HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session May 18 20101
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
May 18, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial,
Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann
and L. Ward Nelson
Absent: Carl Weimer
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2010 -024)
1. COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL CONSIDER PUBLIC WORKS WATER RESOURCE
PROGRAM LEVEL -OF- SERVICE OPTIONS FOR 2011/2012 BUDGET
PREPARATION
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted a presentation and handout (on
file). This is about the surface water division of the Public Works Department, but not the
entire water resources planning effort in the County. He read from the presentation. In the
past, there was a decision to fund efforts like the water resource inventory area (WRIA)
from the growing fund balance. The ending fund balance has decreased due to WRIA, the
stormwater program, and two large projects in 2003.
Nelson asked why they established a level of $5 million for the flood response
reserve. Hutchings stated the money needed to pay for one large response or two smaller
flood responses is about $5 million.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated Pierce County confirmed those
numbers a few years ago.
Hutchings stated the ending fund balance is decreasing toward the level of just the
flood response. They must invest in activities that have been vetted through local planning
organizations and in adopted plans. They look at the priorities via the water resources
database.
Crawford asked for an updated copy of the database quarterly.
Hutchings stated proposals before the Council are traditionally brought forward from
local planning efforts. Budgets are based on what is in the plans. They want to check off
those activities the public has said are important.
Brenner asked if any of the projects on the list are eligible for stimulus money.
Hutchings stated not many. Swift Creek is a good example of persistently spending money
Surface Water Work Session, 5/18/2010, 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
on projects for reasons other than priority. Make sure they ask the questions at the point
they make commitments to spend local money. Staff time spent on a project can be
considered a matching contribution. He asked if the goal statement and sideboards in the
presentation are consistent with Council expectations.
Crawford stated he agrees with the goal and sideboards.
Kershner stated it's valuable to involve everyone, including the Council, from the
beginning of the planning process.
Crawford asked how the vacancy of Rebecca Craven's position affects the staff's
ability to implement projects. Hutchings stated there's an affect when large -scale policy
decisions are necessary from the Council. Ms. Craven was an important conduit between
the administrative staff and Council. It will be much more difficult to have a two -way flow
of information. It's important to have someone in the Council Office that has the time and
can communicate appropriately with the Council.
Crawford stated he would like to have Mr. Hutchings plan on not having that conduit
in 2010, even if they fill the position. Hutchings stated they've already planned on that.
He submitted a graph of the annual expenditure of the surface water division
programs (on file). This is the total program expenditure, not just the flood control zone
district dollars. It includes money from all sources, including grant funds and real estate
excise tax (REET) funds. Review what happens if they reduce the level of expenditures to
both projected levels.
Crawford asked if the amount of a potential Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) tax
rate decrease will be the same as the amount they increased, which is $940,000. Hutchings
stated there would also be a reduction of available grant money. The County brings in
about $4.3 million, and spends about $6.7 million, annualized in 2009 and 2010. That is a
leverage of other money in the amount of about 50 cents on the dollar. That is an
exceptional amount.
Cooper stated Army Corps of Engineers projects and investments are not accounted
for in these figures, because those funds don't go through the County.
Hutchings stated funds decrease in 2011 and 2012. There are fewer grant dollars
from the State, and it's difficult to anticipate any grant funds they may receive. They've
anticipated what they could. It's likely there will be a decrease in level of service because
they're moving into a year with fewer grant dollars.
Knutzen asked how they will account for the loss in service they may experience if
they don't include Corps projects. Cooper stated she will provide information on the Corps'
cost -share for 2009 projects.
Hutchings stated there is likely a level of service (LOS) decrease. Allocations
between programs will be consistent, except the natural resources program, and they
leverage 50 cents on the dollar. He submitted a handout of the FCZD expenditures (on
file). They are balancing their budget on the FCZD revenue. It is their base fund. They are
expecting a $1 million reduction for 2011/2012.
Crawford asked where the $2.8 million revenue comes from, which is the amount
between the tax revenue collected and budget expenditures. Hutchings stated $750,000
Surface Water Work Session, 5/18/2010, 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
came from the REET for urban stormwater capital improvements, $700,000 came from
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for flood mapping, hazard mitigation grant
funding, and other grant funding.
Nelson asked for a bar graph of the history of various money sources, including
REET, the current expense fund, grants, and other sources, and how those monies were
spent. Hutchings stated the most recent version was given to Council at January 2010
surface water work session. Staff will update it and provide a new copy.
He continued to describe the FCZD annual expenditures graph. He submitted a
handout of the water resource LOS options (on file).
Brenner asked why they are talking about reducing LOS.
Crawford stated he was opposed to the tax increase, and wants it reversed.
Hutchings described the funding sources in the LOS handout.
Crawford stated he would like to know how much they collect in REET 1 during less
than ideal economic times.
Hutchings stated the amount of REET funding for LOS 1 in the handout should be
.4M, not .8M, which is the amount they received for both years.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated REET 1 and REET 2 each earns about $1
million per year. The funding to FCZD is from REET 2 only.
Crawford asked how much REET collection dropped from 2006. Desler stated the
amount collected did drop. It used to be about $2.6 million.
Hutchings stated he is working on the assumption that REET funds for water
resources won't be continued to 2011/2012.
Brenner stated the highest priority for REET should be stormwater.
Crawford asked if the administration is ready to propose expenditures from REET for
2011 and 2012. They may talk about backfilling some of this funding decrease, particularly
if they lower the flood levy increase done last year. Desler stated the administration has
talked about the possibility of assigning about $1 million to the road fund for the
construction program, which could include stormwater. It can go to construction issues
related to parks, capital, and construction issues for roads. The road fund is under stress
from increasing ferry operations. Last year the administration proposed a levy shift. The
road levy would be shifted to the general fund, with no change in the property tax, and they
could shift REET money to the road fund.
Crawford stated some felt that levy shift was unfair, since only County tax payers
paid into the road fund. Desler stated that's correct. They can use $400,000 for
stormwater. They have a substantial fund balance in REET 2, which is about $5 million.
They have appropriated money for a number of projects from that money.
Brenner stated they need to re- appropriate that money. Don't make any
expenditures from REET until the Council looks at the REET money in the context of water
resources and stormwater LOS. The Council majority supported using REET money for
Surface Water Work Session, 5/18/2010, 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
other things within the last month or two, but it hasn't yet been spent. Put a hold on
expenditures from REET until they can look at projects in this context.
Crawford asked the administration to prepare a memo about the REET 1 and 2
income and expenditures in the last five years, including what has been allocated, but not
yet spent.
Brenner stated put a hold on the REET expense for the park shed.
Hutchings continued to describe the LOS handout regarding service summary. Items
in the service summary are based generally on the project database, with a few anomalies,
such as Swift Creek.
Crawford asked what will be saved if they reinstate .4M from REET 2 in 2011 and
2012. Hutchings stated they will do some stormwater projects. They will be able to build
some things that otherwise wouldn't get built. The reductions in funding will be reflected in
capital projects.
Brenner stated that if they are going to do a stormwater utility, make an exemption
for people who don't have stormwater runoff from their property, to create incentives.
Crawford stated he's not sure if REET should be reserved for stormwater projects
until he sees the memo about the history of REET. He is reluctant to finalize a decision on
spending REET funds at this time. Get more into budget discussions before deciding.
Hutchings stated the handout is a general representation of potential budget
changes. As he develops a budget with the administration, it will be done according to
these principals and what they know today. Between now and then, consider how they
want to fill funding gaps, if that's what they want to do. They can talk in more detail about
specific project reductions.
Nelson asked for a better understanding of the identity of the projects that fall under
the service summaries, for a clearer vision of what they're doing. Cooper stated she
historically cuts into the flood balance because it was big. A balanced budget will naturally
cut back the service levels and projects.
Hutchings stated he would like to see some consideration of what they do over the
next several meetings. Once they get through this initial budget discussion, they could go
to meetings every other month. Don't meet in June. Meet in July, to discuss summer
works. At that meeting they could discuss more in -depth how the projects in the database
are integrated into the service summary. There is no meeting in August. Meet in
September to discuss a draft budget.
Crawford stated that schedule looks great.
Brenner asked Mr. Hutchings to indicate where budget cuts would hurt the least.
Hutchings stated they have a mechanism of developing priority based on overall public
benefit.
Crawford stated the voters didn't approve the levy increase. Reduce it to the level it
was. Take the list of projects, including Lake Whatcom, Nooksack River flooding, and Swift
Creek, to the voters and ask if the public wants to fund these projects. Outline the projects
and benefits, and let the voters decide. He suspects the problem with that philosophy is
Surface Water Work Session, 5/18/2010, 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
that it will be hard to justify to the voters that they need a River and Flood position when
they are trying to sell on- the - ground projects. There will be bureaucratic stuff that goes
along with any proposal, which may concern stormwater staff. If they want to do that this
year, they would have to get going quickly. This schedule doesn't include those things.
Knutzen asked if Councilmember Crawford wants a voter initiative for each project,
or one package.
Crawford stated include them all in one package. The package would have to spread
the wealth. It would not be an advisory vote.
Brenner stated they need feedback from the Executive and Deputy Administrator
regarding LOS 3, because it includes cutting positions. She understood the administration
was going to bring forward recommendations. They must work on it all together. She's not
sure putting something on the ballot is the way to go. She would rather go through things
item -by -item, and decide what they're going to do.
Nelson stated he's not inclined to put such a vote on the ballot.
Crawford stated people would campaign for it.
Nelson asked why he hasn't heard about an initiative from these people for this tax
increase.
Crawford stated they assume the Council is going to raise property taxes and just do
the programs.
Brenner stated they need to go into the minutia and prioritize, rather than spending
time putting forward a vote.
Nelson stated the Council has a responsibility to do all the work they need to do
before putting forward any kind of vote.
Crawford stated that if the community thinks these projects are valuable and need to
be funded, they can vote to do that. It doesn't seem like people are interested in putting
anything on the ballot.
Nelson stated the councilmembers compromised on LOS when they finally approved
the tax. Now may not be the time to roll back the tax until they go through the process,
given the number of things being imposed upon the community, such as Swift Creek, the
national pollutant discharge and elimination system (NPDES), and many other water
resource problems. They need to evaluate things through the coordinated water resource
integration program (CWRIP) process.
Crawford stated he voted against the current level of service. It was too much. The
public had a direct reaction in the form of a petition and initiative. He is trying to be
responsive to the public.
Mann stated they can put the tax cut before the voters. It's consistent with the idea
of giving the voters all the information and letting them decide.
Brenner stated they shouldn't get into this.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/18/2010, 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
Crawford asked if the Council concurs with the schedule.
Brenner stated she wants detailed paperwork and the time to go through everything.
Hutchings stated they can set up a mid -level budget review at the July meeting.
Crawford stated make the project database available to the public to comment.
Hutchings stated there has been concern about the purpose and use of the database. He
and his staff have talked to those concerned. It's an objective mechanism to compare
priorities, which is important. Staff is happy to sit down with people to explain this.
Mann asked when the County sets the tax rates. Desler stated it's done as part of
the budget.
Mann asked about the potential stormwater utility. Hutchings stated a potential
stormwater utility has been discussed. Staff researched it. The Council passed a resolution
in 2008 to continue studying that option.
Mann stated these are major budgetary items that should be decided before
December. Decide these things in July or August.
Crawford asked staff to expand on the service summaries for LOS 2 and LOS 3 as
much as possible for the July meeting, and he will be prepared to make a motion at that
time. He's concerned some councilmembers may not feel they have enough information,
but he will be prepared to make decisions.
Mann stated the councilmembers need to be prepared to make a decision. He asked
about the LOS 4 option. Hutchings stated staff can consider whether a stormwater utility is
something the Council wants to do.
Brenner stated that if they approve a stormwater utility, it must allow people to take
responsibility for their stormwater and provide for an exemption.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:18 p.m.
J
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
1
360- 676 -6690 or council@�.omhatcornma.us
1
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 5/18/2010, Page 6