HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session September 21 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
September 21, 2010
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 10:33 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Garden Room, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N.
Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, L.
Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2010 -024)
Sue Blake, Cooperative Extension, discussed Water Week and introduced the water
week mascot.
1. WATER RESOURCE PROGRAMS FINAL BUDGET REVIEW
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted handouts (on file) of the Water
Resource Program database, the flood control zone district fund, and stormwater fund. He
read from a presentation (on file). The fund balance has declined since 2001. The
administration has taken steps to arrest that decline. There is a $5 million fund balance
required to respond to major flood events. They've talked about a resolution to establish
that necessary reserve. Talk about how to protect the remainder. They want to provide a
balanced budget consistent with Council priorities. Staff will provide a consistent way of
viewing the public benefit of various requested investments. The Council will establish
those priorities. The 2011 -2012 budget will focus on implementation.
They have developed a proposed level of service consistent with the level of service
(LOS) of 2009 -2010, as the Council directed. The picture looks better than it did in May,
due to projected changes in real estate excise tax (REET) money and grant money. He
described the changes, as shown in the presentation. The natural resources program has
less money in it than in 2009 -2010. Money has been reallocated to higher priorities. As
they are required to spend more money on stormwater, they speed less money on the flood
program. The Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee (FCZDAC) considered the
budget proposal.
Nelson asked the differences between stormwater and flood in terms of the budget.
Hutchings stated that if the environment is urban, it's about stormwater. If the flood is
associated with river, it's part of the flood program. The road program first responds to low
land flooding. There is a lot of connection between programs.
Nelson asked why the two are separate.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the River and Flood Division
addresses flooding problems from flood water coming down the Nooksack River. The
Stormwater Division responds to regulatory requirements for urbanized areas.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated the stormwater program is about
quality, and the flood program is about quantity.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/21/2010, 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
Nelson stated the public will have misconceptions about the difference between
stormwater and flood. Cooper stated they can put together information explaining the
difference.
Hutchings stated the stormwater program is new and driven around water quality
issues and regulations. Some actions to manage water quality have water quantity benefits
as well, which result in the urban work on urban stormwater, as opposed to the original
intent of the Flood District to control the impacts of river flooding. The Advisory Committee
understands and appreciates the work of both programs, but is not settled with the default
mechanism in place. The question is whether the Advisory Committee fully supports the
status quo or prefers to take a different look at other financing options that may be
available. The Advisory Committee was unable to forward a clear motion. He read the
motions from the Advisory Committee. Their motion recognizes that there needs to be
much more discussion about how to fund water resource programs countywide. They prefer
to have that discussion when the time is right.
Brenner stated she's received many complaints about money in the flood fund not
going to flood issues. That's difficult. There needs to be more separation. The ballot
measure had some wiggle room, but there must be direct association with flooding issues.
Hutchings stated that is a policy question. The Council can begin that discussion.
Christensen stated a lot of the flood money comes from the City, an urbanized area
that has no flooding. It does make some sense to spend money on stormwater.
Brenner stated flooding happens in all the cities. They acknowledged that.
However, some things have nothing to do with flooding. People voted for the flood funding
because people wanted to deal with emergencies and then other things if money is left over.
Those other issues should come from different funding.
Nelson stated they are starting to have projects that are in the gray area. They
must evaluate that, and have a clear definition of the two. The public perception of
programs is simpler than the use of the funds. They want to continue having the public
support of all programs. To have that public support, the County must be clear about what
it's asking for. Be clear to the public about what they're talking about when talking about
flooding, stormwater, water quality, and other things. They don't have that clarity now.
Hutchings stated the law is clear on the breadth of expenditures that can be made
from the Flood Control Zone District. Everything on the database is allowed by law. A
question is whether those things are Council policy.
Knutzen asked how many projects on the list can be done with the Army Corps of
Engineers. He asked if there is resolution to the Corps vegetation issues with the County
dikes. Hutchings stated the Corps has areas for which it offers federal support. Staff tries
to leverage that money when possible. Projects like Canyon Creek aren't in that class of
projects.
Cooper stated they have to pick the right program for the right project. Much of the
Corps money comes for repair after a flood. She hasn't heard from her Corps contact about
the status of the levee vegetation issue. There is a lot of conflict about the issue at the
federal level, because that policy is in direct conflict with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), which wants the vegetation to remain to protect habitat.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/21/2010, 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
Brenner stated the levee could break and destroy habitat.
Hutchings referenced the database handout.
Nelson asked if the database includes costs for each project.
Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated the database only includes
planning costs. They haven't done a lot of work on the projects beyond that.
Cooper stated that once a project has a budget, they refine the budget costs.
Hutchings stated that as projects come up in priority and enter the budget process,
they refine those numbers to bring to the Council for a recommendation. Each investment
on the database has a source from which the project originated. The database shows how
staff are allocated. The database also shows under which program area the investment is
being worked on. He referenced the budget handouts. The database document is the most
useful for determining whether they are working on the Council priorities.
One question from Councilmember Nelson is how they align items from the database
and map them into a budget. It's not a one -to -one relationship. One investment may have
three or four related expenditures on the budget. One project could appear in multiple
areas and cost centers in the budget. The opposite is also true. One line item in the budget
could address several priorities from the database.
Weimer asked about project three, which isn't happening because of loss of staff due
to attrition. The Council asked to strategically review which staff positions should be filled,
but the Executive seems to have given the administration orders to take attrition as it
occurs and factor it into the budget. If it wants, the Council can review any of the projects
that aren't moving forward due to staff limits. Hutchings stated it could.
Weimer stated it seems like the unfilled geologist full -time equivalent (FTE) position
is holding up a number of projects. Cooper stated the focus is on implementing plans such
as the lower Nooksack plan, which is adopted.
Brenner stated fill some of the positions that the Public Works Department staff
would consider most critical.
Weimer stated discuss how to fill the strategic positions that have been lost due to
attrition. Hutchings stated discuss that in the context of balancing the budget.
Crawford stated there is a 115- employee reduction being proposed. Through the
budget process, they will also have to look at how to find the money for any staff position
they want to fill.
Nelson stated there is no money allocated for critical areas implementation.
Hutchings stated it's not necessarily being done by the Public Works water resources staff.
Nelson stated that creates more confusion. Middleton stated the database includes
projects, programs, and plans from all departments to see the entire County prioritization.
The staff talked about just showing Flood Control Zone District projects for this discussion,
but decided to show all programs from all departments. It shows the relative benefit
between other projects and those projects mandated by State law.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/21/2010, 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
Nelson stated he only wants to see what is or isn't in the flood program, not things
that have to do with other departments.
Nelson asked if they can do a better job of completing the items already in progress
if they tighten up the list. Hutchings stated they could. There are some projects at the end
of the list that they accomplish because they have to do them. There are some things to do
because they were important to someone years ago, and a substantial amount of money is
invested already, so it makes more sense to finish the job rather than refocus on higher
priorities. Over time, they should see fewer in- progress projects at the bottom of the list,
and more in- progress projects at the top of the priority list.
Christensen described the line items in the stormwater fund handout, including
projects in Silver Beach, that will be funded in 2011 and 2012.
Brenner asked if they can set up different standards, such as with street sweeping,
between the Lake Whatcom watershed and other parts of the county. She asked if they've
ever set those standards. Christensen stated they have different standards set up for the
phase II areas and other areas in the county.
Hutchings stated there are different, more stringent standards for activities in the
watershed.
Brenner sated she would like to see the street sweeping schedule for the watershed.
She asked why they have contractors for street sweeping when they bought a street
sweeper. Hutchings stated that sweeper was for something different.
Christensen continued to explain the stormwater program budget.
Hutchings stated the repair and maintenance line items will continue to rise as they
complete projects that have to be maintained.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that comes with the territory as the
County becomes more urbanized.
Brenner stated there are landscaping methods that don't need to be replaced all the
time.
Crawford asked what happens with the money designated for maintenance of Lahti
Drive. Christensen described stormwater maintenance activities.
Nelson asked if they will have an ability to start getting those areas into the city
limits, and if this maintenance will have to transfer to the City. Desler stated it will.
Hutchings stated the City will reimburse the County based on a certain percentage.
Nelson stated they must be careful of where they put additional urban developments,
which will have future maintenance costs.
Hutchings stated the annual expenditures for stormwater is a little over $2 million for
2011 and 2012. That includes grants and REET money. The contribution from the flood
district remains the same as in 2009 and 2010.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/21/2010, 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
He described the line items for the natural resources section of the Flood Control
Zone District fund.
Brenner stated use volunteers to perform education to save money.
Cooper described the remaining line items in the flood control zone district fund
handout.
Hutchings stated they need to watch the public expectation associated with creeks
that are filling in. The County isn't in the business of clearing creeks that run through
private property. The expectation is out there. The department regularly gets phone calls
from the public who can no longer maintain their creeks due to State and federal
regulations.
This is the budget that they will officially submit to the Council.
Brenner stated the Council would like to review all the frozen vacant positions, to see
which should be filled.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council(g-.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 9/21/2010, Page 5