HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session May 19 2009Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
May 19, 2009
Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 10:35 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. ANALYSIS OF MECHANISMS TO PAY FOR STATE AND FEDERAL STORMWATER
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
]on Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
(on file) and gave a staff report.
Nelson asked if they determined that the cause of the phosphorus loads they must
decrease is from development. Hutchings stated they have some work to do to sort out the
question of loading and impacts.
Brenner asked if the only solutions will be things they're already doing as a part of
other projects. Hutchings stated that's a policy question of how they integrate all the water
resource functions.
Brenner stated she's not comfortable with more unfunded mandates from the State
and federal governments when the County is already trying to comply.
Hutchings stated a question today is whether or not the costs associated with the
total maximum daily load (TMDL) study and the national pollutant discharge and elimination
system ( NPDES) permit can be accommodated with a funding mechanism that exists within
the boundaries of those mandates in a way that is fair and equitable, such as allocating the
costs back to those folks who are contributing to the problem. If they can answer that
question affirmatively, it's reasonable to ask staff to take the next step and start having the
conversation outside this room.
Nelson stated the NPDES and TMDL are State requirements. He asked why a great
majority of impacts and benefits are to the City if the City can't be included. If part of the
problem, the City must be part of the solution.
Kelly asked if the mandates have guidance or restrictions on funding mechanisms for
dealing with the mandates.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/19/2009, Page 1
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated there must be a funding plan.
Hutchings stated they must show they have the capacity to govern and fund their
plan, but the legislation doesn't say where funding will come from.
Brenner stated the Northwest Annex at Smith Road and Northwest Road should be
included in the NPDES boundary.
Chip Anderson, Public Works Department, stated they used a local stormwater grant
under the phase two program. One mandate is to bring a map. Wilson Engineering
acquired the most up -to -date data produced in 2008. The Department of Transportation
had better information, and Wilson Engineering used that on a geographic information
system (GIS) on a parcel -by- parcel basis to identify the specific census area. This is the
latest determination, as of 2008.
Kelly stated the boundary came from the State Department of Ecology.
Kelly asked how many plans are being used to achieve the TMDL and NPDES
requirements. Anderson stated now they are using the NPDES Stormwater Management
Plan and the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, which does not completely identify everything
they must do for the TMDL. Line items for the TMDL may change as they learn more.
Kelly asked for a list of the objectives from all sources. The main reason he's here is
to do something other than what the State Department of Ecology requires. He's waiting to
hear from staff about what that is. He wants to see the objectives. Have a policy debate on
those objectives.
Crawford stated make sure money goes to actual projects, not bureaucracy. He's
satisfied seeing the list of things for the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources
Management (BBWARM) District, and how little money is applied to administration.
Hutchings stated they're trying to figure out today if this model works. If so, demonstrate
that in the eyes of the community.
Brenner asked if consultant costs are considered administrative costs.
Christensen stated the Council will have input on the staff's response to and work
with Ecology. The Council will have a chance to make sure it is comfortable and the staff is
moving forward in the right direction.
Kelly stated the administration has a different set of objectives than the Council
does.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the NPDES permit is independent of
water quality issues with the lake. That permit still requires all the program work, including
public outreach, and other bureaucratic activities, whether or not there are water quality
problems.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Hutchings completed the presentation.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/19/2009, Page 2
Nelson stated Sudden Valley has a private road system and does a lot of stormwater
management in that area. Anderson stated they have a lot of source control and also 55
miles of private road, which has a significant impact on the system.
Hutchings stated he doesn't know how that will be worked out.
Nelson stated he doesn't know what other options there are other than the
equivalent service unit (ESU) mechanism. He'll have to take staff's word that this approach
is easiest and most equitable because he hasn't heard about any other options. Hutchings
stated the ESU model is staff's conclusion for the best option. The City of Bellingham uses
parcels and determinations of small, medium, and large structure sizes.
Nelson asked if they have justified using 4,000 square feet as the ESU. He asked the
difference between 4,000 square feet on a vacant, 20 -acre lot and 4,000 square feet on a
5,000 square -foot city lot. Hutchings stated they haven't gotten to the detail of a density
measure for this analysis.
Brenner stated she does not believe there is a substantial administrative cost for rate
credits when people reduce or eliminate their stormwater runoff. Have a list or chart to give
people. The system doesn't work well in Birch Bay, even though there haven't been many
complaints, because people don't have incentives for credit or exemption. Hutchings stated
they have incorporated into the Silver Beach pilot effort a checklist for homeowners on
retrofits and activities and the technical assistance to implement those items. Once they
work out how that will work administratively, they will have to incorporate a formal
incentive program. They will get there.
Brenner stated the NPDES isn't the same in all areas. Some areas will require a lot
more work, and other areas will require lesser measures. Eliminate bullet points one and
five on the slide entitled "Stormwater Utility because...." Don't imply that this won't raise
people's taxes. It's a tax, not a fee, because certain people don't receive a service.
Weimer asked if the discussions with the commercial and industrial people will
include whether they already take measures to clean their water before it enters the county
system, and if they won't contribute financially if it is clean. Hutchings described the Birch
Bay rate credit for industrial facilities.
Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, stated that if they can prove they're
maintaining it, they can get a rate credit.
Weimer asked if the County still needs $1.56 million if lots of people do activities that
qualify for rate credits. Hutchings stated those costs will still be there the first six years of
the program. Getting a program up and going is not scale- dependent.
Crawford referenced the $1.5 million needed in annual funding. He asked why they
hit industries so hard for fixing Lake Whatcom, when they're not in the watershed but they
have a lot of impervious surface. Instead, keep the Lake Whatcom portion a flat charge for
the TIHDL and the square footage for the NPDES portion. He has always thought that
people who should pay to fix Lake Whatcom water are those who use the water and those
who cause problems. This map doesn't justify that constituents in the Ferndale urban
growth area should work on Lake Whatcom solutions. Those who aren't using Lake
Whatcom water or aren't contributing to Lake Whatcom problems could pay only the NPDES
portion. He asked if that's possible. Hutchings stated it is possible. There are many ways
Surface Water Work Session, 5/19/2009, Page 3
to address the requirements. Acknowledge all those ways before taking this to the
community.
Crawford stated that as they move forward, connect Lake Whatcom with people who
benefit from Lake Whatcom, in terms of water users and pollution contributors. Anderson
stated they have to do a lot of work on the commercial and industrial side to make sure that
they aren't adversely impacting anyone. It shouldn't be inequitable to expect people in the
NPDES area who don't benefit from Lake Whatcom to pay fees similar to what people in
Birch Bay pay.
Crawford stated he's not excited about implementing this now, considering the
economy. The Council should wait until some point in the future when the economy begins
to rebound. Appropriately hold off until they are in a better financial situation.
Fleetwood stated they put in a placeholder of $3 million for the stormwater utility.
Now it's $1.5 million. He asked when that changed. Hutchings stated that amount was a
level of service three. It was based on assumptions of level of service.
Fleetwood asked if this is fair based on the fact that it's uniform and peer- tested
elsewhere. He asked how they concluded that the residential amount was fair. Hutchings
stated one reason is because it is based on similar rates applied elsewhere in this region.
Fleetwood asked if anyone has drafted a potential ordinance. Hutchings stated no
one has.
Weimer asked how much of the $1.6 million is new money. Anderson stated a
portion is already being spent. A lot of this was an attempt to wean the stormwater
activities off the flood fund. Many of the NPDES fees are new. However, maintenance and
operations of stormwater facilities would typically go to the maintenance and operations
(M &0) staff. They will have to augment those services. A lot of the new money comes
from a large network of stormwater facilities.
Weimer stated identify which money is new and which is a shift, when they talk
about this with the public. Also, look at budgeting the REET fund over the same six -year
period if they can use it. Anderson stated that was one of the items they didn't include in
the annual funding amounts, which they can add back in. They had to take a hard look on
impacts to residential and commercial uses. Sudden Valley and the Water District have a
high dues and fee delinquency rate. They had to look at realistic numbers for both
residential and commercial uses. That's when they decided to target only core stormwater
functions.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree that rate credits will make costs to others go up.
Most people don't cheat. She doesn't agree with some of the administrative things they
want to do.
Nelson stated he still wants to see economic impacts.
Hutchings stated they will begin to gather information about the commercial sector,
with the Council's approval. They will put together a public outreach plan to bring to the
Council this fall.
Fleetwood asked about public outreach now versus next year. Hutchings stated that
is a Council decision.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/19/2009, Page 4
Fleetwood asked if the Council affirms the impervious surface ESU model.
Kelly stated he's not ready to do that. He wants to talk to others about using the
impervious surface ESU model to justify allocating costs. There may be other ways to
justify that. It's nuts that they're still talking about developing at a large municipal drinking
water supply. The debate is whether those who live on the lake should pay more than those
who don't. He doesn't know at this point. He would like to know more information on why
they would use impervious surfaces as a basis for allocating costs.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Kelly continued to state he doesn't see a set of interim timelines. He would like to
know when and how the outreach will work. He's very concerned the Executive and
administration has a different idea about how this would be approached. He's not
comfortable with not having adequate public outreach. They have different messages.
Hutchings stated they haven't yet developed a public outreach strategy or timeline.
Weimer stated they were hoping to have this funding available in 2010, not 2011,
which means public outreach needs to happen now. He asked what a delay would happen
to the flood fund budget. Hutchings stated there were budget shortfalls when they went
into this budget cycle. They have bridge funds through 2010. The flood fund remains
healthy through 2010. In 2011, they better know what they're going to do. Income needs
to come in beginning in 2011.
Nelson stated he doesn't recall a the Council approving a formal timeline for
implementation or collecting extra funds.
Fleetwood stated it was an informal timeline. He prefers to begin a public outreach
process now, not in 2010. Hutchings stated they would need to have something to the
Assessor by October to collect an assessment in 2010. That is a really tight timeline.
Brenner stated they don't have adequate information on the costs of the NPDES.
These amounts shown today are completely different from what they heard from Jeff
Monsen. They are doing a lot. At this time, they shouldn't be moving monies around and
spending them. She doesn't know what the NPDES requires in terms of hard costs. It
sounds like the costs are variable, depending on what the County can do.
Nelson stated all the councilmembers want more information on this process right
now. Staff is asking if they want to proceed. Hutchings stated unanswered questions have
to be answered. He understands the magnitude of funds they must have and the options.
They know that using the impervious surface mechanism, which may not be the one they
want to use, they can get where they need to be. He asked how much more the Council
wants staff to do to refine the options before engaging the community in the conversation.
Do more investigation, get more answers, and think about how they want to engage the
community.
Kelly asked how the Council will provide policy on public outreach. He's heard that
staff is heading in that direction unless the Council says not to.
Myron Wlaznak, Bellingham, stated contact people in specific neighborhoods to do
public outreach. Find active residents in those neighborhoods. Everyone pollutes and
should pay a fee. He agreed with Councilmember Kelly. Show what they've done in the
Surface Water Work Session, 5/19/2009, Page 5
1 past in terms of project, outcome, and costs. Show the goals, objectives, and benchmarks
2 to the community.
3
4 Craven stated a fundamental question is deciding how much money they need to
5 raise. Closely examine the generic, non - program costs. Hutchings stated he will provide
6 that information. It's an example of what they can do to be compliant.
7
8 Craven stated identify the fixed costs of compliance before going to the public.
9
10 Kelly stated implementation of at least two plans has impacts on the budget. They
11 will have to debate if they are going to do just compliance or achieve a higher standard.
12 Then tell the public what that is. Now is the time to do this.
13
14 Weimer stated they need more discussion before developing a public outreach plan.
15 Hutchings stated he agrees. They had better not short circuit the public process.
16
17 Anderson stated he has started to work and talk with the neighborhoods. There are
18 efforts going on now.
19
20 Kelly stated try to meet the October deadline, or they are a year out. Craven stated
21 the work is going on now, it's just being funded other ways, including from the real estate
22 excise tax (REET).
23
24 Weimer stated the level of service they've agreed on, which he may not like, is
25 funded through 2010.
26
27 Brenner stated they don't know specifically where money is going. There's no way to
28 tell the public what they're really spending money on. Also, she doesn't pollute. She does
29 not have stormwater runoff on her property.
30
31
32 ADJOURN
33
34 The meeting adjourned at 12:36 p.m.
35 -
36 p �,
37
38 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
39
40 Th cil approved these minutes on July 7 2009.
42 A ��``,;% �Y QCr,'',l�'
o
• • • • • • V'�i1� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
43 ••*HAT'•. �j 1- WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
44 •
45 = �•� r.
46
47 — c
48 Jana.• r�wrazDa ouneil Clerk Flee ood, Council Chair
' ylNCs'�
Surface Water Work Session, 5/19/2009, Page 6