TOWN OF
Council members present were Fred White, Katherine Shearer, Ronica McCoy, Richard Ells and Keith Wharton.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Darcy Linklater
People present were Sharon Shantie, Roy Clark, Doug Eisenrick, Sidney Eaton, Susan Wharton & Ladonna Brabandt.
A motion was made by Councilman Fred White to approve the corrected minutes as read. Council person Katherine Shearer seconded it. Motion carried.
The Water Bacteriological Analysis was satisfactory for the month of December.
Sharon Shantie stated that the reason that she wrote letters to the council instead of coming to the council meetings was;
She doesn’t like to come to council meetings with her
concerns as the council always argue and talk across the table to each other
and she can’t hear what they are saying.
They don’t want to cause any problems for the Town but, she stated that
she was wondering why the council was picking on Doug‘s fence only, when
objects are on other alleys in town also.
Doug wanted to know why they waited so long for the council to act. Katherine explained that there was a problem
with the fence when he put it in but the council at that time did not act on it
and stated they could bring it up at a later time. Doug and Sharon want to know where their
property lines and alleys are and want the Town of
The council agreed the burden of the survey would have to be
to the person contesting. Ruth will look
and see if there are survey records when the sewer lines were put in. She will research this next week. Ruth made a motion to extend Doug Eisenrick’s fence removal until,
Ruth was put in as Mayor pro tem. Ruth asked if everyone receive the work up sheet that she made for the 2010 septic dumps. Fred asked Ronica if his statement made sense that he sent to her about, someone dumping garbage in a can that wasn’t theirs. Fred asked if it was fair; that out of town people brings sewage and dumps it. Ronica stated that Darver pays a fee more than $19 per month. They have paid $50 per month for the Darver sewer account. Sidney Eaton inputted that Darcy should not be present for this meeting so at that time, Mayor Darcy left the room. Keith asked if it wouldn’t be good to have Darcy’s input.
La Donna stated that it was ridiculous that the Town not charge a fee to Darver’s to have a dump site. Keith stated that we don’t have a policy and we need to get a plan in place for a situation like this. Ruth proposed a $50 per year fee for the RV Dump at Darver Tackle. There was much discussion. Ruth stated that this should have been addressed when the sewer site was put in. We need a fee structure for commercial tanks. Keith stated that a lot of out of town people used the Starbuck Market bathroom when it was open which might have been more sewage use than normal. Councilman Richard stated that a bar might add more sewage than the Darver dump site. Ruth stated we need something in place stating that people can’t drive on the tanks or lids as they aren’t rated for this. Keith stated after looking at bills that were paid to repair different things done to the sewer system that no heavy equipment could drive over sewer lines and not cause problems. We could itemize different repairs or put out a different guideline that the customer is responsible for repairs. This needs to be addressed.
Fred made a motion to charge $50 per year for Darver dump site fee. Richard said he doesn’t agree and that all business should be treated the same.
Katherine stated that Floyd felt we should charge more. Katherine stated that she needed to talk to an engineer about the new bar and grill and they will need to put in a grease trap. The RV dump is a separate issue than the RV Park. Ruth tried to second it but Ronica stated she thought that Katherine could only vote if there was a tie since she acting as Mayor. No one acted on the motion.
.
Darcy was brought back in as Mayor pro tem.
Darcy asked that someone be nominated as Mayor pro tem, as 6 months has passed and needs to be voted on again.
Katherine nominated Keith Wharton as mayor pro-tem. Everyone was in favor. Motion carried.
Clerk asked if we could not raise Ralph Fields sewer charge until the next evaluation. Katherine stated to raise his fee like everyone else’s. Katherine stated that she will make a new evaluation with a new evaluation period for the sewer monthly charge that she is working on the water usage for customers for the last year. Katherine will submit an evaluation for Ralph Fields next month. The months that we have used in the past are December, January and February.
Katherine stated that we should have a new re-evaluation period for Sewer evaluation.
Clerk stated that she needs to know when we are re-evaluating so she can get thing in order to do this.
Doug Eisenrick presented the council with a pre-application permit and needs approval on an addition on his building permit to add a lean-to roof on his building. The addition measurements are 12 foot by 50 foot. Katherine made a motion to approve this. Ronica seconded it. Motion carried. Darcy stated that he will take this in to the county tomorrow for Doug for their approval.
Ronica made a motion to pay the bills. Richard seconded it. Motion carried
Darcy reported that he talked to Co. Co. Commissioner Dwight Robanske about getting a funding from the county to work on repairs to the City Hall Building. The county stated that our tax assessment was only a 3% increase instead of more for the year 2011. The county feels if we raised this, we would be contributing more to help pay for our improvements. Council person Shearer stated that she would go in and talk to the county about this. The Mayor suggested that anyone going to talk to them should go to their next meeting.
Evergreen Rural Water will be here Jan 25th.
Mayor Darcy stated he went to Scott Marinella about what is entailed in getting the alley measured and vacated for our Fire District #1 to build their new fire station.
Katherine reported that USDA Rural Development will be here tomorrow as she had called them and asked questions about people getting low interest loans and getting utilities put in.
Ways & Means: Treas. Report read.
As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried.
“I, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against The Town of Starbuck, and that I am authorized to certify to said claim.”
Vouchers #3159 – 3176, totaling $5,839.91, were approved and
paid on
Vouchers #3177 – 3189, totaling $2,070.31, were approved and
paid on
__________________________________ _________________________________
Mayor Darcy Linklater Clerk/Treas., Candice Harrison
Proposal for Sewage Dump Annul Fee from Ruth Shearer
In agreement with Keith Wharton’s suggestion that we propose an annual fee, I have used the information provided by Darver Tackle at the December 14, 2010 council meeting to calculate an annual fee to the town:
Fee for wastewater processing:
First, there were 52 reported dumps in 2010, I used the figure 40 gallons per dump because this information was not provided, and it seems fair. This gives a total of 2,080 gallons of sewage per year. If the total wastewater processed by the plant is about 2 million gallons that is .001% of the total volume processed at our treatment site.
Using our annual budget to obtain total operation cost; I am using the amount 75,000 for annual cost of operation. I do not have an exact figure because several years ago Candy stopped tracking the sewer and water expenses separately because she was told by the auditor that she did not have to. Auditors are not city managers and I have always felt this was a mistake. So if anyone wants to get an exact sewage expense they can go through all the bills and provide a different expense estimate, plus what depreciation on the plant would be annually. So the percentage processed times the annual treatment site cost gives:
.001 x $75,000=$75.00 per year for treatment at the sewage site.
Sewer treatment fees are based on winter rate usage. According to the sheet provided one of the 52 dumps or .02% of the dumps occurred during the winter, so if that dump used 50 gallons of water then that would add a nickle to Darver’s monthly sewage bill, or 60 cents per year to process 2080 gallons of wastewater. So the city is not collecting additional funds for sewage treatment because the usage is not occurring during the winter averaging period.
Tank fee: If 2% of the 2080 gallons of waste is solid then the RV dump is contributing roughly 41 gallons of solids to the tank per year; if the solid side is 1,000 gallons and must be pumped when it hits 800 gallons then it would need to be pumped every 19 years due to RV dumps. At an estimated pump cost to the city of $500.00 per tank that would average $26.00 per year for tank pump fees to the city.
In summary, the total cost to the city to treat 2,080 gallons of wastewater is about $100.00. This does provide a service to the recreation community and Darver collected about $13.00 of tax for the Town. So, if we divide this in half and say that we are going to cover half the expense of the dump then we have an annual fee of $50.00 per year for the RV dump. If Darver raises the fee to $5.00 per dump, which is what Lyons Ferry is charging, and if all variables remain constant; then Darver collects an additional $52.00 which more than covers the annual fee to the city.
I think this is a solution that we can all feel comfortable with. My dear departed friend and former co-councilmen, Jim Mead, used to say “if both parties feel like they are being cheated, it was probably a fair deal”.
In addition I am not
in favor of assigning a commercial rate to our businesses at this time. These businesses are small and water usage at
the businesses is comparable to the rate used at homes in the winter, and they
provide a small tax base for the community.
Also trailer parks provide housing opportunities for the Town of
The guidelines for the septic tank capacity is a 5 bedroom house. This guideline exists to prevent solids from reaching the drainfield and ruining it. The first side of the septic tank is designed to be a settling basin, the household size gives a limit of the tanks settling capability. None of our RV/trailer parks exceed this type of usage. As I pointed out last night we do not know if the RV dump was plumbed into the tank in accordance with the design standard for settling of solids. And we should establish procedures for processing back to back dumps should that situation arise to prevent stirring the tank and contaminating the system.
If you reference ordinance 141 it states that everything
hooked to the city waste treatment site is the property of the Town of
Furthermore, there are many people that are parking on these tanks. These tanks were not rated for this type of use, and do not contain the right amount of rebar to support this type of weight according to the manufacturer Willamette Greystone out of Portland Oregon. I think that we need to get something signed by those people that are parking on tanks that if the tank collapses, the town will not incur the expense of replacing the tank. This is to protect the Town’s infrastructure and prevent unnecessary financial losses, not to attack people as was suggested by Darver’s letter to the town presented at the December 14, 2010 council meeting.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 12:00:03 -0800
(PST), r mccoy <info@starbuckwa.com> wrote:
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: r mccoy <info@starbuckwa.com>
> To: Town of Starbuck <townofstarbuck@bmi.net>
> Sent: Sun, January 9, 2011 11:04:19 AM
> Subject: my research on rv tank fees
>
> please read all the way through.
> Ronica
Here is the report
Sewer
rates for the RV Park at Darver Tackle
I talked with MRSC, Tim to be exact, when I asked if we had the legal right to enact a fee on a business that has been in business for some time, his response was, “If a business is costing the town money we have the right to enact fees to regain what we are losing.” He also stated that we cannot back date a fee, and that we also need to show that we, the town, have expenses above normal, to enact that fee. With that said I did some actual research on the issue of the dump. By the way, the fact that the business makes a few bucks, on said issue, is not a reason to enact a fee. First I will state the reports I have found then I will address Ruth’s letter paragraph by paragraph.
In my research I learned that RV tanks can range from 12 gallons to 46 gallons, with the 30 gallon tank being the most common. You can look this up on many sites on the web, or call a local RV dealership. So with the 30 gallon being the most common, I have redone Ruth’s numbers to show a more realistic accounting. I also found a report done, in 1994, by Ervin Hindin of the Washington State Transportation Center. This report,”Toxicity of additives used to control odors in recreational vehicle wastewater”, can be accessed on the web at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/322.1.pdf. (I also have a printed copy of the 90 page report if anyone wants to see it.) The conclusion begins on page 5, with the recommendation being on page 9. I want to note that this report was done in 1994, with the most common additive being formaldehyde-methanol. Since that time the usage of this additive has dropped dramatically and the most common is now enzyme related.
The conclusion states “The commercially available RV wastewater additives when added to the black water holding tank in a dosage recommended by the manufacturer and where the tank is at least half full with black water prior to dumping will not have an adverse effect on biological sewage treatment systems.
Homemade mixtures of household cleaners containing disinfectants or cleaners to which disinfectants have been added should be discouraged. The amount of these mixtures used to control odor and the activity of microorganisms causing the objectionable odor are not known. Thus there is a tendency by the rv users to add an excessive amount of their “home made” preparation in the wastewater may be sufficiently high enough to cause a temporary shock to the sewage treatment unit(s) during low flows of raw sewage. During normal or high flows of sewage, these home-made preparations may be sufficiently diluted to cause no harm to the biological treatment units.
Another
report states, “Although
these risks exist, a study by Novak et al.4 shows that campgrounds in Virginia
(with seasonal occupation) show no signs of septic tank
failure. And
a study by Pearson et al.5 shows that a septic tank
will have a lot of problems with large amounts of formaldehyde, zinc and
phenol. But these large amounts are not realistic and the septic tanks still
managed to go back to normal within 2 days”.
http://waterquality.cce.cornell.edu/publications/CCEWQ-80-ChemicalsRVSepticTanks.pdf.
Starting on the second paragraph –
Fee for wastewater processing:
Because
it should be a 30 gallon tank versus a 40 gallon this changes the 2080 gallons
of sewage per year to 1560 per year, which makes the percentage .00078%
.00078
x $75,000 = $58.50 per year for treatment at the
sewage site.
Fourth paragraph- change 41 to 31.2
gallons of solids to the tank per year, which changes the pumping from every 19
years to every 25.6 years. Which changes the average per year
to $19.53. Which I would like to
note, that we, the town, offer to every household and business at no charge, so
I do not see where we should consider, charging only one in the town.
So
with the new numbers it is said (paragraph 6) the annual fee should actually be
$39.01 for the RV Dump. The last
sentence in this paragraph is null and void, because as a Town Council, I do
not believe that we have the right to tell any business what they should or
should not charge for any service they provide.
As
far as I can tell the only figures that were not considered into this equation
is the $19.00 per month that is paid for said tank. After doing research I do not see how we, the
town, can say that it is costing more money to treat the sewage from the RV
dump, with that said I cannot see how in good faith, conscious, and in keeping
with good ethical standards we can even think of proposing this absurd fee.
Back
to the letter, Paragraph 8 – If this paragraph is to hold true then why are we
as a council going after a single business, providing the largest tax base for
our town. They too are considered a
small business. We also have not been
able to prove that the usage on this tank is any higher or lower than the
average household.
Paragraph
9 – In regards to Ruth not knowing the layout of the tank, the construction was
approved by council at the time, which Ruth you were part of. It also had to be
certified, I feel that this it is safe to say the council did their job at the
time, along with the guy that certified the tank, so it is probably hooked up
correctly.
Paragraph
10 - As for this ordinance I believe that Starbuck needs to revise it. Per the
report done in 1994 by the Dept of Transportation, it is not costing us any
more money to process the waste from the RV dump then an average
household. Just a note, they are saying
that the enzymes and the nitrates in the new treatments actually help with the
sewage treatments, although there hasn’t been reports that I can find completed
on this as of yet.
Paragraph
11 – Does not relate to this issue.
After
doing the actual research and fixing the numbers to be closer to actual, I
think if we enact a fee now, that it will be seen and possible could be a
personal attack on a single business. Do
we want to be known as a small town that for pennies attacks one of the only
viable business’ in its town, or as a town that welcomes futures small business
because we work well with our current business owners??
Ronica
McCoy
----- Original Message ----
From: "krshearer@bmi.net" <krshearer@bmi.net>
To: r mccoy <info@starbuckwa.com>
Cc: Darcy Linklater <dlinklater@starbuckwa.com>; fred white
<frederick.white@pse.com>; Keith Wharton <moto37@centurytel.net>;
Richard Ells
<JKE2022@gmail.com>; Town of Starbuck <townofstarbuck@bmi.net>
Sent: Sun, January 9, 2011 6:46:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: my research on rv
tank fees
I am waiting for written confirmation of my conversation with municipal
research. I was told that we were obligated to revise our ordinance and
set a
fee for the RV dump. That anything new added to the system should not
only have
a hookup fee, but a usage fee. In simple fact, that is how the system
maintains
itself.
Darver never informed the city in advance that it was putting in an RV
dump. It
was never approved in advance of installation. Who inspected it after it
was
installed? Also, everyone pays for septic tank fees, not just
Darver. That is
what the council just raised for all residents to 19.00 per month. I feel
that
I was very conservative in the fee that I calculated. I feel it is more
than
fair. Darver is a business, it exists to make money. The Town of
Starbuck also
has financial obligations and cannot afford to give services away. If it
could
there are lots of single resident households living on less than $500.00 per
month that pay the same as Darver RV park/RV dump for sewage monthly.
Do we
need to ask the residents of Starbuck how they feel about the situation?
I think that we need to also assign damage fees within our ordinance for
everyone that damages the tanks, lids, or risers because of negligence.
All
components of the tank system are rated for pedestrian traffic only and any
abuses such as parking on tanks or driving over and breaking lids and risers
should not be repaired at the expense of the city. Then we need to send out a
notice of revision to the ordinance stating such.
The system has been in for 10 years now. And it works pretty well 99.9% of the
time. I have been looking at blueprints, and talking with Orenco about some of
our re-occuring problems. Gene and I have been
making repairs to broken lines,
locating burried vents, shutoffs, and
cleanouts. I am going to spend hours of
my time studying for the exam that I have to take in March to keep my operators
license. All because I love my town and want to keep things affordable
for it's
residents. It is rediculous that I should have
to defend myself for doing what
I consider to be my job. It is also your job to do what is in the best
interest
of the city. The first sentence of your letter states that fact- that the
city
should be collecting fees for this service.
Also, I was wondering where you printed out the 90 page document from the
Department
of Transportation. Did you use city resources
to print out that
document? If so, how did you get access to the office.
Ruth
Mon,
January 10, 2011 7:09:35 PM
Re:
Fw: my research on rv tank fees
|
From: |
r mccoy
<info@starbuckwa.com> Add to Contacts |
|
|
To: |
darcy linklater <dlinklater@starbuckwa.com>; Darcy Linklater
<dlinklater@starbuckwa.com>; fred white <frederick.white@pse.com>; Keith Wharton <moto37@centurytel.net>; krshearer@bmi.net; Richard Ells
<JKE2022@gmail.com>; Town of Starbuck
<townofstarbuck@bmi.net> |
I never said I printed it out at the
City. I would not do that, unless I was
working on a specific project for the City.
I would like to know who told you, we are "obligated" to charge a
fee. Never in
my conversations did anyone ever say we are "obligated". I was
told it is up to
the town. Also I never did any correspondance
via email except to forward my
request and Ruths
letter. My conversation was done via telephone with Joe Levan.
The septic
tank was inspected and I do stand
corrected, it was approved by
Columbia
County at the time of its
installation. I am sure you can get a copy
of the applications at the court house, as they are public record.
Once again "seeing that we cannot prove that there has been anything above
regular usage" I trully feel that there is no
way we can say that it costs the
town any more money than anyone else.
Columbia County approved the rv
spot that is NOT being rented out, if it was, I
do believe it may actually be being utilized more. I am sorry that there
are
residents who only recieve 500 dollars a month, but
it is NOT the responsibility
of the largest business, which is still small, to make up that difference for
them. I personally would love to see middle income families move to our
town,
they are the ones that will keep us a town and not an annex of
Dayton. I hope
that you can look at the whole picture not just a very small corner of
it.
Everything we do has ramifications.
I do appreciate the time and effort that you put into the town, I just dont
agree with this option. Which is my job as a council member, our job is to
look
at all sides without prejudice and decide on a correct course of action for the
time being and for the future. Going after one business for this rediculous
amount will hurt the town of Starbuck in the long run.
Example- Walla Walla and College Place, Walla Walla
has been losing the
prospects for new large business' because they make no concessions, while
College Place has been able to gain two large tax bases and many small, because
they were willing to work with business'.
I believe that we want the same thing, for the Town of Starbuck to grow and
prosper, and remain a town. I just think that this fee is not a way of
inviting
new business or keeping the business' we have. As you stated "we
love our
town".
.
See you tomorrow.
Ronica McCooy
|
From: |
"krshearer@bmi.net" <krshearer@bmi.net> View Contact |
|
|
To: |
r mccoy <info@starbuckwa.com> |
|
|
Cc: |
darcy linklater <dlinklater@starbuckwa.com>; fred white
<frederick.white@pse.com>; Keith Wharton
<moto37@centurytel.net>; Richard Ells
<JKE2022@gmail.com>; Town of Starbuck
<townofstarbuck@bmi.net> |
Ronica,
The septic
tank was installed on that property by
town of starbuck's licensed contractors during the
wastewater system installation. After the community system went in the
residences were no longer was under the county department of health.
Since we had a community system with a wastewater discharge permit issued by
ecology we operated under the guidance of the state department of ecology and
health. We were our own entity and operated under our ordinance; which
you need to read. It specifically states that anything placed into our
system must be approved by the town of starbuck.
That did not happen. Perhaps darver asked for a
permit to put in an rv park,
but the rv dump was placed into the city system and
only could be approved by the city. It was not part of the application
for an rv park that darver made to the county building inspector. As I
previously stated; I think that this was a misunderstanding, that darver thought this tank was their property. I do not
think this was intentional. However, they have recovered their innitial investment in the dump and it is time for the city
to collect some money for processing the waste.
Do you think that the businesses in college place get free sewage and
water? Why don't you ask college place if there are different fees for
residential and businesses for waste treatment and water. Do some research for the town.
Ruth
Re:
Fw: my research on rv tank fees
|
From: |
"White,
Frederick"
<frederick.white@pse.com> View Contact |
|
|
To: |
info@starbuckwa.com; dlinklater@starbuckwa.com;
moto37@centurytel.net; krshearer@bmi.net; JKE2022@gmail.com;
townofstarbuck@bmi.net |
Ronica,
I am confused did the County approve the septic tank for the RV park or the RV dump, we are talking about two different things.
The County did not have anything to do with the septic tank system and the RV dump was hooked into the City system illegally
after the system was put in by City contracted contractors. Can you please
bring the copy of the building permit from the County for the RV dump that is
installed at Darver Tackle to the meeting.
Also to my recollection the person who inspects
the septic
tank installations in town is our city man which at
that time was Darrel Huwe who was not certified in
anyway. I think there needs to be a fee set because Darver is making money off
of a City service which is not ethical. The money collected will be used to
pump or do any maintenance to the septic tank in question, because the majority
of the people that utilize the RV dump do not pay the 19.00 dollars a month to
the city for the septic system. It is not
fair for the people of Starbuck to have to pay for someone's else's waste. I don't see how you don't think that
is unethical, that would be like me throwing my garbage in your garbage can and
paying your neighbor every time I do it. The fee is not absurd,
it is our ethical duty to try to keep costs down for our citizens. Please
nobody take this as a personal attack because I am really getting tired of
hearing that, we are all adults so let's act like it.
Fred White