HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work September 17 20131
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
Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
September 17, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Member Pete Kremen called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Ken Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl
Weimer
Absent: Kathy Kershner and Bill Knutzen
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2013 -024)
Kremen moved to nominate and appoint Councilmember Crawford the chair for this
meeting.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Brenner (out of the room), Kershner and Knutzen (3)
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Crawford assumed the duties of the Chair.)
1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STAFF — MRC COORDINATOR AND NATURAL
RESOURCES MANAGER
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, introduced Austin Rose, the new Marine
Resources Committee (MRC) Coordinator, who previous worked with the Northwest Straits
Commission.
He also announced the hiring of the new natural resource manager position. Gary
Stoyka, who currently works in Skagit County, will begin in October. Mr. Stoyka will work
on the water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1, the Planning Unit, water supply planning,
salmon recovery, shellfish protection, and solid waste.
2. INTRODUCTION OF SIX -YEAR WATER RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(WRIP) 2014 -2019
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated this is a new plan similar to the Six
year transportation improvement program. He submitted an updated version of the plan
(on file). This is a strategic planning document for the various programs. It's not a budget
document, but guides annual budgets he brings forward for review and approval. He
intends to open the planning process for capital work, provide public input, and increase
transparency of the process. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that the
Board of Supervisors for the Flood Control Zone District adopt a work plan by resolution for
capital work and have a public hearing prior to that. This plan will fulfill that requirement.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, 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
He described the items on the spreadsheet. The item numbers aren't a priority.
Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, submitted an update of the project
information sheets, that include added page numbers, and a few updated dollar figures.
Items 15 and 25 are the same project.
Brueske stated he took this plan to the Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee (FCZDAC), which recommended adoption of the resolution by a vote of 8 -1. The
plan will go to the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management Advisory
Committee (BBWARM) tomorrow. He hopes for a similar recommendation. In a week, it is
on the Council agenda for introduction, and a public hearing at the first meeting in October.
There is no statutory deadline.
Crawford asked if the law requires a plan. Brueske stated it does, but doesn't
require a six -year plan. They will update the plan each year. Plan for six years because
these projects take years to develop.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, read through and gave an overview of
each project in the Lake Whatcom stormwater section.
Brenner stated she believed they decided to make Sudden Valley a higher priority
and asked if the total estimated project cost includes engineering and construction.
Brueske stated the estimate does include engineering and construction. He doesn't know
the history of ranking Sudden Valley's priority.
Christensen stated the difficult issue with Sudden Valley is that it's private property.
Brenner stated new regulations allow properties to be used to meet environmental
standards. Do it sooner rather than later. Christensen stated it's not as densely urbanized
as other areas they're working on. He assessed the different situations in the field, the
runoff isn't as bad as in other areas.
Brenner stated the County made a commitment to work with Sudden Valley and to
negotiate on some of the properties.
Kremen stated he agrees with Mr. Christensen. Contamination levels and infiltration
from Coronado and Academy, for example, are much higher than Beaver Creek. That's why
Sudden Valley didn't score as high. They have made a commitment to Sudden Valley, but
the County must take care of the higher prioritized projects first.
Brueske stated the chance for grant funding for Academy Road is good. That is a
factor considered in prioritization.
Kremen asked if project 2 is the house the City purchased and blocked off. Brueske
stated it is.
Mann asked if any of the new stormwater rules or development standards will
prevent them from having to keep spending money on retrofits. Christensen stated it will
help to meet the total maximum daily load (TMDL) and reduce phosphorous in Lake
Whatcom. It will take a combination of things to meet the TMDL requirements, including
the projects and the lot owners doing their part.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, 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
Brueske stated many roads were put in before stormwater requirements existed.
That's true for Academy Road. Some of the newer properties being developed are subject
to small lot residential standards.
Crawford stated the regulations they passed are forward - looking. This is looking
back to fix problems. This is road - centric, and not so much about houses.
Weimer stated most of these are funded from flood funds. He asked if they are not
worried about the health of the flood fund. Brueske stated the real estate excise tax (REET)
funding is only official through the end of next year. The flood fund budget includes this
program. This program will keep a healthy balance in the flood fund. If there is a huge
flood and they don't get federal aid, they may have to drop projects from this plan so they
maintain the emergency level in the fund. They've been successful getting grant funding,
and anticipate more grant funding for these projects. The program will be updated to show
the various sources of funding. With BBWARM, the fund balance looks very healthy. There
is a lot less uncertainty about what will come up. There will be a fund balance of $500,000
at the end of year three. That's right on with the assessment and expenditures. They're
not stockpiling money and they're not depleting the fund.
Weimer asked about the homeowner incentive program (HIP) running out of money
and whether the HIP will be funded through this plan. Brueske stated this plan only reflects
capital work, and doesn't include programmatic work. He doesn't know if the HIP will be
funded from the flood fund.
Christensen stated increasing demands of the national pollution discharge elimination
system (NPDES) phase II is a big source of programmatic expenses. The HIP may come
from the flood fund.
Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, read through and gave an overview of each
project in the Birch Bay section.
Middleton described project 15/25, the Birch Bay Drive and Pedestrian Project.
Mann referenced the North Bay trailer park project and asked about the alternatives
for privately -owned properties that pose a challenge. He asked if they are the properties
that get flooded if the County doesn't do anything. Olason stated there are upland and
lowland properties. There are no rights -of -way out there, so the County must work with the
property owners on the systems. The issue is how much liability BBWARM and the County
want to take on by working out a deal for an easement. If someone has a failing system,
they would like to sign it over to someone. That's where they are right now. So far,
they've worked within rights -of -way and tried to deal with drainage issues that are also in
the County's interest. As they work farther out into the full drainage system, they must
think about the responsibility for drainage systems that run through the properties of
multiple owners. No one is maintaining them, and they're getting old.
Crawford stated there have been concerns from Councilmember Brenner about not
vacating rights -of -way specifically for this reason. He asked if they can do road vacations
that reserve an easement for the County. Middleton stated it's something they want to look
into.
Olason stated the entire water quality treatment system for Cottonwood is in an un-
vacated road end.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, 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
Crawford stated he's in favor of vacating properties, but this validates
Councilmember Brenner's concerns about making sure they keep easements for this type of
work.
Brenner stated they could vacate roadways, not right -of -way easements. She asked
about the BBWARM and flood fund contribution. Brueske stated those contributions will go
towards construction.
Crawford stated all of the projects seem to be near one central point in Birch Bay.
He asked if they are looking at the biggest need in that one area, as opposed to all of Birch
Bay. Olason stated that in the original plan, the Advisory Committee wanted more
information on the projects and why they were having problems, which is why they initiated
the sub - watershed master plan. In the core area where they had the first sub - watershed
master plan, they had the most information. If they finish the second master plan and get
new information, they will have to reevaluate all the projects.
Crawford stated they are doing projects here because they have more information
here, not necessarily because it's the biggest problem in Birch Bay. Olason stated they are
looking at where they can get the most benefit, without jumping from one project to the
next without good information. The sub - watershed plans take several years to finish. Over
time they get better information and have a better idea of where to invest the money. It
does give advantage to areas where they have the most information. As they get more
detail, the plan will change.
Kremen asked if the Steve Halpin property is within the BBWARM area. Olason
stated it is. It is a private property situation on Birch Point.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, read through and gave an overview of each
project in the River and Flood section.
Brenner referenced the Marietta acquisition and asked how long the County will keep
paying for properties. A number of those properties aren't livable. The County seems to be
paying for more than anyone could get from them. People won't be able to build there,
which will lower the value of the property. Set a certain amount per buildable lot rather
than keep negotiating. Cooper stated the County may be required to pay what it does.
Kremen stated the County is required to pay fair market value.
Brenner stated fair market value sometimes doesn't consider whether the properties
can be built on.
Kremen stated fair market value is supposed to take that into consideration.
Cooper stated the properties are buildable from a regulatory standpoint.
Brenner stated she can't imagine anyone will build there. They won't get flood
insurance. Cooper stated they can get flood insurance.
Brenner stated the cost of flood insurance would cost more than the fair market
value of the property. Cooper stated hydraulic modeling is showing that if they can
complete acquisition and remove the levee, they can improve conditions on the other side,
where the infrastructure is located. The plan calls for setting back the right back levee all
the way to Ferndale Road. The models shows that they may not need to do all that if they
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, 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
can open up the left bank. In the grand vision, Marietta would be open, the water could
flow through, Slater Road would be raised, the right bank wouldn't be subject to over-
topping, and they would be able to maintain the entire transportation corridor.
Brenner asked about the sediment management pilot. The County stopped gravel
extraction in the river because of British Columbia (B.C.). B.C. has now begun to extract
gravel again, and they are getting great fish runs. Cooper stated they shut it down again.
Brenner stated B.C. continues to do it on years when there aren't problems. The
gravel extraction hasn't been a problem. She asked why they can't put a rush on it.
Cooper stated they are soliciting comments of what it will take to get to that point.
Crawford asked the name of the contractor on the Canyon Creek project. Cooper
stated it is Trimaxx Construction from Skagit County. They're doing a great job, and the
County got a great bid.
Middleton read through and gave an overview of the Swift Creek project section.
They are having a meeting about this project on October 3, and should have more
information after that.
Brenner stated she would like to attend the meeting on October 3. This is not fair to
people who have big problems with Swift Creek. She's not sure the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) will back down. The County has an obligation. She asked how
much longer the County is going to wait. Give the EPA an ultimatum. Middleton stated
that's between the Council and Prosecutor.
Brueske stated the flip side is the liability the County incurs from doing anything at
Swift Creek.
Middleton stated they will do some annual maintenance out there to try to hold it
together. The phase 1 projects will cost $60 million to $80 million. Whatcom County
doesn't have that, which is why the Executive is pushing the federal government to pay for
it.
Brenner stated stockpile the material in the meantime. Brueske stated there isn't
much room left to stockpile. Taking it off site will trigger EPA problems for moving
hazardous materials.
Brenner stated the EPA put the County in a position where people are at risk out
there. Give the EPA an ultimatum. Brueske stated they're moving forward as much as
possible, recognizing that they are trying to control liability. They completed the EIS, which
was a big deal. It pressured the EPA to finish its review. The County is asking for money
for the North Fork reroute. It's something they can do without touching the liability issue.
If they can reduce sediment transport capacity without triggering liability, it's important.
Brenner asked if they've asked the Canadians about getting involved. Middleton
stated that hasn't happened in a while.
Brenner stated get back to the stockpiling and letting people use it. It won't be a
problem if it's used in certain ways. No one has ever gotten sick from it.
Mann stated the County has a responsibility as a whole, and can't do something
unilaterally. Suing isn't a legitimate option. The attorneys are working on it. The County is
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, 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
52
53
doing as much as it can with the leverage it has. The EPA is hoping the County will take on
liability, and he doesn't want to do that.
Crawford stated Brenner can talk to Dan Gibson. If there is something they can do,
they can discuss it in executive session.
Brenner asked how far they can solve the problem if there is major flooding.
Middleton stated they can move the material, but can't remove it and deposit it somewhere
else. They are running out of space on the levee. That's why the County finished the EIS.
It's in the EPA's lap. There's not a lot the County can do to give the EPA an ultimatum.
Brenner stated she has a document from a scientist who knows that size particle and
says there is no problem with that size of asbestos.
Middleton stated that document was put in the EIS and is before the EPA.
Brueske stated the resolution approving the six -year plan will be introduced to the
Council at the next Council meeting.
3. UPDATE OF STATUS OF WRIA 1 PLANNING UNIT
Chris Brueske, Public Works Department, stated the first meeting of the Planning
Unit is next Wednesday. He used the last known mailing list of all the past caucus
members. He outlined a general process for the meetings. He doesn't know the status of
representation right now. He's asked the caucus members to present to the Council the
status of their representation. The facilitator will prepare a report on who the caucus
members are and how their selection was done. Have documentation showing how the
caucus met and how the representative was selected.
Crawford asked who is overseeing this. Brueske stated the County can't tell the
Planning Unit what to do. He envisions the steps they need to take. First, establish
representation and report it to the Council. Second, discuss the operating procedures and
decide if there are any necessary changes, including whether there should be a consensus
decision - making process.
Brenner stated she doesn't recall having people complain about the different groups
that composed the Planning Unit. Brueske stated he's had two different suggestions for
changing the composition. He's not making any decision, just facilitating the process. It's
up to the Planning Unit to change their structure, composition, and operating procedures.
Crawford asked if this is the continuation of the past planning unit, and whether
current rules still apply. Rules said that everything had to be done by consensus. Brueske
stated the operating rules specify that if there is no consensus, the issue is held to the next
meeting. If there is no consensus at the next meeting, the membership can vote and make
a decision that requires consensus of all the government caucuses and a simple majority of
the other caucuses.
Kremen asked if the Planning Unit has the authority to change the rules. Brueske
stated they have the authority to change their own operating procedures.
Brenner stated the State Auditor is going to audit the Joint Board. She asked about
the specific concerns raised about the composition of the Planning Unit. Brueske stated
concerns are about the role of government entities and the role of the smaller caucuses.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, Page 6
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
Weimer stated some of the smaller caucuses disappeared toward the end of the
process. Brueske stated the representatives of all the environmental caucuses resigned at
the end of the last meeting. This is why it's important to have a report on representation.
The private well owners are organizing and sending someone to represent them.
Karen Brown stated private well owners include 15,000 private well owners in
Whatcom county. Marco Herbert handed over all the information to her last May. They've
been actively meeting all over the county and getting people informed and signed up. They
never quit the process. They have been meeting monthly.
Crawford asked if the well owner organization is prepared to meet the criteria and
represent the caucus at the Planning unit. Brown stated it is.
Brueske stated the small water districts are also quite active.
Kremen stated the environmental representatives who resigned were frustrated. It
was a statement of nonsupport of the process.
Crawford asked if there is an organized effort to build an environmental caucus.
Weimer stated there is.
Brueske stated this is why it's important for anyone to be able to stand up and
participate.
Crawford stated he's been invited to certain caucus meetings. The most interesting
part of the meeting is to see who shows up.
Brueske stated he hopes they can get all the existing representatives, and they can
focus on certain things at the first meeting. He hopes not to have two hours of criticism of
the process and how they haven't met in years. There is a facilitator who will prepare a
report of representation and a proposed work plan and budget.
Crawford stated he attended a number of meetings in the last years they met. The
councilmembers were always very respectful to sit on the sideline and observe, not to
participate.
Kremen stated he agrees with Councilmember Crawford. The councilmembers
represent one of the governments. This is the Planning Unit process. They shouldn't inject
themselves into what the Planning Unit will do.
Brueske stated the subject of funding will come up. The County is a funding source.
Facilitation isn't free or cheap. If the County plans to continue professional facilitation or
hire technical consultants, there will be a cost.
Kremen stated there were costs before.
Brenner stated that's why they hired the new natural resources manager. Brueske
stated Planning Unit members have said they are interested in getting into the water
budget, which could get very expensive. The new staff person has a background in
hydrogeology and understands models, but the Planning Unit may ask for things that are
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, Page 7
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
highly specialized. The Council will see a supplemental budget request in October for the
facilitation contract. There will be four meetings.
Kremen asked if it will cost $22,000 to facilitate four meetings. That's insane.
Brueske stated the request for qualifications (RFQ) went out. One firm responded. All the
firms who worked on the Planning Unit before did not submit a statement of qualifications
(SOQ). Historically, Planning Unit meetings cost $5,000 each, including legal and facilitation
services.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on October 22, 2013.
ATTEST:
, Council Clerk
-, Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 9/17/2013, Page 8