) did not show a significant disparity between the UYV and LYV which suggests the monitor data is accurate and has not been skewed in some fashion.

Jones stated one monitor is required and questioned whether two were required and the cost to the Agency. Thornsbury explained neither air quality monitor resulted in a direct cost to the Agency. He noted his recollection is that there are two counties in the state with more monitors for fine particulate matter (aka PM2.5) and four counties in the state with more monitors in total than Yakima County. Thornsbury added the Agency has fielded questions as to why there are not more monitors, but that Yakima County ranks near the top of the list for the number of fine particulate matter (aka PM2.5) monitors with many—the majority by far—having no air quality monitors of any kind due largely to the fact they are not at risk of exceeding any of the limits for the seven criterial air pollutants.

Thornsbury stated King County has the most air quality monitors in total and the greatest number of pollutants that are monitored. He noted outside King County, monitoring is limited to pollutants that are of concern, offering the ozone monitor in the Tri-Cities area and the fine particulate matter (aka PM2.5) monitors in Yakima County as examples where there are elevated levels of these criteria pollutants. Thornsbury explained regulatory monitors are expensive to acquire and to operate so the state has little interest in placing them all over the state unless there is a substantive reason to believe there is an issue.

10. Other Business

DeVaney noted the Board typically cancels a meeting in July or August and has not yet determined whether it wishes to cancel the August meeting. He added the Board had requested staff to provide an overview of the permitting process and asked Thornsbury if that would be ready for the August meeting. Thornsbury explained the Agency is waiting on others so the timing is not entirely within its control. He added staff continues to work on elements of the review and response to comments not dependent on the information provided by others with the target being the August meeting, but acknowledged whether that will occur remains to be seen. DeVaney stated that, given a majority of the board members have indicated they are available to attend in August and the interest in the permitting information, if available, warrants retaining the August meeting as scheduled.

DeVaney explained time needs to be set aside at an upcoming meeting to conduct the annual performance review for the executive director and suggested this occur at the September meeting with at least an hour set aside for an executive session. Potrykus noted she would not be available to participate. Thornsbury noted the board could decide to hold a special meeting at a later time if that would make it easier. Potrykus stated she would be able to participate if the time were later such as 3:30pm or 4:00pm).

DeVaney asked if McKinney had joined via video-conference. Thornsbury stated that was not clear and the only person present virtually had been admitted but had not chosen to participate.

11. Adjournment

Potrykus moved to adjourn. Jones seconded. Motion passed 2-0. DeVaney adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m.

Jon DeVaney, Chairperson Marc Thornsbury, Executive Director