HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 30 20141
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
September 30, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Barry Buchanan called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(9 :32:09 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Sam Crawford and Barry Buchanan.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Rud Browne, Pete Kremen and Barbara Brenner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE USE OF FLOOD FUNDS FOR WATER ACTION
PLAN WORK (AB2014 -067B)
Jack Louws, County Executive, gave a staff report and stated they need to use flood
funds to make the water action plan happen. Legal counsel has said the County can use
flood funds. The Executive's recommended budget will make use of these funds. If the
Council wants to change it, the Council will need to make those changes through the budget
process.
Tyler Schroeder, Executive's Office, referenced a staff memo from Gary Stoyka to
the Executive and Council regarding the use of the Flood Control Zone District funds for
stormwater and water - related activities, dated September 25, 2014. The national pollution
discharge elimination system ( NPDES) phase 2 requirements can be funded through the
sources in addition to the flood fund, including the road fund.
Crawford asked and there was discussion about what is precipitating this discussion,
the historical norm of how much they tend to allocate to flood, stormwater, and water
quality, and whether they are doing anything different or plan to do anything different from
the way the County has been funding such projects. Schroeder stated they are
recommending additional programs, including the NPDES phase 2 federal and state
requirements, which require additional money.
Louws stated ten to 15 percent of flood fund money is used now for water quality
and programming issues. That will increase to 30 to 35 percent going toward water quality
instead of directly to flood management. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee is concerned about that.
funds.
Crawford asked for documentation on how the County has historically allocated those
Natural Resources Committee, 9/30/2014, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated the NPDES requirements are duplicative. The counties should
challenge the requirements. Stormwater and flooding issues are related. She has no
problem with that.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. He doesn't dispute the
County's legal authority to spend the money on these quality and quantity issues. However,
the citizens originally voted to create the flood fund to primarily fund flood issues. These
state and federal mandates are unfunded. The State just allowed an expanded use of the
flood fund. The County has no choice. The question is how prudent it is to address these
water issues from the flood funds, leaving the County vulnerable if there is a significant
flood event.
Weimer stated and there was discussion about having a conversation about how to
allocate the flood funds, the County's ability to pay for a major flood from other funds it can
use in an emergency, and whether there is a statutory requirement about the name of the
flood fund, or if the name can be changed to a water resources fund.
Buchanan asked and there was discussion about making these programs sustainable.
Louws stated there will be approximately $12 million in the flood fund beginning in
2015. They can project fixed costs easily, but not what types of grants the County may
receive for projects. The program is sustainable for the next three or four years. Then the
County must decide whether to slow down projects and let the flood fund rebuild, possibly
raise the flood fund fee, or find other revenue sources. The flood fund is a countywide
taxing authority, however in the past they've concentrated expenditures around the
Nooksack River. Now others in the county have water issues that aren't necessarily flood
issues. It's a reasonable fund to use.
Kremen stated dealing with water quality is good for the community. The
community needs to understand better how much funding it takes to accomplish these
mandates. The County is going to have to generate additional funding at the local level to
accomplish these State and federal mandates.
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, asked the County
to discuss how using road funds would be appropriate to address water quality issues.
Schroeder referenced and read from a memo from Public Works Department Director Frank
Abart dated September 26, 2014. The practical improvements are mostly within the road
right -of -way.
Crawford stated the State and federal NPDES standards for road catchments are
clear. The County is forced into that compliance.
Kremen stated that the municipalities don't contribute to the road fund.
Greg Brown stated his concern is beyond the NPDES. The flood control dollars are
also going to environmental control efforts that have nothing to do with flooding.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY POLLUTION
IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION (PIC) PROGRAM (AB2014 -305)
(10:18:04 AM)
Natural Resources Committee, 9/30/2014, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford stated he's concerned about perceived unfair regulatory steps taken to
determine whether there are problems on private property and to enforce perceived
problems without proper evidence. He referenced the regulatory backstop section on
Council packet page eight and asked if the enforcement steps can create a recorded process
or document process to allow a person to explain their side of the story after receiving three
warnings and explain why they are in noncompliance, before charging penalties and
reporting to other agencies.
Brenner stated the chart in the Council packet is missing a focus on sewer issues.
Erika Douglas, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
(on file).
(10:36:26 AM)
Brenner asked and there was discussion about the number of people who are doing
their own inspections, how many of those inspections result in failures, what the County
staff is doing with individuals who aren't doing their inspections, and why there are spikes in
pollution levels.
John Wolpers, Health Department, answered questions.
Weimer asked why they have a resolution for the Council to support these programs.
He would like there to be more specificity. For example, the letter should be sent by the
Council and Executive, not the Public Works Department. Also, there should be a tracking
system for farm plans and a timeline for working with the Conservation District and County
staff. He stated and there was discussion about not having confidence that the Planning
Department will do enforcement and whether those kinds of specifics need to be in this
resolution.
Jack Louws, County Executive, answered questions about enforcement through the
Planning Department.
Browne stated consider enforcement through Health Department regulations rather
than Planning Department regulations. He asked and there was discussion about the
consequence of self- reporting a problem septic system or farming problem, and then not
fixing the problem. Don't penalize people for self- reporting a problem.
Kremen stated the resolution needs to include an enforcement aspect. The County is
hiring more enforcement staff. Make sure to include the Prosecutor's Office and the judicial
branch in this process so they are able to follow through with enforcement and prosecution.
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Brenner asked and there was discussion about how well the low- interest loan
program is working through the Health Department.
Crawford moved to amend the language in the regulatory backstop section on
Council packet page five, "...violation, or civil penalty). Prior to any correction action taken
by Whatcom County, affected landowners will be provided a final opportunity to respond
within 15 days in writing and /or in person to the County's claims of violation. Any
Natural Resources Committee, 9/30/2014, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
correction action taken will include a County response to specific assertions or mitigating
circumstances claimed by the affected landowners. Issues regarding OSS...."
Weimer stated he is opposed to the amendment. The point is to get people to
communicate and take action. The enforcement process itself includes an opportunity for
people to respond. Don't set up a new system in between the two processes.
Crawford stated some State and federal agencies are indifferent to the circumstances
of the landowner. The County should make sure it has a clear record that the person is not
responding or has had an opportunity to submit their reasoning.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford (1)
Nays: Weimer and Buchanan (2)
The motion to recommend approval as presented carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Crawford and Buchanan (3)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barry Buchanan, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 9/30/2014, Page 4