Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 8 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee July 8, 2008 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Bob Kelly Also Present: Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FUNDING MECHANISM TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THOSE RECEIVING OR WHO WILL RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE STORM WATER CONTROL FACILITIES OR PROGRAMS AND THOSE WHO ARE CONTRIBUTING TO AN INCREASE IN SURFACE WATER RUNOFF IN THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED AND AQUATIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AB2008 -260) Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, discussed this item and the next item together. The presentation by the consultants at the Water Resources work session on April 15 provided an overview. The funding amount in the proposed budget in the rate resolution is based on the plan that was done for Birch Bay and adopted by the County Council. The Comprehensive Stormwater Plan included its own budget and programs. The consultant stayed true to the premise, determined the cost, and went through an exercise to come up with funding for those programs. The public has been confused that the funding plan is based on that Birch Bay plan. If they deviate from that rate proposed, they will have to address which programs in the plan they .won't do Staff had a meeting with the public on May 21. About 45 people attended. The meeting was advertised. Staff sent out announcements to 4,000 people. Many people from the east part of the watershed attended. They were less aware of the planning process and less supportive. They expressed confusion about the benefits, and the fee was an issue. There was also a percentage of attendees who supported the program. He will provide the Council with a final report from the consultant. The advisory committee met July 1 to review the funding mechanism. They voted 5- 0 to support the resolution with a caveat. He will provide a staff report and a letter from the committee (on file). Based on comments from the committee, staff made a few minor changes to the resolution. The committee did not vote on the rate resolution. The department felt it had to provide a rate structure to fund the plan, whether or not that is acceptable. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 1 Brenner stated she heard that the advisory committee received additional or changed information one day before they were supposed to vote on it. Olason stated the original resolution was called an ordinance, so that had to be fixed. Also, they originally proposed using the Hearing Examiner for appeals, but there were concerns about whether the Hearing Examiner would have time. They added administration as a function of the fees, which they anticipated anyway. He submitted the supplement to the resolution in the Council packet, including changes as a result of the advisory committee a letter from the advisory committee (on file). Item 20 should be changed from the handout. The committee's changes didn't make it into the handout. It should be, 'Undeveloped Parcel' means any parcel of real property which has not been altered by construction of any structure, eFtt or other impervious surface area. Whieh affeets the hydraulme prep ICMO V1 01upaFeel." Get rid of the term `improvement.' In the process they come up with, a parcel is looked at as a single parcel. What is on that parcel dictates whether or not a fee is charged. If it's not developed with an impervious surface, whether or not its in a subdivision, they don't intend to charge a fee to that property. If a lot in a subdivision has sewer and water to the lot, but isn't built on, the lot would not be billed until a house is built. Crawford stated Title 20 defines a structure. Keep definitions consistent. Weimer stated the advisory committee was concerned that the County isn't charging unimproved parcels that are kind of improved. The advisory committee set that issue aside and voted to bring forward the resolution as it is, as long as they clarify what it means. The Council and advisory committee can figure out the issue of undeveloped subdivisions. The intent was to not charge a fee until there is a structure on the lot. The language that references "improvements" could be interpreted to mean something like a driveway or parking lot. Olason stated structure' is okay. Crawford stated it's a little vague. There has been a rather broad application by the Planning Department of the term "structure." However, this isn't Title 20. Weimer asked if a parcel with a parking lot would pay a fee. Olason stated it would. The parking lot is a structure. Brenner asked if a parcel with just a field would pay a fee. Olason stated it would not. Crawford stated include the definition of "structure" in the code. He suggested an amendment, "...altered by construction of any , iffiffevement er ethe impervious surface area. ." The Committee concurred. Olason continued to read the changes in the supplement. Items D.6 in section 5.0 was amended and item D.7 was deleted. The unit rate refers to whatever the residential service unit is. There will be at least a minimum charge, no matter the size of the developed parcel. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 2 The advisory committee also amended Section 9.0 to incorporate the term enterprise.' They won't bill the landowners and spend the money on whatever they want. The fees will go into a special fund dedicated to stormwater programs for the Birch Bay watershed. Brenner stated the term `enterprise fund' sounds more grandiose than just a dedicated fund. Olason stated it was added for more internal consistency amongst terms. . He submitted a letter from the advisory committee and a staff report on the vacant subdivision issue (on file). The advisory committee's agreed to move this forward with the caveat that they deal with vacant subdivisions. One of the key issues with vacant subdivision provision is that they look at per - parcel based impervious surface as the trigger for whether or not they charge a fee. In all the residential subdivisions they've looked at, they've never charged for roads. They don't intend to charge for those roads, which are part of the overall development. The fees are based on the people in the houses in the development. Weimer stated the resolution exempts County roads, but not private roads. Olason stated that was a specific decision. In practice, they charge by parcel, assuming the parcels are serviced. They may want to clarify that. They didn't exclude roads in areas that are non - residential. If they do consider the vacant subdivision rule, they have to come up with a rationale because new subdivisions have stormwater systems installed. They would be at their least affected rate. Most of the property would not be developed. The idea is that the subdivision is designed with a stormwater retention system to handle the built -out subdivision. There is a question of justification. The staff report includes a series of questions about how and when the fee is applied. If there is something the Council is interested in pursuing that isn't included in this resolution, instruct staff to look into it further. Take this proposal and set it aside for now. Use what's proposed, and revisit this after it's had time to be reviewed more thoroughly. Weimer stated a question is how to define the difference between an undeveloped parcel in a subdivision and an undeveloped parcel not in a subdivision. He doesn't have a good way to do that. Brenner stated err on the side of being careful, and don't do it. Olason stated that the recommendation is to consider the vacant lots in subdivisions in the future, and adopt the resolution as it is now, rather than spend another six months reviewing it. Fleetwood asked how realistic it is that they would be able to bring back the resolution. Olason stated they will have other things to look at in a year or two. There may be a number of things that come up that they will want to change. It won't sit for ten years, for example. Fleetwood stated he's inclined to let it go. Weimer stated he's not concerned about these undeveloped lots. The fee is based on impervious surfaces. He's fine with setting it aside right now. Kelly asked if they will have enough funding. , for implementation, and when implementation will start. Olason stated they will have to come up with the fee roles over Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 3 1 the next few months. Money won't actually be collected soon. However, they are 2 considering administrative efforts in the first year to get things up and running. If adopted, 3 there will have to be dedicated staff. 4 5 Kelly asked if they will have to collect funds to begin implementation before the fees 6 are collected. There are ways to do that. Olason stated that's up to the Council through 7 the budget process. Staff anticipates starting the first of 2009. If they do that, there will 8 have to be provisions for the lag time. 9 10 Weimer stated both resolutions are based on starting collections the first of the year. 11 12 Kelly stated there are many plans. Make sure they have funding for and to do 13 implementation. 14 15 Fleetwood stated the subarea plan tolerates zero runoff. From the beginning of 16 implementation, they will be in violation. They don't have the means to ensure zero 17 pollutants in the runoff. 18 19 Brenner asked why that language is in there. 20 21 Fleetwood stated it was included to raise the notch. He doesn't like the title in 22 Section 1.0. 23 24 Fleetwood stated he doesn't like the resolution title or Section 1 in Exhibit A. 25 26 Weimer moved to recommend approval of the substitute version, as amended, to 27 the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors. 28 29 Fleetwood stated the resolution title suggests that an individual receives the benefit, 30 but the benefit is clean water for the entire community. Olason stated there is a variety of 31 benefits, such as education, not having higher taxes because problems are prevented, and 32 other broad benefits. 33 34 Crawford stated he likes the resolution title. It's a broad umbrella that emphasizes 35 those who benefit and those who contribute. 36 37 Weimer stated they need to include roads as they were included in the Lake 38 Whatcom watershed. They can db that in the future. He asked how they know that private 39 roads aren't included. Olason stated it is expressed indirectly. 40 41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one side A.) 42 43 Olason continued to state that the fee is based on a per - parcel basis, and roads are 44 typically not part of the parcel. They are right -of -way along property lines. They may need 45 to clarify both under that section. 46 47 Crawford referenced item D.2 of section 5.0, and asked if State roads will be 48 charged. Olason stated the assumption is that they aren't charging any public roads. 49 50 Crawford suggested an amendment to D.2, 'tit'y: Count and;.State Roads - City, 99 Y,. 51 County, and, State Roads shall not be charged." Olason stated it doesn't get at the access 52 roads within developments. For the most part, with the exception of larger subdivisions, 53 they are going to be public County roads. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 4 1 2 Weimer stated all the roads in Birch Bay Village are private roads. Olason stated 3 calculate the driveway and the estimated residential unit. They didn't deal with roads. 4 5 Crawford asked about access roads through commercial areas. They should be 6 charged. 7 8 Weimer stated the Board can ask the Advisory Committee to clarify it in the future. 9 He wants to amend D.2, "City, County, and State Roads - City; County, and State Roads 10 shall not be charged." 11 12 The Committee concurred. 13 14 Crawford asked if they want to charge the roads through the Birch Bay Village. 15 16 Weimer stated they don't. 17 18 Brenner asked why they don't just say "roads." 19 20 Weimer stated that would include things they don't want to include, such as the road 21 that loops through a recreational vehicle (RV) court, which is part of the impervious surface 22 that runs into the ditch. 23 24 Crawford stated it would also include roads through shopping centers, which they do 25 want to pay. 26 27 Olason stated they can clarify that the exemption doesn't include those in practice. 28 It's tricky. 29 30 Weimer stated there is overlap between what is in the Ferndale stormwater area and 31 what is in BBWARM. Olason stated they haven't dealt with that. They don't know what's 32 going on with the Ferndale stormwater. Ultimately, they may have to adjust the BBWARM 33 boundary. They will have to come up with a process to do that. 34 35 Weimer stated another issue is parks. One constituent said they should exempt 36 parks, but the consultant says that is illegal. Olason stated fees don't have an exemption 37 option for public property. 38 39 Weimer asked if they can charge State parks if they can't charge State roads. 40 Olason stated they can. Some places exempt schools because they have educational 41 programs. That may be something parks can look into, or they can look into later. That 42 costs money too. They should be open to that if it is an issue people want to pursue. 43 44 Brenner asked about amending the resolution title, "Authorizing a charge for the 45 furnishing of beneficial stormwater control facilities or programs to those who are 46 contributing to ... etc." Olason stated there might be some legal basis for the language as it 47 is. 48 49 Brenner asked that they find out. Olason stated the resolution will be adopted, and 50 they will use Section 1.0. He will find out. 51 52 Crawford stated the definition of impervious surface doesn't address lawns and turf. 53 Olason stated they are not going to address it. It's pervious. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 5 Crawford stated the resolution should say that. They get into that debate all the time with Lake Whatcom. Weimer stated it's not necessary. All their definitions say its pervious. Olason stated they are only looking at whether lots are small, medium, or large. They aren't getting into any other details. Brenner asked why they can charge a fee to a property if it has no stormwater runoff. Olason stated the funding plan talks about fixed costs. They are talking about the services provided for the entire watershed. Brenner stated the service provided for the entire watershed is also for people outside the watershed. It's for everyone. Olason stated they will have to evaluate that. It's a good question. Generally, people have some runoff to some degree. Brenner stated it's a fee, which has to have some benefits. Olason stated it gets back to the collective effort of trying to improve the overall water quality. Everyone has some impact. How much depends on the site's situation and a given storm event. Anyone would have a hard time proving that their property has no impact at all. That's the basis for including everyone. Motion to recommend approval of the substitute as amended to the Board of Supervisors carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES TO FUND THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED AND AQUATIC MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SERVICES AND PROGRAMS (AB2008 -260A) Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. Weimer stated the budget is based on the plan. There are things in the plan that are probably mistakes, such as a fairly expensive culvert on Grandview Road, which is a State highway. The State is under a legal mandate to fix those themselves. The County shouldn't pay for it. There are plenty of other things to do on the list, so those mistakes make no difference to the rate structure at this point. He asked if that is correct. Olason stated that is correct. There are plenty of projects. The issue is coming up with a budget to cover the gamut of proposed programs. Brenner stated there needs to be better incentives for people to make improvements on their properties. This isn't enough. They must consider it. Weimer stated it would be nice to provide as many incentives as possible, but there would have to be a staff person who visits the sites. Brenner stated there will be a person who will calculate the 27 percent anyway. The language also says that the person has to be a certified professional, which she likes. They don't need a surveyor or engineer to look at all kinds of stormwater stuff. A master gardener, for example, would be plenty for some of it. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 6 Weimer stated people who spend $1,000 on an upgrade won't care about a small fee of $5 to $7. Also, if a lot of people do upgrades, they will have to raise the fee to hire more staff to track the upgrades. Brenner stated some people will do the work themselves to save that $1,000 and do just as good a job. Fleetwood asked if incentives were considered. Olason stated they were discussed internally. The issue was about how much time they wanted to spend on programs. The incentive issue may be worth it, but they can spend a huge part of the fees working on fee exemptions. Also, there may be other ways to get at that. The advisory committee can talk about that. For example, deal with the codes and make sure it's easier to get things approved. See if there is a need for education on rain barrels, for example. Streamline efforts to get things through. Brenner stated the Department of Ecology said that lot -by -lot fixes will make more impact than big, engineered fixes. They should bend over backwards to get people to take responsibility rather than fork over the money to big government. A small minority of people will take advantage of incentives, but it should be an option. It's insignificant for the fees, but it's hugely meaningful to get people on board. Twenty -seven percent is insulting. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. REVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR STATE APPROVAL OF UPDATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2008 -261) Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the Council adopted the program in 2007. It is still not effective. It is in the State's review process. He explained the State's approval process. He submitted a diagram of the approval process (on file). Kelly asked what it means to say that the County must respond. Gill stated the County has to tell Ecology how it will consider the public comments. Ecology will provide the County with changes to the program that the County can adopt or change to make the program effective. Kelly asked if the response is a description from Whatcom County on how or if the County will address the concerns outlined in the comments. Gill stated that is correct. Ecology do whatever it wants with the County's response. Brenner asked if they are sure that Ecology will require changes. Gill stated they've talked with Ecology. Ecology has some of their own issues with this program. Ecology will provide the County with those issues and also with other issues received at the hearing. Fleetwood asked if Mr. Gill is working with Ecology staff in the Bellingham field office. Gill stated he is. He continued to describe the approval process. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 7 A main comment about Governor's Point is about the Conservancy designation, and that it should be shoreline residential. Based on inventory, characterization, and ecosystem process analysis, Governor's Point comes out as conservancy, which is what it was before. Another comment was to allow water - oriented uses to expand within the existing building footprint, even if it's a nonconforming structure. It would allow a water - oriented use to expand within the existing building footprint, even if it's nonconforming. There is concern about desalination and utility text. Desalination is allowed as a conditional use. There are other health codes that regulate whether or not desalination can be used. There is a concern about the issue of critical areas 150 -foot setback. It is already administered that way. Some people say that setback is excessively burdensome. There are allowances for nonconforming lots to get around the setback. Weimer asked about County responses and reviewing certain comments. Gill stated the response is that the County will review the comments, and Ecology will recommend changes to the text, according to the comment. Crawford stated issues have come up since the Council adopted the shoreline master program (SMP) a year ago. Although it's not being used formally yet, it is used as a policy document. He is fine with the staff responses to Ecology. He asked the process for changing and updating the SMP. David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the plan is a partnership between the County and Ecology. The program is codified in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The only thing the County has to adopt is the administrative procedures. The County can initiate an amendment, but it is a long process. He explained the process. They would have to start the same process over. Crawford asked if the Council majority can put the brakes on the process and make changes now. Stalheim stated that if they are talking about subjects that weren't part of the public comments to Ecology, it's up to the Council. Ecology is considering the comments that came up during its public hearing process. It's up to Ecology to decide to consider new subjects. Ecology might not be willing to do that at this point in time. Crawford asked if he can address his issue through a docketing and amendment to the critical areas ordinance. Stalheim stated he could. Weimer stated he could do the same with his issue, which is the definition of rural level of utility services. Brenner stated changing the critical areas ordinance setbacks wouldn't necessarily make it less restrictive. Changes would make it more flexible. They are having unintended consequences that cause bigger problems. There is no flexibility. Crawford stated he is comfortable moving this forward to the full Council. There are other venues in which he can discuss these issues. The County understands there is room for concern, and will probably continue to work on this. He's comfortable with the County passing this at this point. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 8 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 Kelly stated that right now, they are talking about comments and responses to comments specific to a draft plan. Substantial changes would mean reopening the entire process that got them to this point. Gill stated that is correct. Now, the County is only being asked to respond to these public comments. Kelly stated he doesn't recommend reopening the program, even though he would welcome it. Gill stated the next round would be specific changes to the program, and not just responses to comments. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Fleetwood moved to recommend the responses as presented in the Council packet to the full Council. Brenner asked if the County can have a say about those public questions. Gill stated that is correct. If they want to make changes to the County's responses about those comments, councilmembers can make those changes tonight. Motion carried unanimously, OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:09 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: ( C y���i J•� y�HATC '� • i r � ,• 1 r Dacca Bri7,vWVM4l1 *p it Clirk Wee •`� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON i Carl Weimer, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2008, Page 9