Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works July 8 20141r?] 20 30 4P] 5M 60 71M 81M 90 101a 11r?] 12P] 130 141a 15M 160 17P] 180 19r?] 201M 21[a 22r?] 231M 240 25M 26M 270 28M 291?1 300 31M 32M 330 34M 3517 360 37M 3817 390 40M 4117 42M 431a 44M 450 461M 47M 48P] 490 50M 510 520 53Pl WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee July 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. P1 ROLL CALL (1:33:01 PM) Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann and Pete Kremen. Absent: None. Also Present: Carl Weimer, Barry Buchanan and Rud Browne. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CREATE A SCENIC LOOP IN POINT ROBERTS (AB2014 -243) Armene Belless, Point Roberts Conservation Society, stated this proposal is positive for the community. She submitted photos (on file). Help conserve the beauty of Point Roberts and day tourism. Last month, 111,000 people came across the border into Point Roberts. It is the fifth busiest border station on the Canadian border. Most people stay 15 minutes. They would like people to stay longer and explore Point Roberts. A scenic loop would encourage that visit. John Lesow, Point Roberts resident, stated transportation benefit district (TBD) monies requested would only be used for scenic loop signage, not to develop the scenic route. There would be 17 to 20 signs for phase one of the loop. There would be more if the second phase would be developed. The total TBD funds used for road signage would be only $500. He described the history and purpose of TBD funds. He described phase one and phase two of the proposal. Phase two may be more difficult to approve. Belless stated there is no more State or federal money for scenic byway loop roads, so they are asking the County. The signs should go along with their Point Roberts Character Plan. Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated he doesn't know much about it and needs more information. There may be a mapping conflict, and they have to make sure the signs follow guidelines about sign placement. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a problem. Brenner stated she would vote for the concept. The conservation committee and advisory committee would have to come up with specific signage. Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the administration would work with the Point Roberts community to put this together if the Council approves a resolution of support. It's a low cost program. The community believes it's in their best interest. The administration will support the proposal and make it happen. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 7/8/2014, Page 1 1E Kremen moved to recommend that the full Council approve the Point Roberts 20 scenic route concept and work with the administration as soon as possible to implement the 30 scenic loop proposal. 4F?1 5M Browne stated he supports anything to entice visitors to stay longer than 15 60 minutes. 7P] 8M Abart stated they are not endorsing the $500 expense. He doesn't know what signs 91a will cost. 10F?1 11m Brenner stated this will be a small cost for a good cause. 12F?] 131M Kremen stated there is no doubt that using the transportation benefit district funds is 140 relevant to the expense of any transportation signs. This is not inconsistent with the 15M intended use of the funds. 16r?] 170 Louws stated the motion on the floor is adequate to direct his staff. A resolution isn't 18M necessary. The administration will work through the issues. 19F?1 200 The motion carried by the following vote: 21M Ayes: Brenner, Mann and Kremen (3) 22M Nays: None (0) 230 24M COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 250 260 1. RESOLUTION COMMENCING THE COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN 27M UPDATE PROCESS (AB2014 -253) 28F?] 290 Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, submitted handouts (on file) and stated the 30M Department of Health requires plans for large water systems. All systems within a region 310 must coordinate their planning and construction efforts to prevent duplication of efforts 32M within the same area. The coordinated water system plan (CWSP) is also used for the 33M Growth Management Act and included in the Comprehensive Plan. A CWSP deals with water 340 system service designated areas, fire protection standards, minimum design standards for 35M water systems, emergency inter -ties with another system, satellite system management 36M agencies, and failing systems. It has a nexus with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and 370 water forecasting. It needs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to provide water 38M in areas where growth is directed. He described the history of the process in Whatcom 39M County. 400 41F?] The current version is from 2000. The plan must be updated every five years. The 42M State used to fund updates, but it no longer does, so the plan hasn't been updated. This 430 relates to the water supply plan and the Lower Nooksack Strategy (LNS), which is an 44M implementing document developed by the Joint Board to implement the Planning Unit's 4517 watershed management plan. The LNS has an objective to develop a water supply plan, 460 which includes a determination of water demands and a determination of how they would 47M meet those demands. To determine the water demands, they will look at public water 4817 systems, exempt wells, agriculture, and industrial uses. The CWSP is a good vehicle for the 490 water demand forecasting only for public water systems. It needs to be updated anyway. 50M It works with the Comprehensive Plan. It's a good way to collect this information. 510 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 7/8/2014, Page 2 1(J In 2012, the plan was for the Public Utility District (PUD) to conduct the update using 20 economic development money, but the Council rejected the funding plan. There was public 30 opposition to the PUD taking on that role. That process ended. 4P1 5M The Planning Department uses the CWSP to tell applicants where to go to get water. 60 The plan is used every day. The Comprehensive Plan must make sure there is adequate 7M provision of water in areas where the County directs growth. 8 P 91] According to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 71.16, which is overseen by the 10M State Department of Health. They must convene the water utility coordinating committee 11M (WUCC), which includes all public water systems with more than 50 connections as voting 121a members. There are about 65 systems of that size in the county. Staff will invite all to 13E participate. The WUCC also includes representatives from the County departments of 140 Planning, Health, County Council, and a State Department of Health representative. He will 15M invite representatives from systems that are smaller, tribes, and others to participate as 16M nonvoting members. Any member of the public can attend. 170 18M This is a standalone process that is separate from the watershed planning process. 19M It deals with water system public health and planning issues. However, the demand 20M forecasting is a common component. It will project water use for at least the next 20 years. 21M It will be integrated with population forecasting done for the Comprehensive Plan 2016 22M update. The update is needed solely for public water systems. There is federal action by 230 the tribes, and the County is doing watershed planning, both of which make it more 24M pressing to quantify water needs. 25(] 260 The plan must be approved by the WUCC, the Washington State Department of 27M Health, and the County Council. The County Planning Department must certify that it's not 28M inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. Under the statute, there is no official 290 role for the Joint Board or the Planning Unit, but the County staff plan to keep those entities 30M informed of what is going on. Many on the Planning Unit will also be members of the 310 WUCC. The public will be invited to provide input throughout the process. Before plan 32M adoption, the County Council will hold a public hearing. 3 31J 340 Funding in the amount of $150,000 is set aside in the 2014 budget for this project. 35M They issued a request for proposals in January and selected RH2 Engineering. They put 36M together a small scoping contract for RH2 to develop a more detailed scope of work. An 370 informal scoping meeting with certain representatives of the bigger systems was held in 38M June. He described the elements of the resolution. 391] 400 Browne stated the inventory should include the number of users and unused 41M capacity. He would like to know the hookup costs and monthly charges for each district. He 42M would like to know their redundancy of supply and where they are in the upgrade cycle. 430 He's heard anecdotally that some water districts are operated by people who don't provide a 44M succession plan for their management. There are questions about maintaining 451] infrastructure properly and whether they've correctly budgeted for capital replacement. 460 Stoyka stated that is part of the scope of work. He's not sure if they can adequately assess 47M all 500 systems, but they can certainly assess the bigger systems. If a system fails, the 48M County receives the system. 490 50M Weimer stated they do a lot of forecasting for water demand. He asked if they will 511a also talk about water availability. He asked if they are going to define their water right and 52M how much water they have available. Stoyka stated the consultant will do some sort of 53M evaluation of water rights to see if the rights are adequate to meet the need. Some of that Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 7/8/2014, Page 3 P1 1E is included in the water system plans of the bigger systems. The smaller systems will 20 require more research. The consultants used to work on water rights at the State 30 Department of Ecology. They have experience with evaluating water rights. 4P1 5M Weimer asked if there will be an attempt to define how those water rights might 60 change and how junior they are to other things. The Lummi lawsuit is going forward. The 7M Department of Ecology hasn't enforced instream flow in 20 years. He asked what will be 8M affected if those conditions change. Stoyka stated there will be some discussion of that, but 91a it's pretty speculative. They will invite the Tribes to participate. 10r?] 11m Browne stated most associations have a water certificate. He would like to know if 12M they lose some of their water right by not using all the volume of water they're granted. He 13E would like to know whether the water right is a certificate or a lesser right, the priority date, 140 the volume, and if anything requires them to relinquish a portion of their right. Stoyka 15M stated the 2003 municipal water law went to the Supreme Court, which determined that 16M municipal water systems are no longer subject to relinquishment for their inchoate rights. 170 The bigger systems don't have to worry about that anymore. 18P] 19r?] Mann stated it seems they may be duplicating efforts. He would like to know the 200 difference between this and other water planning efforts. Creating the WUCC seems like 21M they're just duplicating the Planning Unit. Try to streamline and consolidate all these 22M efforts. It's a concern for him. He doesn't like to see so many parallel efforts, even though 230 there may be slight differences. There is major overlap of the issues. Stoyka stated it's not 24M duplicative. This one process accomplishes several goals. The water - demand forecasting 250 needs to be done for the CWSP. Duplication of efforts would be to have both groups work 260 on it. 27F?1 28P] Mann asked if the Planning Unit or another water planning group will accept the work 290 of the WUCC without question. Stoyka stated demand forecasting is driven by population. 30M That comes from the Office of Financial Management (OFM), through the Comprehensive 310 Plan process. Once they know where the growth will be, they can allocate it to the different 32M water systems. The Council will decide the growth rate. The WUCC will take those 33M population forecasts, which will become the water system demands, and then look to see if 340 the districts have the supplies to meet the demand. 35F?1 36M Brenner stated the processes are extremely redundant. It's not clear that the 370 County is required by State statute to form this committee. She would rather the $140,000 38M be used to hire a staff person who provides all the answers and then takes it around to the 39M different jurisdictions. Involving 500 water systems is too much. Stoyka stated the WUCC 400 is in the State statute. They have to update the CWSP through the WUCC. The Council can 41M determine it doesn't want to update the CWSP. 421?1 430 Brenner stated they committed to the water action plan. Don't add more layers. 44M Work within the water action plan and with what already exists to get answers. Stoyka 451a stated the CWSP is in the water action plan. 460 47M Brenner stated she didn't know it would involve all this. Coordinating and 48M consolidating efforts were also part of the water action plan. 490 50M Jack Louws, County Executive, stated that whether or not the Joint Board and the 51M Planning Unit recommend this as part of the Lower Nooksack Strategy, the County would 52M still need to update the CWSP, given what's going on with growth management. They've 53M experienced losses from third parties over the last few years regarding quantity and quality Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 7/8/2014, Page 4 P1 1E of water issues. This particular study will identify what they currently use and where that 20 public water is being served. It will provide much detail and supportive information that 30 proves to the public, regulatory agencies, and litigants that the County has done a good job 41M of planning and that water is available to the places where the County is planning to put its 5M population. What they're doing now is not redundant. The work is mandated by the 60 Department of Health every five years, and they're 14 years behind. They will be able to 7M use the information for the Growth Management Act (GMA), provide the information to the 8M Planning Unit, and use the information as a point -in -time analysis of what water they use 91a and what water they need. It would be nice if they could do something other than appoint 101M this committee, but the State code requires it and the public users will be voting members. 11M Approve this resolution. The County will continue to be targeted by people who challenge 121a the validity of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 13P] 140 Brenner stated a meeting was held with the cities, but it didn't include everyone. 15M She's concerned this is promoted and pushed by the bigger entities. The smaller entities 16M may not receive the same attention. She's concerned about the bigger districts absorbing 170 the smaller districts. They can do a lot of good if a staff person were assigned to this task. 18M It's not clear that they have to do this now or if they have to set up another committee. 19M She could support this if the timing were better. Stoyka submitted a list of past 200 participating members on the WUCC (on file). 21P] 22M Louws stated the County is responsible for the plan. They scoped the project to 230 meet the minimum requirements of the RCW and Department of Health for certification of 24M the plan. The cities were involved to make sure they covered other needs. They included 25M other items that will be helpful as they continue to determine how much water they use and 260 how much they need. They will have good quality information on which to base decisions 27M when the County gets to the point of making a decision on water quantification and /or 28E adjudication. They will be able to provide information for the water districts, well owners, 290 and farming community in the future. The meeting with the cities was not a part of the 30M plan. The County wasn't required to involve them, but believed it was in the best interest of 31M the community to include them. Move forward with this. It isn't a duplication. 32P] 33M Browne stated make sure the data includes agriculture consumption use and 340 business use. Stoyka stated they won't do that for the CWSP process. The CWSP process is 35M just for public water systems. Some water systems have an agricultural component. 361?1 370 Browne stated add information to the matrix that indicates the data being collected 38M and which questions are being asked and answered. Make sure there is visibility to 39M everyone working on these issues to avoid duplication. 400 41M Skip Richards stated he is a member of the former Water Utility Coordinating 42M Committee that generated the 2000 plan. The WUCC subcommittees were to continue to 430 meet semiannually to engage in review. That never happened. That's what happened to 44M the Planning Unit. Do it differently this time. The County staff are relatively new, and have 451a learned quickly. There are still gaps in institutional memory, which he can provide. Have a 460 clear definition of all the acronyms. The Coordinated Water Systems Plan and the 47M Countywide Water Supply Plan are two totally different things, but have the same acronym. 481a People are confused. It's important to measure results and not activity. The resolution as 490 written has problems. He can work with staff to clarify the issues raised today. For 50M example, the Coordinated Water Systems Plan should not address quantity. That's not 511a where it belongs, but they must still address it. There are concerns with the Lower 52M Nooksack Strategy. The Planning Unit will work on it. Updating the Coordinated Water 53M Systems Plan can be useful, but it must be done right. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 7/8/2014, Page 5 ❑r 1F?l 20 30 41M 5P] 60 71M 8M 91a 101M 11m 121a 13F?1 140 15M 16M 17M 18M 19M 200 21M 22M 230 24F?] 250 260 27M 28[N 290 30M 31M 32M 33F?1 340 35r?] 36M 371N 380 39i] 40M 410 420 431?1 440 45F?] 461a 470 48M 491a 500 51M 521a 530 Karen Brown, Planning Unit Private Well Owner Caucus Representative, stated there is no hurry to get this done. The County doesn't have to be designated a critical area. The County Council can retract that from the State, and none of this is necessary. Dan Eisses, Birch Bay Water and Sewer District, stated this is about potable water. Make that distinction. This process is controlled by the RCW. Other issues such as municipal non - potable water will come under another process. Making that distinction will help with the concern about duplicating processes. Regarding the consultant's water rights review, different people can interpret a water right in different ways. Trying to do that with the $140,000 will be too much. Consider a self - certification for each person to look at their own right, which is what the Department of Health requires. Brenner stated the interested parties should be able to provide information. She moved to hold in committee for two weeks and give the administration time to work with interested parties on fine - tuning the resolution. Louws stated he will send out the resolution, collect feedback from the interested parties, and comment on the feedback. Brenner stated the resolution should include more data from the parties, including the strength and replacement cycle of the infrastructure. Include the first five whereas statements from the 1990 resolution. Mann stated the Council adopted a resolution establishing the critical water supply service area boundaries to meet the requirements under the RCW. He asked if the RCW requires the County to have a coordinated water system plan. Stoyka stated it does not. He's not sure how water supply planning would otherwise be addressed. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Brenner, Mann and Kremen (3) Nays: None (0) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes TranscriptionM WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 7/8/2014, Page 6