HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session July 15 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
53
54
55
Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
July 15, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Council Vice -Chair Ken Mann called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 Commercial Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Rud Browne, Barry Buchanan, Ken Mann, and Pete
Kremen
Absent: Sam Crawford and Carl Weimer
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (A1132014 -024)
1. WATERSHED PLANNING UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, updated the councilmembers on the last
Planning Unit meeting. The Planning Unit continues to work on work plan prioritization, the
lower Nooksack strategy, and the budget. Subcommittees will be formed to work on some
of these items. There has been no meeting of the Joint Board since May. The groundwater
modeling project is moving forward. They hope to hire a consultant soon. The data
integration project is ongoing.
Jack Louws, County Executive, asked when the budget will come to the Council and
Executive. The administration needs that information to plan its budget.
Perry Eskeridge, Planning Unit Member, stated there are a lot of projects that need
to be prioritized. The Planning Unit is looking at the lower Nooksack strategy at the request
of the City of Bellingham, County, and Public Utility District (PUD). The Planning Unit is
determining the current gaps, necessary additional information, and budget. The process
has been slow, but they are making progress.
Browne asked how the Council can incorporate Planning Unit recommendations into
the budget if the information doesn't come forward in time.
Louws stated there is always an opportunity for supplemental budget requests and
changes on a monthly basis. He would like to know from the Planning Unit at least a range
of potential expenditures.
Kremen stated he suggests the Executive include a placeholder in the budget so it's
not a new budget item.
Louws stated there is already a placeholder for meeting facilitation, but not
consulting services.
Brenner stated the budget should include a placeholder amount equal to the cost of
monthly meetings for the entire year. The Planning Unit can request additional funds if
necessary.
Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2014, 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
54
2. COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, stated the staff submitted a resolution to the
Council to begin the Coordinated Water Systems Plan update. The resolution was held
pending additional information from several people, which he has now received. He will
bring it forward to the Council at its next meeting. They selected a consultant, RH2
Engineering, to prepare the scoping and main contract. It will come forward to the Council
at the next meeting. There were questions about how the Coordinated Water System Plan
fits into the growth management process.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this statute
is not a Growth Management Act (GMA) statute. The intent is to coordinate all water plans
in the county and to address water quantity, water quality, transmission, storage, financial
and managerial capability of the systems, and other issues. The plan must be consistent
with the County's growth policies and land use plans. The current plan is 14 years old and
outdated. It's a piece of the lower Nooksack strategy. It does not address agricultural or
industrial water needs or exempt well users. They need to be addressed through another
process.
Brenner stated the statute isn't clear whether or not this plan is required. The
County has other information. She will support it if it isn't redundant. Personius stated the
information isn't redundant.
Mann stated there is benefit to coordinating public water systems. He asked how the
County staff will work this particular plan in with all the other plans the County must write
and maintain. All these plans must inform and be consistent with each other. Personius
stated this document will answer questions about the water rights and capacity of these
systems. It should be on a parallel track with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update.
Browne stated many of these water associations are many years old, may have
aging board members, may not have done good capital budgeting, and may not have good
succession plans. The County becomes the support of last resort and will have to pay the
costs. Identify now any systems that may need a little more help. Deal with smaller issues
now to avoid larger problems later.
Stoyka stated they will have the first Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC)
meeting once the resolution and contract are approved.
3. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES) PHASE II
STORMWATER PERMIT
Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
(on file) and stated they are talking about infrastructure for conveying water through the
boundary area.
Brenner asked if the 30 private facilities include those homeowners who voluntarily
comply and how the residents notify the County. Middleton stated all permits will have to
go through NPDES compliance in the NPDES area. He continued the presentation. Right
now the administration is asking for only four maintenance and operations (M &O) staff
instead of the necessary 12, because they plan to coordinate with the City of Bellingham
and implement other cost - saving measures.
Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2014, 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
53
54
55
Brenner asked if costs in Birch Bay could be funded by the Birch Bay Watershed
Aquatic Resources Management ( BBWARM). Middleton stated the BBWARM can contribute,
but there will be additional costs. The County must do extra tasks above and beyond the
tasks of BBWARM. He continued the presentation with additional level of service (LOS)
expenses. The County must document and annually report the exact number and location
of every catch basin and ditch it cleans out. The administration costs are much more than
before. There will be software needs to create those reports. The estimated costs are
planning level costs, and they are considering other funding sources. This is a beginning
estimate for the program the County will need, as required by federal and State law.
Mann asked if it's possible to contract the work instead of hiring staff. Middleton
stated he would like to see the actual estimate from a contractor to see if the costs will be
less. He's heard from contractors that the actual contract amount will be much more than
the County will spend. In addition to cleaning, they must maintain the culverts to standard.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the County must also respect its labor
contracts in terms of maintenance operations on County roads. If the Council wants the
administration to explore the option of contracting the work, he will need to consider that
element of the situation.
Tyler Schroeder, Executive's Office, stated there is a detailed estimate of cost per
employee for maintenance and operation. They can compare the rate of a County staff
person versus the rate for a private consultant.
Stoyka stated staff is considering a contract for a little bit of this work to get an idea
of what's involved.
Buchanan asked if these inspectors have to be licensed.
Cathy Craver, Public Works Department, stated inspectors have to show they can
meet the standard, but don't have to be NPDES certified.
Browne stated he would like information on what is involved in cleaning a drain.
Kremen stated contractors seem to think they can raise their prices for government
contracts. He's in favor of comparing the costs, but it will likely result in the County's cost
being less if the County does the work with its own employees. He asked if these costs are
required in perpetuity. Middleton stated the required costs could increase if the NPDES area
grows in the future. The next permit may cover Western Washington. Also, paying a
contractor rate also includes the costs of benefits for the contractors' employees, company
profit, and equipment allocation. He's confident that the contractor rate will be more than
the cost of providing the service directly. This is an ongoing program from now on.
Kremen stated staff costs will increase annually. The budgeted costs will have to
increase accordingly.
Louws stated he thanks the Public Works Department staff for coming up with
creative ways to reduce the number of M &O staff in this program from 12 to four. The
documentation required by this program is critical. His goal is to be as efficient as possible
when meeting the mandates of the Act.
Browne asked what it means that every single - family residence will need inspection.
Middleton stated every new single - family residence built in the NPDES area, starting
January 2017, will have to have a NPDES review. If they incorporate low impact
development standards and build a facility such as a rain garden, there is an annual
Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2014, 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
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
inspection requirement. That is an entirely different regulation that will require a change in
the Code. They have a couple of years to work on how to do that.
Brenner stated she prefers a program similar to the open space program rather than
a required inspection program.
4. WATER ACTION PLAN COST ESTIMATES
Tyler Schroeder, Executive's Office, submitted handouts (on file) and stated this
discussion is about the budget numbers on level of service associated with the programs,
water quality, Lake Whatcom total maximum daily load (TMDL), and other different
programs. The administration continues to refine the estimates. He would like the
councilmembers to indicate they have a general understanding of the numbers and believe
the administration is going in the right direction. They will consider existing funding sources
and capital that can be reallocated to these programs.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the administration would also like to know
from the Council about paying for some of these items from the flood fund where
appropriate. The three funds available are the flood fund, road fund, and real estate excise
tax (REET). Everyone in the county is paying to the flood fund. One option is to create
another tax for sub - basins, or use the flood fund as a countywide water resources fund that
can be spent on some of these programs.
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, read from a presentation (on file).
Buchanan asked the annual revenue versus annual expenditures if the current
obligations of the flood control zone district are added to the proposed funding chart. Louws
stated the flood fund receives about $3 million per year. The current balance is a little over
$12 million. They will be able to add about $1.3 million to the current obligations through
2018 or 2019, which would draw down the flood fund balance to $4.5 million to $5 million.
At that time, the Council would decide if they want to delay projects for a few years, raise
the flood fund, create subarea taxes, or implement other measures.
Buchanan asked if there are guidelines for the flood fund reserve amount.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the Flood Control Zone District Board
of Supervisors approved a resolution a few years ago to reserve $5 million for emergencies
and cash flow.
Browne stated the County is required to pay $1.1 million for NPDES, and the other
$700,000 is optional. Stoyka stated the TMDL portion will also be required, whenever that
is issued.
Louws stated the County must show progress and initiative to reverse rising pollution
trends, or else there will be shellfish bed closures and forced actions will be required.
Brenner asked for each estimate to include what they are spending now, what they
have to spend additionally, and what is optional additional spending. She would like to
know where they do and don't have discretion, so they don't spend time discussing things
that are required.
Brenner stated the Whatcom Conservation District does an incredible job with
livestock assistance. She wants to know why Portage Bay is getting worse and why they
aren't doing DNA testing. They must start somewhere. Schroeder stated expanding the
PIC program will provide better answers to those questions.
Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2014, Page 4
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
Browne stated there isn't the science to do that.
Mann asked Councilmember Brenner to provide information on the technology that
can identify that information.
Brenner stated she no longer has the information, which was from a scientific
magazine. Regarding the water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1 watershed planning
section, they most also focus on water quality. Schroeder stated water quality is addressed
through the PIC program, bacterial information, and habitat issues. The numbers for all the
items are separate. There are a lot of overlapping issues with habitat. The costs of these
programs haven't risen to the level to require a focused Public Works employee and
program. The estimates are the costs of increasing the level of service.
Louws stated there is a habitat component to each program. It's not a separate
component. At this point, leave it as is.
Brenner asked if the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) is working on
a response to the NPDES requirements, which are outrageous.
Kremen stated it's not a high priority for WSAC or the National Association of
Counties (NaCO). The state voters passed an initiative to accept no unfunded mandates,
but it hasn't done any good. It's even worse at the federal level. He will do what he can to
raise awareness about the NPDES and all unfunded mandates.
Brenner stated it should be a high priority. The requirements will discourage people
from doing low- impact development.
Mann stated staff is asking for direction on the program level of service.
Kremen asked for an approximate estimate of how many households are in the city
of Bellingham within the Lake Whatcom watershed and how many are in the county. He
asked why they are raising the County's TMDL funding contribution by 50 percent, to match
the City of Bellingham, when there are far fewer county residences that impact the lake.
The overall source of contaminants over the decades has come from the city of Bellingham.
More than 90,000 city households and businesses use the water.
Louws stated Sudden Valley, Geneva, and other county areas have also contributed.
Staff will find the answer to that question.
Mann stated the flood control tax is paid countywide, including city residents.
Kremen stated he cautions the County administration and Council against spending
too much flood money on projects and not keeping enough in the reserve to address future
flooding problems, which are guaranteed to happen. The current flood reserve of $5 million
may not be enough.
Louws stated the money is being spent on unfunded mandates. To work within the
existing revenue stream, the flood fund is the logical choice to absorb the majority of those
costs. If a major flood event hits the flood fund, the County is able to slow projects down
and rebuild the reserve. His proposal is reasonable. Paying for these requirements will be a
challenge. He would rather stretch the flood fund for a few years without raising taxes.
Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2014, Page 5
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
Mann stated increasing the funding for the TMDL response in the amount of
$300,000 is reasonable. The bigger problem is drawing down the flood fund reserves and
how they will fund these items in a few years.
Kremen stated the administration's proposal overall is well done for a first step. The
Council will continue to fine -tune it.
Browne stated they will need to find long -term funding for the NPDES permit. He
would like to address that question early rather than after they draw down the flood fund.
He supports the proposal brought forward today.
Brenner stated she wants to review the proposal more before giving a
recommendation.
Schroeder stated the administration can provide the requested information and
discuss it with the Council next week.
Mann stated he thanks the administration for responding to the Council's request on
this plan. He supports the broad proposal. The Council can take a formal vote next week.
Buchanan asked if there is an opportunity for service area fees regarding the NPDES
areas. Middleton stated funding alternatives are available. A December 2010 report
outlines those options.
Marianne Beddill, Planning Unit Member, asked if the County has a plan for
responding to overflow flooding of Sumas.
Mann stated they can find that information.
Browne stated don't wait until they run out of flood district funds before they decide
on an alternative. Be as aggressive as possible to solve that question.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on September 30, 2014.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Ken Mann, Council Vice -Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2014, Page 6