HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session March 24 20091
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
March 24, 2009
Council Member Carl Weimer, acting as the Chair of the Flood Control Zone District
Advisory Committee, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Whatcom County
Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham,
Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Bob Kelly
Carl Weimer
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2009 -024)
1. REVIEW COMBINED FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET REQUESTS
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, described the background of recent Board
of Supervisor and Council actions regarding the Flood Control Zone District. He submitted
and described a handout (on file) on the Flood Control Zone District fund balance analysis.
The amounts shown for 2009 and 2010 do not include the real estate excise tax (REET). It
is the final approved budget. The 2009 number does include the revenue generated with
the $.04 increase.
Crawford asked if they have planned to spend more than they bring in, which reflects
the lower estimates in 2010 through 2012. Hutchings stated the analysis begins a four
percent per annum increase in the spending side, beginning in 2010. Projects include a
flood control project in Deming, stormwater management response to the National Pollutant
Discharge and Elimination System ( NPDES) phase two permit. They understood that
stormwater expenses would increase due to NPDES and the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) study mandates. Those capital projects don't have to be built, however. There are
alternatives.
Crawford asked if the main revenue is from the property tax. Hutchings stated a
substantial amount of money comes from federal and State grants through the Army Corps
of Engineers.
Crawford asked if the County will still spend more than it will take in with those
grants. Hutchings stated it will.
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated they did not actually implement any
big flood hazard reduction projects in these years. They really haven't been working. on
implementing the plan. The last big project they did was in 2006.
Weimer asked if the decline would lessen if the REET funds are included. Hutchings
stated they didn't budget money for capital projects. They budgeted money for design work
for those capital projects. The budget enhancement includes additional design money.
They haven't double- budgeted.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/24/2009, Page 1
1
2 Brenner stated she's been told that costs of construction materials are going down.
3 Contractors are charging less because of the economy. The County could request aid from
4 the Army Corps of Engineers for things that it hasn't asked for. The County ought to take
5 more advantage of the Corps. Also, refine how they put things out to bid.
6
7 Hutchings stated that when they did this analysis before the December budget, the
8 number in 2012 was about $3 million. That is the number on the top line of the handout.
9 There have been revenue enhancements that resulted in additional revenues that brings
10 that 2012 number up to $4.6 million. In 2008, the ending fund balance went up.
11 Continuing appropriations hadn't been accounted for. They brought in a fair amount of
12 outside funding for projects. They didn't do the Sandy Williams project. The Acme project
13 was postponed to this year. They didn't have a flood in 2008. The work on the meander
14 limit analysis wasn't done. Those are some of the reasons why the 2008 number is larger
15 than expected.
16
17 Nelson. asked the amount they like to reserve for flood damage. Hutchings stated
18 the standard for many years has been about $5 million.
19
20 Brenner stated that they must do selective channel gravel dredging, or the flooding
21 will get worse. Dredging results in Canada show a better return of salmon stocks after
22 dredging. Cooper stated they hired a firm that worked on the Canadian study. The firm
23 said they need to do a detailed channel survey, which the County did in 2006. on
24 that field work and other topographical maps, the consultant predicts they will have enough
25 aggregation to convince permitting agencies that they do need to dredge.
26
27 Brenner stated it's obvious there is more fill in the river than there was 20 years ago.
28 Hutchings stated a Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee has a subcommittee to
29 deal with that issue.
30
31 Brenner stated this will get more and more expensive the longer they wait. Start
32 putting pressure on the State. The deposits are building up in the river and spreading out.
33
34 Nelson asked what the County is waiting for from this subcommittee. Cooper stated
35 the rate of aggradation will happen in 10 or 15 years to the level that they can measure it.
36 As material comes into the river, the sediment redistributes.
37
38 Nelson asked if there is not enough in the river to make it viable. Cooper stated that
39 is correct, according to the consultant. She will provide the report and consultant contact
40 information.
41
42 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's important to figure out the meander limits. Even if they
43 take out the sediment, the river will fill up again. Dredging is not a long -term solution. If
44 they want the river to behave like it once did, they must have overflow areas.
45
46 Brenner stated the river will never be exactly like it was. They must find a balance.
47
48 Hutchings stated there are three more upcoming supplemental budget requests the
49 Council will soon see. The first supplemental was for continuing appropriations. The
50 Council made the decision on that at its last meeting. The three upcoming are:
51 #2 Marine Resources Committee (MRC) grant pass- through, on March 31,
52 #3 proposed level of service (LOS) 2 Enhancements, on April 14, and
53 #4 January flood repairs and maintenance, on April 28.
54
Surface Water Work Session, 3/24/2009, Page 2
1 Supplemental #3 has a total net effect of $455,000, not including any State or
2 federal funding requests. There are funding requests for certain projects. They don't yet
3 know the outcome of those requests, so they aren't included in the bottom line. He
4 described the second page of his handout regarding proposed enhancements to the water
5 resource program level of service.
6
7 Brenner asked if levees are considered public projects. Cooper stated it depends on
8 what they protect.
9
10 Brenner stated they could use REET money for some of the levee repairs. Hutchings
11 stated they probably could.
12
13 He described each of the proposed additional expenditures on the handout.
14
15 Nelson stated the handout showing each of these proposed additional expenditures
16 should include information on how they're ranked on the coordinated water resource
17 integration project ( CWRIP) list. Hutchings stated they can't work their way from the top of
18 the CWRIP list down. It's more complicated than that. They must balance the different
19 program areas that need projects done.
20
21 Hutchings continued to describe the proposed additional expenditures.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
24
25 John Thompson, Public Works Department, described the coastal riparian function
26 assessment and restoration for salmon recovery and water quality project.
27
28 Weimer asked about funding for the Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands
29 (CPAL) program. Hutchings stated the original budget was $110,000. Of that, $85,000 was
30 scheduled for a compliance staff person. The remaining $25,000 will be spent on this
31 program.
32
33 Brenner stated the Lake Whatcom stormwater design should be paid from REET
34 funds. Also use REET funds for the flood repair portion of the Deficit Reduction /January
35 2009 Flood Repairs item on the handout. Hutchings stated they could do that. This plan
36 was based on what the Board of Supervisors already authorized.
37
38 Brenner stated that to reduce the deficit, use the REET funds, which are more stable.
39 Hutchings stated large capital investments are more appropriate for REET. Think ahead of
40 time about how they would access REET monies for those projects.
41
42 Caskey- Schreiber stated the REET budget already has a lot of park maintenance
43 projects.
44
45 Crawford asked about the Hillsdale Bioswale Infiltration/ Drainage Retrofit project.
46 He asked if they need to do some kind of modeling to handle the water farther up in the
47 Toad Lake Road area.
48
49 Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated this money accomplishes bank
50 stabilization projects between where the culvert is at Hillsdale Road and the County line. He
51 described the project.
52
53 Nelson stated it's number 65 on the CWRIP list.
54
Surface Water Work Session, 3/24/2009, Page 3
1 Crawford stated it doesn't fix the problem they experienced in January. Christensen
2 stated that is correct. It is a water quality problem. It does not fix the road or provide
3 flood control. It's about potential credits for the TMDL.
4
5 Crawford asked if another event like what happened would wipe out these projects.
6 Christensen stated it would not. The projects would have helped what happened.
7
8 Hutchings stated staff refined and produced a list of programs on the CWRIP ranking
9 list. All the projects for the enhanced level of service are in the top 20 percent of the
10 projects. The reason a project like CPAL, which is ranked as #35, is being funded over a
11 higher ranked project has to do with whether the project is ready for implementation, is
12 something that requires a lot of staff time, is awaiting permitting, or has an inadequate
13 cost - benefit analysis.
14
15 Crawford stated the Council didn't make this CWRIP priority list. The Council is
16 weighing in on those projects on the list, and also making them higher on the list.
17
18 Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated these aren't established
19 priorities. They are established benefits. The projects are ranked by benefit evaluation
20 scores. Establishing the priority is a policy decision of the Council.
21
22 Nelson stated they will use the CWRIP list as a tool for decision - making.
23
24 Hutchings stated all of the line items on the enhanced LOS fall in the top 20 percent
25 of the CWRIP list.
26
27 Nelson stated he would like a regular update of the CWRIP list, so he always knows
28 which version is the most factual. He would like the update before the LOS enhancements
29 come to the Council on April 14. Also, he would like an updated handout with the
30 enhancement projects that shows where each of the projects fall on the most updated
31 CWRIP list.
32
33 Cooper submitted a handout (on file) on the summary of sites damaged in the
34 January 2009 flood and included supplemental budget request #4 regarding January flood
35 repairs and maintenance, before the Council on April 28. She described each project. They
36 are trying to look at creative ways for providing a service, such as a jail crew, and get credit
37 for that higher cost.
38
39 The list doesn't include money spent on sand bags, which the Corps no longer
40 provides. It will cost $56,000 for sand bags and to hire the road crews. There is also
41 $100,000 going toward planning activities, including Jones Creek to explore alternatives
42 identified in the debris flow study from 2004. There is some money allocated to collecting
43 high water marks after the 2009 flood. Validate the hydraulic model with; Which they are
44 getting ready to map the flood plains.
45
46 This was a good flood event. For the first time in ten years, there was significant
47 flooding in Ferndale, which provides a better picture of how the lower river responds. There
48 is about $16,000 for the early flood warning system, which is the Jones Creek Stage Gauge.
49 About $362,000 will go toward flood damage repairs shown in her handout. Another
50 $200,000 is budgeted for the flood hazard reduction program, including land acquisition and
51 demolition. She showed a slide presentation of and described the flood damaged areas.,
52
53 Hutchings referenced his handout. When they add up all the supplemental requests,
54 the amendments to the ending fund balances are on the bottom of the first page. They
55 have been conservative in estimating these ending fund balances. They haven't accounted
Surface Water Work Session, 3/24/2009, Page 4
1 for anything from FEMA, other State and federal funding requests, or grants. The estimated
2 costs are also conservative. Therefore, they are going below the $5 million reserve for flood
3 events. At some point, they must correct that. Following the 2010 budget will be stepped
4 increases in expenditures to the budget in response to TMDL and NPDES requirements.
5
6 Nelson asked if they considered an option of flood insurance the County could
7 purchase, with a high deductible. He asked if they have looked into something like that.
8 Hutchings stated they have not.
9
10 Brenner asked if the Council will first have an opportunity to discuss the entire
11 County budget in general, before making these decisions. She would like to discuss REET
12 and other funds that have flexibility.
13
14 Weimer stated have a discussion on the status of REET funds and any other funds
15 that have flexibility in Finance Committee.
16
17 Hutchings described supplemental budget requests and other items coming before
18 the Council at upcoming Council meetings.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
21
22 Hutchings continued to discuss other items coming before the Council at upcoming
23 Council meetings. They will look at funding sources for the NPDES permit work and the
24 TMDL study work at the May meeting. If the Council wants to collect a stormwater fee in
25 2010, they have to have something on the roles in October. He is nervous about going
26 forward with anything requiring public involvement until there is some consensus on where
27 that's all headed. Therefore, the Council will have to take an initial look at the options
28 during the May work session.
29
30 Weimer asked for a discussion in May on upcoming requirements for the TMDL study
31 and the NPDES permit.
32
33
34
35 ADJOURN
36
37 The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
38 �)
39
40 -�-
41 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcripti n
42
43 T��Ciduauzrl�,pproved these minutes on June 9 2009.
44 ���`'� �( C O ���i
45 AT I�•,.H11••� "f/�i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
46 O .� �N _ C06 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
48 cOUNTY : r
49 -'
50
51 Dana Br FR6r$, Gierk �A the Council Carl Weimer, Flood Control Zone District
52 '�., �.`� Board of Supervisors Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 3/24/2009, Page 5
\ \ 30 2 'M 2 /