HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources March 11 20081 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 March 11, 2008
5
6 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. in the Council
7 Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Seth Fleetwood None
11 Bob Kelly
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15
16
17 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
18
19 1. JOINT DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S LAKE WHATCOM
20 RESERVOIR COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING METHODS TO KEEP COUNCILS
21 MORE INFORMED AND INVOLVED (AB2008 -017)
22
23 Weimer stated the County "Council added a task to the 2008 Lake Whatcom
24 Management Plan because it felt the biannual Management Committee meetings weren't
25 productive enough. The Council wanted a method to meet more often and keep everyone
26 involved. Today's discussion is to find out if the City and Water and Sewer District are
27 interested in that.
28
29 Stan Snapp, Bellingham City Council Member, stated the City Council needs to
30 formally approve the joint work plan they worked on in November and December. They are
31 taking that forward soon.
32
33 Leslie McRoberts, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Commissioner, stated the
34 Water District had a meeting in January, reviewed the work plan, and agreed with it. They
35 would like to add section 11.7 to have a smaller group get together between the huge
36 meetings.
37
38 Weimer stated they also agreed to have a smaller working group between the big
39 meetings. One question is how big the working group should be.
40
41 Snapp stated the Interjurisdictional Coordinating Team (ICT) plan is good. If the
42 working group adds more work to them, it will be a problem. The working group should
43 work on the policy issues. A small group can do that. One idea is to include a couple
44 people from each jurisdiction.
45
46 Fleetwood asked if the object of this working group is to keep the larger councils
47 more informed or to prepare better for the Joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee
48 meetings.
49
50 Weimer stated they haven't resolved that yet. There is a list of policy questions
51 they've identified. They need to work through those questions. This smaller group can
52 work through the idea of a unified organization.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 1
1 McRoberts stated they must also consider prioritizing things and understand that
2 everything coming forward has an associated cost. Bring things forward to the councils and
3 commissioners in a more timely manner.
4
5 Weimer stated there are also issues on which the jurisdictions don't agree, such as
6 the buildout potential in the lake and which issues should be the highest priorities. The City
7 and County staff are trying to estimate the actual buildout potential to inform the council.
8 The working group can educate the councils prior to getting together.
9
10 McRoberts stated five is a good number for the working group. Include two
11 representatives each from the City and County and one representative from the Water
12 District.
13
14 Fleetwood moved to include two representatives each from the City and County
15 and one representative from the Water District.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Weimer asked how often the working group should meet.
20
21 Snapp stated meet monthly. If they need extra time between monthly meetings,
22 they can do that.
23
24 Fleetwood asked if staff will attend the meetings.
25
26 Weimer stated the staff will need to attend if the group wants input and education on
27 certain questions. Try to make this group as least staff - intensive as possible. At the end of
28 each meeting, identify the topic for the next scheduled meeting so people don't have to
29 show up to find out what they'll talk about.
30
31 Snapp stated this will be an official meeting. Their Clerk will be there to make official
32 records. Other City staff may attend as well. He suggested that they meet the first Monday
33 of the month at 9 a.m., beginning in April.
34
35 The Committee concurred.
36
37 Weimer stated that at the first meeting, one thing to talk about is the notion of a
38 watershed czar. He asked about keeping the Sudden Valley Community Association, Silver
39 Beach Neighborhood Association, and Water District 7 involved. Keep this working group as
40 it is, but make sure they know what the working group will talk about.
41
42 Fleetwood asked when is the next scheduled Joint Lake Whatcom Management
43 Committee meeting.
44
45 Weimer stated one isn't scheduled at this point. Staff was waiting for the councils
46 and Commission to adopt the work plan. They are supposed to have a meeting before June.
47
48 Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, stated staff is waiting for the councils and
49 Commission to finalize the work plan and get on with discussing the policy issues. Staff
50 thought the next joint meeting would be to approve the final work plan for 2008. They are
51 off schedule for that. They don't need to schedule another joint meeting until there is a
52 final work product.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 2
1 Weimer stated the councils and Commission don't need to meet jointly if all three
2 have already finalized it individually. Fogelsong stated that's correct. They should probably
3 revise the scope of work in the Lake Whatcom Management Plan. It calls for two joint
4 meetings per year. If they are going to change that schedule substantially, they should
5 change that language officially.
6
7 Snapp stated that this working group may preclude the need to get the large group
8 together. However, it may be more efficient to provide reports or technical information to
9 everyone at once. That would be one reason for the full joint meeting.
10
11 Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council Member, stated she would still like to have
12 the two joint meetings per year. That's when the full councils and Commission hears from
13 staff about progress. It's very important to keep all the councilmembers up to speed about
14 what staff is doing. Otherwise, there will be holes. This working group shouldn't replace
15 the joint meetings. The full report from staff twice per year is very important. The full
16 councils and Commission must be together to get the same information from the same
17 staff, or holes will develop.
18
19 McRoberts stated it's important to have the joint meetings twice per year to allow
20 the public to attend and hear that information also.
21
22 Weimer stated he wasn't suggesting that they get rid of the joint meetings. This
23 working group will prevent holes from developing in the work plan. If they only meet twice
24 per year, holes can also develop. If they pay attention once per month, they can plug those
25 holes and help guide those semiannual meetings.
26
27 Bjornson stated it's very important to educate everyone with a full report from staff.
28
29 Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated carefully manage the staff
30 participation so the staff workload is minimized. If they manage the staff load carefully, this
31 is a good thing.
32
33 Weimer asked if the members of this working group can sit in on the ICT staff
34 meetings. Hutchings stated they can. There is benefit to that. The ICT staff will get their
35 agendas to this group.
36
37 Weimer stated they can minimize staff time by having the working group members
38 attend ICT meetings.
39
40 Fleetwood asked when and how the ICT was formed, who is on it, what it works on,
41 and how often it meets. Hutchings stated the ICT is the administration's Lake Whatcom
42 group. The Management Team includes executives of the County, City, and Water District.
43 The Management Team oversees the ICT, which is the staff group that coordinates things
44 that go on in the watershed. The work plan lays out the ICT's activities and coordinates the
45 activities of all three agencies. Most recently, they reconvened a transportation subgroup
46 that includes staff from the City and County. The subgroup is tasked with exploring
47 transportation options in the watershed. There is a line item in the work plan for that work.
48 There is an exiting monitoring team, a stormwater subgroup, and an enforcement team
49 within the ICT. Those teams and subgroups will make recommendations to the larger ICT,
50 which will take those recommendations to the Management Team executives. There is
51 room for a legislative /policy component of the discussion. The more they can share
52 information back and forth, the better.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 3
Fogelsong stated the enforcement team included representatives from the City,
County, Water District, Sudden Valley, State Department of Ecology, State Department of
Health, and private contractors. It was very impressive.
The ICT was reconstituted in about 2003. It had been a part of the original
management plan committee strategy since the early 1990's.
Weimer stated they can suggest future agenda items for the working group. He's
noticed that the agencies don't talk to each other enough about what each jurisdiction is
doing. Those things are outside the ICT purview. It may be good to spend a part of each
meeting updating each other on what they're doing.
Crawford stated there are issues on which the three entities are not on the same
page and, in fact, have been in litigation against each other. Given that none of the three
entities will abdicate their authority to the other entities, he asked if there is an option to
come together to avoid litigation. Examples of issues include providing water to the
treatment center or the Squalicum mountain development. He asked if there is a forum or
mechanism to get on the same page on those issues or if they will stay out of each others'
business.
Jim Neher, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District General Manager, stated that's a
good point. They each have related things going on. Things have gone to litigation before
there was discussion. There could have been discussion at a committee level. There could
possibly have been an agreement before the courts got involved. Things that the County
and City do affect the Water District. Things that each jurisdiction does affects the other
jurisdictions. Start discussing those things together on a committee level before they
happen.
Crawford stated another issue is of transfer of develop rights (TDR's). They don't
have an effective program. A joint group can discuss whether receiving areas within the
City is an option. It may not be an option, but then they'll be clear about it. There are
examples of many issues that haven't made progress over the years.
Neher stated that they may not change each others' ideas, but the discussion can
take place so they know each others' positions. That's not happening now other than on a
staff level. Both the City and County lack the transfer of information from the ICT to the
councils. That information goes to the County Executive and City Mayor, who may not
agree, and the councils never hear about it. The councils need to hear about those things.
That's why he's in favor of this working group.
Weimer stated he hopes the working group will start discussing issues before they go
to court.
Rebecca Craven, County Council Policy Analyst, stated that there will be situations in
which the working group conversations will be limited by rule because of administrative and
quasi - judicial roles the councils have. There will also be situations where timelines start
running, so conversations will be limited by their ability to do anything before an appeal has
to be filed. Be realistic about their options.
Weimer stated there is very little understanding about what the other councils and
Commission is doing.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 4
1 McRoberts stated questions remain about who will provide meeting notice, send out
2 the agenda, and other similar questions. The City and County both have the infrastructure
3 to handle these notices.
4
5 Weimer stated the City and County should talk about it. Legally, they both may
6 have to provide those notices. They both don't need to keep the record.
7
8 Fogelsong stated they should set an agenda for the April meeting, so staff can
9 prepare for it.
10
11 Weimer stated they would discuss the unified structure and watershed czar concept
12 coming from the City and County administrations. He hears there is already a job
13 description. They need to get that information from the administration. If the
14 administration doesn't want to share that information at the first meeting, they'll have to
15 have another agenda item.
16
17 Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, stated they should talk soon about the
18 potential zoning change in the urban growth area within the Lake Whatcom watershed.
19 That affects all three entities. They must each understand their perspectives before
20 anything moves forward. The City and County will have to act jointly. Discuss the impacts
21 on all three entities. It is the most sensitive part of the watershed and has the greatest
22 need for restoration projects. Also talk about the projects on the Comprehensive Economic
23 Development Strategy (CEDS) list. The City of Bellingham has no CEDS projects that
24 involve Lake Whatcom. Talk about how to do joint funding efforts. A new, unofficial group
25 is talking about priority early action items that the City and Council should take on.
26
27 Fleetwood asked about the new group. He asked if it is a new citizen group that
28 absorbs past citizen groups. McShane stated some of the same people are involved
29 individually. They will also bring in new people with different perspectives. They must work
30 through what's already been done and what should be done.
31
32 Craven stated the potential creation of a Lake Whatcom urban zone in the watershed
33 urban growth areas (UGA's) is an item she's tasked with working on.
34
35 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
36
37 Craven stated that given the parcel information, figure out the potential impacts of
38 various options in the UGA and entire watershed. They have a meeting to talk about that
39 preliminary data. It will be weeks before they have that information in a useful format. The
40 County is looking at options for those UGA areas. The issue must be dealt with jointly under
41 the terms of the City and County interlocal agreement.
42
43 Wendy Harris, Silver Beach resident, stated it's hard to track watershed issues and
44 keep informed. Help the public be more informed about what's going on in the watershed.
45 She would like to access what's going on with the staff and work committees to be involved
46 earlier in the process.
47
48 Weimer stated they can reinvigorate the Lake Whatcom website.
49
50
51 OTHER BUSINESS
52
53 There was no other business.
Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 5
1
2
3 ADJOURN
4
5 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
6�
7 —t--�
8
9 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
10
11
12 ATfE�T%0111"11111iiiir
�1
13 ��` . V co
14
15
16 '
17 '
18 pane iro" s,_Cbun4 Clerk
•; l'itNt3'a'�
',,'''����
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Lam✓
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 3/11/2008, Page 6