HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session June 16 20091 Whatcom County Council
2 Special Surface Water Work Session
3
4 June 16, 2009
5
6 Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. in the
7 Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial,
8 Bellingham, Washington.
9
10
11 Present: Absent:
12 Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson
.13 Bob Kelly Sam Crawford
14 Carl Weimer
15 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
16
17
18 SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2009 -024)
19
20 1. BIRCH BAY AQUATIC AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL
21 BUDGET REQUEST
22
23 Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, introduced the two agenda items. This
24 item will soon come to the Council as an ordinance.
25
26 Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation (on
27 file) describing the history of the district, the timeline for establishing a work plan, using the
28 logic model, the district budget.
29
30 Brenner asked for a list of acronyms. She asked if funding comes from the general
31 fund and road fund. Olason stated it doesn't.
32
33 Kelly asked for a list of partners. Olason stated they partner with the Environmental
34 Protection Agency (EPA) on a microbial source pilot project. The funds that pay for a lot of
35 the monitoring from the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) will be done in a couple of
36 months. They are trying to pick up funding from other sources.
37
38 Keats Garmen, stated the MRC has monitored freshwater outputs. The State
39 Department of Health (DOH) monitors the saltwater area. That won't have any effect on
40 County grants and activities.
41
42 Brenner asked if they talked about more than 50 percent going to capital
43 improvement projects. They talked about most of the money going to on- the - ground
44 projects, not administration. Olason stated it's where they looked at the original budget
45 estimates and where they were going to put the money. The education program is where
46 the bulk of the rest of the money will go. It depends on what you call administration.
47
48 Caskey- Schreiber stated that to start up, they must do inventory, prioritize, and
49 create a plan of attack for how they will do capital projects. They have a lot of
50 administrative ground work to do right now. Olason stated they are taking in a year's worth
51 of revenue, and are starting this in August. Originally, they talked about borrowing for the
52 first year's capital.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 1
1 Brenner stated they talked about the enormous costs of projects. They aren't going
2 to be able to do that if they have top -heavy overhead of people.
3
4 Brenner stated people are already paying for something, and they're not giving them
5 any reduction or exemption for doing low impact development (LID).
6
7 Kelly stated that to support the funding, he wants to know the source of fecal
8 coliform.
9
10 Weimer asked the number of staff people funded in the summary budget. Olason
11 stated they propose to hire a full -time watershed keeper. In the interim, the Public Works
12 Department staff will designate a staff person as a .5 full -time equivalent (FTE) employee
13 for six months. He will be that person.
14
15 Kelly asked about line item 6630 for services. Olason stated two areas have
16 services. The first is item two, the capital improvement project item on the work plan
17 proposal.
18
19 Brenner asked the reason for hiring a senior planner at the top step. Olason stated
20 they don't know who they will get. They want the position at a senior planner level because
21 they want to hire someone who will work independently. When they look at potential
22 internal hiring requirements, someone who applies may already be at the top step. They
23 don't want to be short of money if someone from another department qualifies. If the
24 employee is already at the highest rate, the employee won't start at the lowest step. When
25 they looked at the job responsibilities, the person is left alone to work on tasks
26 independently.
27
28 Brenner stated they don't need the highest paid planner to do this position.
29
30 Weimer stated they need to quit using the word "keeper," because that term is
31 already trademarked by the national keeper program. He has the same question as
32 Councilmember Brenner. The national keepers who do this work all over the country don't
33 get paid anything near $74,000 per year. If they are looking for someone with that
34 expertise, they could get someone for $50,000 or $60,000 per year. He asked why they
35 would spend more than they need to. Olason stated it's hard to recruit and retain staff,
36 which has been difficult in recent years.
37
38 Weimer stated it seems like 65 percent is too high as a benefits percentage.
39
40 Brenner stated there are many qualified local people for jobs. Many graduate each
41 year from Western Washington University. Don't say it's hard to hire and retain staff. The
42 County has an excellent benefits plan. She's tired of hearing that argument.
43
44 Fleetwood asked if the position has to be offered with these amounts, even if it's
45 budgeted. Olason stated they haven't gone through this yet with Human Resources. That's
46 up to the Human Resources Division. He assumes the amount budgeted is the maximum
47 amount offered.
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber stated one option is to give the employee a choice to drop down a
50 step. The County could choose to hire from outside the County.
51
52 Caskey- Schreiber stated she questions the benefits percentage being nearly equal to
53 the position salary.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 2
1
2 Christensen stated that is the same percentage as was used for staff positions in the
3 2009 -2010 Budget.
4
5 Weimer stated he has no problem with the money being there so they can hire who
6 they need. He doesn't want to hire someone for $74,000 who may have taken the job for
7 $60,000. He would like to see a summary of the benefit costs. He asked if they have to
8 follow the same hiring rules since the position is being hired by the Flood District, not the
9 County. Olason stated he understands that the funding is being transferred to the account
10 that the Public Works Department bills to. The staff would be a County staff person in the
11 Public Works Department and subject to hiring requirements.
12
13 Robyn duPre, ReSources Executive Director, stated they actively operate the
14 Northsound Bay Keeper program under license to the National Water Keeper Alliance. The
15 "keeper" term is trademarked, and they will sue the County. The National Water Keeper
16 Alliance is vigorously defending the "keeper" mark because it has industry roots.
17
18 She asked if they have considered contracting that position out and hiring an actual
19 keeper to do that work. That would cost less than the salary and benefits budgeted. Keep
20 that in mind.
21
22 Olason stated they have considered contracting to some degree. The question is
23 whether the Public Works Department and Board of Supervisors would administer this
24 program. One problem is the County hiring freeze, even though this position is through a
25 separate fund. The issue is who will be responsible for the staff.
26
27 Kelly asked the scope. Olason stated he would provide a copy of the scope for the
28 Snohomish County staff, who runs and administers the program independently, with
29 minimal supervision and oversight. That is the goal of this position. Ultimately, the goal is
30 what is best for the long -term success of the program.
31
32 Brenner asked what the advisory group would prefer. She would like to know their
33 response.
34
35 Garmen stated the advisory committee hasn't discussed alternatives with Public
36 Works Department staff. They are keen on accountability. The advisory committee will
37 watch the budget and activities very carefully. He doesn't know what contracting would
38 mean in terms of that kind of accountability.
39
40 Christensen stated it's harder to keep track of a, consultant than staff.
41
42 Weimer stated the budget doesn't include any overhead for supervision. Olason
43 stated support is inherent in all the flood subzones from the River and Flood Division. The
44 Public Works Department staff and administration are trying to deal with rate adjustments
45 to keep the watershed keeper on a more positive stance with the community. Someone still
46 has to do the fee role and other administrative tasks. The staff input will taper off over
47 time, but not completely.
48
49 Weimer stated the Public Works Department staff and advisory committee would
50 have to provide oversight to a contractor.
51
52 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, A.)
53
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 3
1 Christensen stated an internal staff person will have to communicate with other
2 county staff, which is an advantage. It will function better.
3
4 Brenner asked to know the least amount of administrative oversight they need, by
5 law. ReSources and other groups have been around for a long time. She would rather
6 contract with an organization that does that type of work, rather than reinvent the wheel.
7
8 Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology, asked if design standards will
9 follow the Ecology manual guidelines when they contract out for designs.
10
11 Olason stated they will adopt the stormwater manual anyway. The engineering
12 contactor will be required to meet County standards.
13
14 Hood asked if maintenance and operations (M &O) standards will apply to both public
15 and private.
16
17 Olason stated they haven't even started yet. He assumes they will have best
18 management practices (BMP's) for both. They will inventory who is responsible for certain
19 things.
20
21 Hood asked if this will be covered in the municipal separate storm sewer system
22 (MS4) permit, so it's all integrated.
23
24 Olason stated they are trying to parallel that process. The Birch Bay watershed isn't
25 all urban. There may be a distinction between the two for the new permit.
26
27 Weimer asked how they are going to meld the shellfish protection district into this.
28 He asked if those costs are included in this proposal. Olason stated they want to partner,
29 but the committee made it clear they want to have clear accounting.
30
31 Kelly stated he has questions related to the broader scope of what's going on. He
32 asked when he can ask those questions. When he looks through the logic model work
33 plans, nothing is related to enforcement. Olason stated they are not an enforcement
34 agency. They will participate with EPA and other enforcement going on.
35
36 Kelly referenced work done in the Chesapeake Bay. The biggest, most effective tool
37 they had was enforcement. He spent 15 years working on Drayton Harbor's problems. He
38 doesn't want the County to set up another program that doesn't give answers. Learn why
39 Drayton Harbor is so broken. Even now, no one can even guess at the causes of the
40 problems up there. They don't know how to address the problems. The one thing they
41 haven't done is enforcement. As the Council moves forward, he will continue to push some
42 sort of enforcement effort in this program. It doesn't make sense to spend a large amount
43 of money if enforcement isn't attached to the program.
44
45 Weimer stated they know the smoking guns in Drayton Harbor. It will soon come to
46 enforcement. That is one benefit of hiring a contractor, who can do that enforcement
47 separate from the County.
48
49 Kelly stated include enforcement in the scope of work somehow. Olason stated they
50 talked about having an active person doing education, assisting with sampling, knowing the
51 watershed well, and advocating the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resource
52 Management ( BBWARM) programs. BBWARM is set up to be non - regulatory.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 4
1 Kelly stated the two have to travel together on parallel tracks. He's not against
2 anything in the work plan. There must also be an enforcement component.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated staff could vet out the staff versus consultant options. She
5 wants to hear more about the pros and cons of both options. She likes the fact of having
6 someone who is freer to be more objective with recommendations and not having to worry
7 about political fallout. This body is not designed to fund enforcement, but it can make
8 enforcement recommendations, which the County can address with its own staff. Olason
9 stated that is an advocacy role that is difficult internally. If they come forward to the
10 Council at another public hearing without the advisory committee discussing this with
11 alternatives, they will have this debate all over again.
12
13 Caskey- Schreiber stated take it to the advisory group and discuss it. She's heard
14 about a lot of smoking guns regarding Drayton Harbor. They must deal with each stream.
15 They are gradually trying to deal with each smoking gun as it comes up. They must
16 consider how much they are going to clean up what's already contaminated.
17
18 Brenner stated data shows they spend less money with education and incentives
19 than on enforcement, which is expensive. She supports enforcement, as long as people
20 have alternatives, including incentives. The low impact development option doesn't include
21 incentives. Exemptions and reductions won't reduce homeowner costs completely, but they
22 will be incentives. Without that carrot, the same few extreme people will be the only people
23 who will do these things. The State already came out with a low impact development (LID)
24 manual that the County can adopt by reference. Don't spend any more money on
25 consultant work to look into LID methods. Just do it. That should be the biggest focus right
26 now.
27
28 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, asked if the Council is asking the
29 committee to review the position and take a look at the option to contract the work. That
30 will take some time. The schedule will slip. He asked if the Council understands that July 7
31 will no longer be the day this is introduced.
32
33 Brenner stated the advisory committee can discuss it at its next meeting tomorrow
34 night. Hutchings stated the committee can begin to discuss it. To fully understand the
35 position and all the options, and lay all that out before the Council, will be messy.
36
37 Garmen stated the County adopted the stormwater plan in 2006. They had hoped to
38 operate it by 2007. They aren't there yet. They like the job description of the watershed
39 keeper. The issue is whether this position should be within Whatcom County or elsewhere.
40 They must move ahead. They don't want more delays.
41
42 Weimer stated they can approve the money in the budget, and continue to discuss
43 how that staff money is spent. They do want to move forward and keep the momentum
44 going.
45
46 Fleetwood stated introduce an ordinance at the first meeting in July.
47
48 2. LAKE WHATCOM STORMWATER FUNDING FOLLOW UP
49
50 Chip Anderson, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
51 (on file).
52
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 5
1 Brenner asked why maintenance and operation (M &O) won't do illicit discharge
2 detection and elimination. Anderson stated they will do some of it. It's a separate item on
3 the permit. This seemed to be the most intuitive way to itemize these items. They are
4 keeping the administrative costs low. Much of the money will be spent in the field doing the
5 work to address the problems. Work on IVl &O and illicit discharges will go hand -in -hand. It
6 could also take a lot more work, which may be done jointly with Department of Ecology
7 (DOE). Hardcore enforcement goes to the DOE.
8
9 Caskey- Schreiber asked for a description of this inventory of illicit discharge. She
10 asked what is considered an illicit discharge, what they are looking for, and which water
11 body they are concerned with. Anderson stated an illicit discharge is anything not normally
12 found in stormwater runoff. The person will be tasked to find the source. The source is
13 when it reaches the County's stormwater system.
14
15 Caskey- Schreiber stated they won't get that done for $600,000. The tracking alone
16 will be very expensive. They have to do an inventory first, before recommending actions.
17 Anderson stated they have the beginning of a detailed inventory. They used the local
18 stormwater grant to create the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) map. They
19 hired Wilson Engineering to compile all the data, including date form private stormwater
20 systems. Now it's all on a comprehensive map. They have it all in geographic information
21 system (GIS) form. It will require doing some stream blocking and other things. This
22 person will deal with things as minor as educating people about draining a swimming pool,
23 which is an illicit discharge. There needs to be follow up to these issues. This is an ongoing
24 timeframe.
25
26 Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology, stated the County is obligated
27 to take on enforcement from the permit, not Ecology.
28
29 Anderson stated the County would get Ecology involved with any gross polluter. The
30 County would call Ecology immediately to get them involved.
31
32 Hood stated Ecology may be there in an advisory role, but would expect the County
33 to take the lead on enforcement.
34
35 Caskey- Schreiber stated it sounds like the County shouldn't call Ecology if there is a
36 major violation. The County should work with the person on compliance instead.
37 Otherwise, Ecology could sue the County. Anderson stated the County is required to call
38 Ecology if there is a gross violation.
39
40 Hood stated Ecology may be there to help the County, but the County must get
41 these people in compliance. They have had complaint issues before where the County is
42 unwilling to issue penalties after many months.
43
44 Caskey- Schreiber stated it sounds like enforcement must be a key component. She
45 asked if anyone is doing enforcement. Anderson stated Planning and Development Services
46 Department staff must do enforcement.
47
48 Caskey- Schreiber stated that position has remained vacant for some time. It's
49 funded, but the administration resists filling the position.
50
51 Anderson continued to read his presentation.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 6
1 Hood asked how this integrates with the total maximum daily load (TMDL). Know
2 what they are going to do with roads, public spaces, and residents in the long -term.
3
4 Anderson stated a portion of this would take care of the permit. There will be other
5 TMDL costs, such as road costs that will come from the road fund.
6
7 Kelly asked if implementing a phase two plan is in line with the goals of TMDL
8 advancement. There are different standards that have to be met for both, which may not
9 be achieved. Anderson stated the two are in line. The TMDL plan will be an enhanced
10 National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) phase two plan.
11
12 Kelly stated they should be clear about that and say that up front.
13
14 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they don't have to retrofit anything in the Lake Whatcom
15 watershed.
16
17 Hood stated (inaudible) to meet the TMDL goal, they would have to retrofit. Meeting
18 the permit is not adequate for meeting the TMDL.
19
20 Brenner stated Birch Bay is not in the first phase, but it will eventually be in NPDES
21 phase two. She asked if they will pay twice, since they are already paying for stormwater.
22 Olason stated the County will have to figure out if Birch Bay will remain as a watershed
23 district or will meld into something else. Ultimately, what Birch Bay residents pay now is
24 similar to what they would be paying.
25
26 Anderson continued to read the presentation on the NPDES Phase II area map, the
27 rate class breakdown, the NPDES Phase II cost per equivalent service unit (ESU), and Lake
28 Whatcom cost per ESU.
29
30 Brenner asked if they will determine the rates separately for Lynden and the other
31 cities as they become part of the NPDES, even if it will end up being less for everyone.
32 Anderson stated they have the cost to run the program and number of potential customers.
33 They can create a formula however they want.
34
35 Brenner asked if the cities will do something separate from the County. Anderson
36 stated that as the new areas come in, they will probably become part of the larger
37 stormwater utility.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
40
41 Anderson continued to read the presentation on the public outreach strategy.
42
43 Brenner stated that just because Birch Bay did what it did, don't foist that on any
44 other areas that haven't participated. Anderson stated he agrees. These decisions will.all
45 be up to the Council. These are just the numbers. They can present it in many different
46 ways. A key of the public outreach plan is to find out what people will expect in terms of
47 level of service.
48
49 Brenner .stated make sure to ask people if they expect to pay more if they also
50 expect a higher level of service.
51
52 Fleetwood stated it will be a difficult exercise. Instead, the Council should propose
53 and adopt an ordinance in an orderly, lawful process. People will complain about the
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 7
1 concept of this idea. The process seems like a headache when the Council is empowered to
2 just adopt it.
3
4 Weimer stated this money doesn't cover everything they need to do for the lake.
5 The road fund won't cover it, either. He asked if they will ever know what they really need.
6
7 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the bottom line is that they don't
8 have a TMDL yet. They can't go forward with a list of activities that they can't somehow
9 justify with an approved Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan. It
10 becomes difficult for the Council to tell the community to pay for a full suite of activities,
11 when the mandate is still fuzzy. There will be a body of activities they will have to do
12 anyway. The stormwater plan is the place to start. There are other additional activities
13 they've talked about, such as low impact development and the basics of the NPDES permit.
14 Those things are included because they know they will have to do them anyway, and it's
15 clear. Between what they know they have to do and what they suspect will happen is
16 probably the limit of what they can charge people for.
17
18 This stormwater utility thus far has been clearly focused on meeting mandates. After
19 the January flooding event, they know it will be very easy for expectations to creep up
20 about taking care of flooding problems. The County won't be able to meet those
21 expectations. People will want the County to take care of private property issues when they
22 are paying the tax. There is a question of whether it's appropriate to do more and go
23 beyond water quality - related issues. The purpose is still water quality. They have to strike
24 a balance to be successful.
25
26 Weimer stated that if they are going to take a flogging over $100 per year, they
27 might as well take a flogging over $130 per year, and do what they know they need to do.
28
29 Brenner stated the flooding areas have their own subzones. That's the option. This
30 fee isn't an insurance policy. It's for the general stuff. Local areas can set up a flood
31 subzone. Make sure people don't expect the County to be an insurance policy.
32
33 Hood asked if the fee is for basic, comprehensive stormwater stuff. He agrees with
34 Councilmember Weimer in being clear about the true costs.
35
36 Anderson stated they have to make sure there are no.adverse impacts to commercial
37 and industrial properties.
38
39 Hutchings stated this presentation answers questions brought up at the last surface
40 water work session. They intend to develop a public outreach strategy to ensure a level of
41 public buy -in that will be necessary to make this work. In his opinion, they have one
42 chance to get this right in the next five to ten years. If they don't, and end up with some
43 big political problem, they end up experiencing the backlash. People in the watershed will
44 sue the County for not getting work done, for example. They have to get it right.
45
46 Fleetwood asked how they measure "getting it right." He asked if the Council should
47 conclude that a lack of response as a reason to not implement it if they don't get the kind of
48 response they hope for. If they were to present an ordinance that went through public
49 process, it wouldn't be a snap decision. They've been through this for years.
50
51 Brenner stated the public hasn't been involved for years.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 8
1 Fleetwood stated they have a representative democracy. He's not familiar with a
2 Charter provision that says every increase in anything shall go to a vote of the people.
3
4 Olason stated they have learned a few things from Birch Bay. If they don't work
5 with the commercial owners to make sure they don't bankrupt anyone, they will lose. Make
6 sure the tax is fair. That takes some real work.
7
8 Kelly asked what prohibits someone from intervening and saying that the
9 governments are delinquent in terms of meeting water quality statutes. Litigation works
10 both ways.
11
12 Weimer stated they must find a way to make the fee fair for large commercial
13 ventures.
14
15 Fleetwood asked if the Council agrees with the public outreach strategy.
16
17 The Council concurred.
18
19
20 ADJOURN
21
22 The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
23
24
25
26 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
27
28 The Council approved these minutes on July 7 2009.
29
30 ATTEST;��`�.�`� C O"�i,� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
31 J�•tiATC .•N� % WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
32
33 NN
34
35
36 Dan3Brow is C ail CItzrk Fleetw Council hair
%� •. qsH NG.••�
Surface Water Work Session, 6/16/2009, Page 9