HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 20 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 20, 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 Bob Kelly
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION ON GRANT FUNDING —FROM THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FOR THE BIRCH BAY WATERSHED
CHARACTERIZATION AND WATERSHED PLANNING PILOT PROJECT
(AB2008 -202)
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a presentation (on
Me). He read from the presentation. This is the last time the Council will see the plan
before the budget request comes to the Council.
Fleetwood asked what they're trying to establish in the visioning process. Gill stated
they are looking at future development patterns under different scenarios. They are looking
at how options affect fresh water and marine resources, how the more urban setup looks,
and how it would look if they move development into areas most suited for development.
they are looking at the benefits of doing one option over another. He continued to read the
presentation.
Weimer stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State Department of
Ecology (DOE) are excited about the process and letting the land speak for itself about
appropriate locations for development. He asked what the County specifically gets out of it,
versus four or five more years of planning. Gill stated they would like to change
development regulations and make plans for restoration activities on the ground.
Brenner asked why they will go through a low impact development process when
they can plagiarize and adopt what other counties have done or the State manual. Gill
stated it's a matter of getting people to be open to try different things.
Brenner stated many builders and developers can't get low impact development
projects through because of existing regulations. Gill stated it's about getting internal staff,
such as the Planning and Development Services Department and Public Works Department
to do things differently. That requires a process.
Brenner stated Whatcom County has an author of. the DOE draft low impact
development manual. Use that firm as the consultant to get this running quicker. She
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 1
asked how long the process will take. Gill stated they would like to start low impact
development this summer. He can't say how long it will take. This would be a sideline to
the Birch Bay process, and would apply countywide. If they have a low impact development
program set up by the time Birch Bay gets going, that's great. If not, they should be able
to use some of that funding for Birch Bay- specific low impact development that could
potentially be expanded.
Brenner stated adopt what already exists by reference. Gill stated no one would
know how to do that. They haven't yet adopted the technical manuals to do that.
Weimer stated processes take years, but there are lots of things they already know.
They already have a shoreline master plan and critical areas ordinance. Don't put those
kinds of things on hold while they work through this process. Developments will continue to
happen, and they will continue to lose critical areas. He asked if there will be anything left
by the time they get through this process. Gill stated the critical areas ordinance was
adopted in 2005 and is being enforced, as is the shoreline management plan's restoration
plan. It will fold into this process.
Fleetwood stated he has doubts about his support of the subarea plan and urban
growth designation in Birch Bay. They included as many controls as they could. Experts
said that even state -of- the -art technology can't stop all the pollutants and runoff. He asked
if they're confident that this will result in solutions that will actually save Birch Bay. Birch
Bay quality is trending downward, yet they established an urban growth area under the
pretense they would protect the bay. He asked if there is hope that this can solve the
problem. Gill stated he doesn't know if it will solve all the problems. This watershed
characterization looked at the important ecosystem processes and figured out where the
process is very important to the health of the bay. Some sub - watersheds aren't as
important. That is the basis for moving development from one sub - watershed to another.
By moving development, the risk will lessen.
Fleetwood stated the report is about market - driven solutions. He asked if that is
incentives instead of prescriptions. Gill stated it is.
Fleetwood asked where that direction comes from. Gill stated that if they want the
local community and all the stakeholders to approve the process, market -based solutions
are better in the long run.
Fleetwood stated that is fine for now. He asked if the County is in a position to take
stricter measures if that doesn't protect the bay. Gill stated it is.
Weimer stated transfers of development rights (TDR's) is mentioned as a possible
solution, but they haven't figured out how to do that well. He asked if there will be a global
look at the entire county when they go through this process. They won't look just at Birch
Bay for receiving areas to take in TDR's. Gill stated the TDR program would be to make
things function smoother.
Weimer asked if the match from the County is to contribute programs and staff that
exist now. Gill stated they would use existing staff. Up to five people are working part-time
on this.
Weimer asked where this rates on the coordinated water resource integration
program (CWRIP) priority list. Gill stated it ranks high, at about 70. It falls under level of
service (LOS) two. It rates high because of stakeholder involvement, stewardship, habitat
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 2
function, health and human safety in terms of shellfish, and provides information to the
overall process. Also, 75 percent of the funds comes from outside sources.
Weimer stated he supports it. They need to do things to figure out how to do better
land use. He hopes development doesn't overrun the areas before they're done. He hopes
this will also inform other parts of the county. He doesn't have any proposed changes.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION ON WATER RESOURCE
PROGRAM LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS (AB2008 -201)
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the Council has been talking about
an appropriate level of service (LOS) for water resource programs in general. He explained
the background of the LOS discussion. Now, he is asking for an idea from Council about the
LOS around which the staff should build its budget.
They have engaged the community through public outreach efforts to stakeholders
and a full public meeting. There has been legitimate criticism of the process, including
availability of the information. They didn't widely distribute the database, principally
because of its size. They have since developed a smaller version. It is now available on the
County website. All the information the Council has is available.
The second criticism is how this process ties into other activities, such as local
community planning efforts and the water resource inventory area (WRIA) effort. They
should discuss that further. This is an effort to get organized and is not intended to
supplant the other activities. It is to inform other community discussions.
Brenner asked if the list of projects is part of the LOS. Hutchings stated it is.
Brenner asked if the LOS is about water resources. Hutchings stated it is.
Weimer stated the majority of the Council seems to support LOS 3. Some support a
higher level. The purpose today is to indicate to the administration the level to develop the
budget and whether they should look at any new funding sources.
Brenner stated she doesn't believe LOS is the appropriate way to do this.
Fleetwood asked about the budget process. He asked if staff wants a sense from the
Council about the LOS. He asked if the staff will craft a budget to incorporate a higher level
of spending if the Council approves a higher LOS, and even recommend increasing taxing
authority to generate that LOS. Hutchings stated they would craft the budget to the
Council's pleasure. They have to discuss how to get from here to there.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, submitted handouts (on file). She made an
effort after the last work session to draft proposed language that outlines a series of
questions to which the Council would like responses, specific to the creation of a stormwater
utility, including various geographic combinations, and potential fee revenue. The proposed
language also suggests ways to deal with a fee structure, including credits and how to deal
with roads and public properties. There was a question about how to coordinate the
creation of a utility with the City of Bellingham. The language includes information on the
City's stormwater utility and how its assessments are spent in the watershed. There was
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 3
also a request for a draft resolution for consideration at the June surface water work session
for the creation of such a utility.
The second half of her information goes beyond stormwater questions and deals with
other projects in the database. It is a request to the Executive to direct staff to prepare a
budget at a certain level, assuming that some level of funding would come in from a
stormwater utility beginning 2010. That delay is due to the time it takes to put together a
rate structure. She assumed that implementation of the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, a
response to the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study, and planning for implementation of
the final TMDL would occur now, even though that stormwater funding doesn't come to the
County until 2010. There are ways to deal with that funding time lag, including bonding or
an interfund loan.
The Council could request the Executive to produce a budget at the existing level of
service or existing level of revenue. If the Council intends to go to a higher level of funding,
it would be more efficient to tell the Executive that up front, even if they can't agree on a
specific amount. It's a process to figure out which projects and programs float to the top of
the CWRIP list. At least provide a range to the administration.
Weimer moved to direct staff to come forward with the option of developing a
County stormwater utility, direct staff to have the administration prepare a budget for a
funding range of $9.31 million to $11 million, which is LOS four or five, and direct staff to
come back to the Council during the budget process and explain what that means. Attach
these questions from Ms. Craven's memo.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
The committee concurred.
Caskey- Schreiber stated LOS 4 is the happy medium. It's a starting point. It will
lead to an increased need for revenue in the amount of 28 percent. That is a lot. It's an
aggressive move, but they will get a reality check about how accurate these estimates are
when they take on some of these goals and mandates.
Weimer asked if they will be able to look at the specific tasks in the preferred LOS, if
the Council indicates a preferred LOS. Councilmember Brenner and other councilmembers
are very concerned about low impact development. Hutchings stated that is a reasonable
approach. The staff is beginning to prepare it's budget material. With Council direction,
they can further incorporate the details. They can talk about where low impact
development fits under the existing LOS and what additional stuff may occur with more
money.
Brenner stated some of these things are duplicative of others. Some are already
completely funded, yet they exist at a high LOS. There are things on the list that have
nothing to do with water quality and the environment. They are wish list items. Clean up
the list before the Council provides direction. She's uncomfortable with the LOS concept. It
has holes. "this is not very efficient. It leaves a lot of room for repetition and duplication of
efforts. Also, some of the things on the list are incorrect. They aren't ready to do this.
People are just starting to become aware that this is going on. She's not comfortable with
moving ahead with a LOS. Pull out what they think is the most important and say they
don't want to go beyond that. See if they can make that work. Proposals have moved
forward without Council approval in the past. Clean this up first.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 4
1 Weimer stated the point of this process is to not allow people to do pet projects or
2 have duplicative projects. He suggests that Councilmember Brenner make a list of pet
3 projects and duplicative projects. They don't have to hold up this process.
4
5 People are concerned about enforcement, but enforcement isn't defined at a
6 particular level of service. Education is mentioned at different levels of service. He asked if
7 those things are so broad that pieces of them fall under the different levels. Hutchings
8 stated the line items in the database are what exists in existing plans. If there is a
9 community plan that defines a certain kind of enforcement activity, that appears in the
10 database. They only combined the same activities that appear in different plans.
11 Enforcement shows up explicitly under LOS three because it is part of the national pollution
12 discharge elimination system (NIPDES) permit that the County must comply with. There are
13 required enforcement activities. 'Those line items require additional Planning Department
14 staff. A special district or stormwater utility is the mechanism to pay for that.
15
16 Brenner stated staff told the Council that this had to be done now. That's why she's
17 concerned about doing it and then redoing it. She asked why the budget process isn't the
18 time or place to go into the detail. There will be a little bit of ownership by the people who
19 put something together. It seems like they are going to duplicate efforts. Hutchings stated
20 the budget time is the appropriate time. Staff needs guidance on what to put into the
21 budget. That's what they're doing today.
22
23 Caskey- Schreiber stated this frustration isn't new. Projects are listed that are
24 already in process. Ideally, she would have liked to see a list of exactly which projects will
25 be done under each level of service. However, that's more complicated. They have to
26 figure out how much things are going to cost and where other projects are at. Things have
27 not been put on hold while they've been working this out. Projects are still progressing,
28 which is good, but that gives them less information. At least they have a prioritization
29 system in place that allows them to keep moving down the list. She likes that system.
30 They've needed it for a long time. This system defines exactly why a project rises to the
31 top of the list.
32
33 Brenner stated things are on the list that don't have anything to do with
34 environmental or public health or safety. They are wish list items. Those should be
35 removed. They deserve more concrete information.
36
37 Fleetwood asked if Councilmember Brenner is suggesting that there would not be an
38 established, proven need for increased funding if they whittle away the duplicative items.
39
40 Brenner stated she doesn't know. She's also talking about things that aren't
41 necessary. This isn't the economic time to put this out there.
42
43 Weimer stated Councilmember Brenner should put together a list of things that she
44 considers not important.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
47
48 Weimer asked if the administration will bring forward funding sources. They've
49 talked about a stormwater utility and increasing the flood fee. He asked when the
50 administration will bring those forward.
51
52 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the administration will bring those
53 things forward.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 5
Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Trail, Bellingham, stated he applauds the Council for
taking a step to look seriously at increasing funding support for watershed issues. Don't
forget that the effort to look collaboratively at watershed planning was initiated by County
staff in the early 1990's, which turned into the watershed planning process. The County
Council in turn agreed to raise the flood fee to fund the process and increase staff for that
agency. The current administration shifted that at the end of 2003 and removed $1.7
million from that effort. Get back to some level of funding that gets something done.
They shouldn't start all over again. All the processes and agreements already made
shouldn't go down the drain. Water issues are like land use issues. They don't solve them
until they engage the individual property owners. That includes water rights. The County
doesn't hold water rights, but it is the land use authority, and those two things are linked.
In 1998, the County appropriately took the lead on watershed issues. He's been
disappointed since 2003 about the lack of effort by the administration. They need to
reinvigorate that process.
Larry Helm, WRIA Water Association Caucus Member, stated don't throw out the
WRIA process. None of these processes have built a foundation under any of these
processes. They have few aquifer studies. There is very little data. They are doing more
work without a good foundation. Fund aquifer studies throughout the county before doing
more modeling or new processes.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated he agrees with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Helm.
The list includes everything under the sun. There are two very major.projects. One is Lake
Whatcom. The list should separate out the Lake Whatcom projects. They should have done
the same thing with the issues of the WRIA process. It doesn't make sense to save 100,000
acres of farmland if there is only enough water for half of it. If they end up adjudicating
this water basin, the farmers will lose.
Bill Henshaw, 2653 N. Park Drive, Bellingham, stated he has been involved in the
WRIA process. In that time, the County has spent $10 million. They have a large stack of
information, but nothing gives sound direction. Many things on the list go far beyond water
quality and environmental concerns. Have a report to the community about what's
happened in this process. They need to know where they're going with it. They need to
know which items are really important. They should be able to identify things that need to
be done in the next two, three, or five years. Taxpayers won't vote for this list.
Skip Richards, 336 - 36th Street, Bellingham, stated he's served as the
representative for water associations on the Planning Unit. Water associations serve about
60,000 residents, all of whom will be impacted by their success or failure at providing and
securing water rights, water supplies, and water quality.
He sent the Council two memos with his concerns about the relationship between the
Watershed Management Plan and the CWRIP. Several problems have been unfolding about
withholding information. The benefit ranking system is fatally flawed. That is one of the
many problems. The watershed planning process is in the process of being disabled by this
CWRIP process. His memos suggest fixes for the problems. Go to the website for the
Watershed Management Plan, and study the documents that are on it. Everyone should get
on the same page and be familiar with the intent and findings.
Leslie McRoberts, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Commissioner, stated the
plan for charging the County stormwater fee is to only charge ratepayers in the district. If
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 6
1 the theory is that stormwater and phosphate issues come from construction, there are 800
2 to 1,000 other residences in the district that ought to also be charged that fee. Look if
3 there are other areas and activities that should be subject to the stormwater utility fee.
4
5 Weimer stated not only the district people can be charged that fee. He thanked the
6 people from WRIA who spoke. Nothing from WRIA precludes any government from going
7 forward with their own water projects. The County has 42 plans that are separate from
8 WRIA. The County hasn't moved forward on any of those plans. This effort is to make sure
9 the Planning Department, Public Works Department, and Health Department are talking
10 with each other and to legitimately prioritize the County's own projects. He doesn't want to
11 see the stakeholder effort in WRIA go away. The County had to get its own house in order
12 before it could coordinate with the Public Utility District, Tribes, and other groups. All of
13 that needs to continue. One doesn't negate the other. The first thing is to get some money
14 so they can start doing something.
15
16
17 OTHER BUSINESS
18
19 There was no other business.
20
21
22 ADJOURN
23
24 The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
2
26 `
27 �-
28 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcrip 'on
29
30 �t%%1111111111f/
31 ATTEST: Y C il���i
33 � ° ° ° ° °J�'` �HA1`0�����':
34
35
36
37 Dana $ro • - **W E i ltlerip.
•., Ly1N4
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/20/2008, Page 7