HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 25 20081 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 November 25, 2008
5
6 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:37 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 L. Ward Nelson
16 Barbara Brenner
17
18
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
21
22 1. ORDINANCE TO DELETE POLICY 2BB -7 FROM THE CHERRY POINT URBAN
23 GROWTH AREA OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
24 (AB2008 -402)
25
26 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this is a policy
27 to make Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Shoreline Management Program. Don't
28 pass the ordinance tonight. Move it on to concurrent review in February.
29
30 Weimer moved to recommend to the full Council forwarding to concurrent review.
31
32 Kelly asked if it that means the County is committed to approving one more dock.
33 Stalheim stated the County is committed to a dock that has been permitted. It is the only
34 project at this point in time. The project has many permits, but not all. The project has
35 begun its permitting process.
36
37 Fleetwood asked if there is a condition that there not be any environmental harm.
38 Stalheim stated it is a permitted action in the Shoreline Management Program at this time.
39 There are several conditions and stipulations to the permit. The question about no
40 environmental harm is something that other agencies will determine.
41
42 Fleetwood asked if it's conceivable that the project could stop on that basis.
43 Stalheim stated he can't speculate on that.
44
45 Weimer stated it depends on the definition of no level of harm.
46
47 Stalheim stated he agrees. Any project probably causes some harm. It's a question
48 of whether or not it is consistent with the standards of the permitting agency.
49
50 Weimer stated the one pier that is in the permitting process has many conditions to
51 meet. This is an attempt to remove the language to allow more piers.
52
53 Motion carried unanimous /y.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 1
1
2 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT 2009
3 BUDGET (AB2008 -379)
4
5 Weimer submitted information (on file). Have a discussion on what the money will
6 actually be spent on and how it fits into the coordinated water resource integration project
7 (CWRIP) process. Make sure they understand how this money will be spent, and
8 communicate that understanding to the administration.
9
10 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated there is a substitute to AB2008 -369
11 for the flood levy. The substitute ordinance includes an increase in the levy in the amount
12 of $.04 per $100,000 of assessed value, totaling $940,000 per year.
13
14 Weimer stated they must understand how the money would be spent if they approve
15 this tax increase. They must make sure what they approve will be implemented by the
16 administration.
17
18 Crawford stated there is a question about how the Conservation Program on
19 Agricultural Lands (CPAL) program integrates critical areas and their buffers. Those areas
20 have already been set aside.
21
22 George Boggs, Conservation District, stated the Planning Department staff are
23 forming a policy relative to short plats and remainders.
24
25 Weimer read through his handout on the Water Program level of service (LOS)
26 enhancements. Use the real estate excise tax (REET) II to pay for initial stormwater
27 projects around Lake Whatcom. Last week, they only approved the REET II $500,000 for
28 2009, not for 2010.
29
30 Fleetwood asked what LOS this provides for.
31
32 Weimer stated this is to achieve LOS 3 or slightly more with the stormwater utility in
33 2010. In 2009, the LOS is less than three.
34
35 Fleetwood stated that they are still behind the LOS enhancements they prefer,
36 although this is an improvement. Fleetwood asked what an additional $1 million would do
37 for LOS.
38
39 Weimer stated it approaches LOS 4.
40
41 John Hutchings, Public Works Department, described the intent of the CWRIP and
42 benefit ratings. He described the CWRIP. ranks for each expenditure on Councilmember
43 Weimer's proposal. If they use the CWRIP evaluation process the bar to justify
44 expenditures, this proposal is valid and consistent with the intent of the CWRIP process.
45 The CWRIP database isn't to be used by working numerically down the CWRIP list. It is
46 intended to give them a broader view of what is and isn't important. It is intended to set
47 the stage for discussions like this.
48
49 Weimer asked if there are things on the CWRIP list that are higher priorities than the
50 things on his proposal. Hutchings stated there are, but that doesn't mean this proposal is
51 off -base. The Lake Whatcom program is where they need to focus a lot of resources. The
52 proposal deals with Lake Whatcom stormwater and national pollutant discharge elimination
53 system (NPDES)- related stormwater programming, so he's satisfied that they aren't
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 2
1 overlooking that issue. The total maximum daily load (TMDL) study and NPDES are
2 mandated, and will drive how the money ought to be spent. It isn't the highest priority in
3 the expenditures, but there is a plan.
4
5 Weimer asked if the shellfish response plans are also required by law. Hutchings
6 stated they are. The Chuckanut area isn't a shellfish protection district, due to some
7 loophole in the law. The Birch Bay situation will require a response plan.
8
9 Nelson asked if items required by the State are ranked higher. Hutchings stated the
10 CWRIP process first looked at the intrinsic value to the public benefit of each activity, not
11 influenced by whether or not the activity is mandated. The benefit evaluation score doesn't
12 reflect mandates. After that benefit is ranked, they call out activities that are mandated,
13 including the NPDES, TMDL, and shellfish protection.
14
15 Crawford stated current total revenue is $3.65 million. They are talking about
16 adding a tax to bring in $940,000, for a total of $4.6 million, to bring them to a level of
17 service of more than three. However, the cost of LOS three is $6.65 million. All the
18 programs listed are worthy. He asked how they accomplish a LOS that costs $6.65 million
19 with only $4.6 million.
20
21 Weimer stated include the REET money for a total increase of $1.59 million.
22
23 Crawford stated that brings the total to about $5 million.
24
25 Hutchings stated the LOS spreadsheet was set up to pay for mandates first, and to
26 use a stormwater utility as a mechanism to pay for those mandates. In a stormwater
27 utility, those who contribute to the cause of the problem or benefit from the solution will
28 pay, within an established boundary equal to the NPDES boundary. That utility would be
29 applied to the property tax bill.
30
31 Crawford stated they are talking about increasing the flood collection and to begin
32 collecting for a stormwater utility. It's an increase on the property tax bill.
33
34 Brenner stated they are getting unfunded mandates from the State. If there isn't
35 funding for mandates, discuss whether or not to pay for the mandates. If they are going to
36 discuss changes to level of service, take the time to go through this. She would like the
37 opportunity to come up with her own proposal. Much more can be done out of REET II.
38
39 Fleetwood stated this is just a placeholder list. They will continue to have water
40 resources work sessions to discuss modifying this list.
41
42 Weimer stated it's up to the Council whether or not they can modify the list if it's
43 approved.
44
45 Fleetwood stated he would like the chance to review the proposal more before it's
46 implemented.
47
48 Brenner stated nothing prevents the Council from implementing supplemental budget
49 modifications. She's not comfortable making budget placeholders. The money will be spent
50 no matter what.
51
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 3
1 Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmembers Fleetwood and Brenner. The
2 proposed level of service doesn't provide for all the programs they're talking about. To leap
3 into specific programs would be premature.
4
5 It's unwise for councilmembers to vote to raise a tax at this point. Four cents per
6 thousand dollars doesn't accomplish a lot. It's similar to an insult to the taxpayers. This is
7 not being done in a coordinated manner to benefit anyone. There is a longer term issue of
8 the overall economy. The Council needs to realize that the County won't have an ideal
9 water resource program any time in the near future. The Council will have to revisit the
10 budget in about four months. They are not being realistic with current revenue projections.
11 Things are not going well in the economy. They have some serious local problems.
12 Planning Department fee revenues are not realistic. The County is going to have gaps that
13 total millions. It's not time to start new programs, no matter how worthy and
14 commendable. Stay focused on the resources they have. It will take two to four years to
15 implement an LOS in the long term.
16
17 Nelson stated he is concerned about the ability to coordinate, implement, and
18 accomplish tasks that have been identified. He asked if they can accomplish these items
19 with the current levels of staffing. Hutchings stated they will need to unfreeze a vacant
20 engineering position for the Flood Control Zone District fund portion of this proposal. The
21 portion of the proposal related to the four cent increase asks for an additional Planning
22 Department staff. With those two staff, they can accomplish everything listed on the Flood
23 Control Zone District fund enhancement and REET II. Implementing things under the
24 stormwater utility will require additional staff.
25
26 Nelson stated they must have the staff resources necessary to accomplish these
27 tasks. Be aware of impacts to putting projects on hold due to a lack of staffing. It's a
28 promise to the public that isn't kept and a burden on the administration. In addition, they
29 may have trouble finding people to do the work. He wants to get going on this as much as
30 anyone, but not in a downturned economy.
31
32 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
33
34 Nelson continued to state that promising the citizens without following through is
35 worse than raising the taxes.
36
37 Kelly stated there is always a reason to not do projects on the CWRIP list. This is an
38 opportunity to allocate funding to address projects that are ready to go. Some projects will
39 need design work. This is a list they agreed to. They're talking about a way to fund those
40 projects. The public wants to know when the Council is going to do something about the
41 lake, closed shellfish beds, and other problems. This proposal is a way for the Council to
42 address those public concerns. He supports it, notwithstanding the real issue facing the
43 economy.
44
45 Brenner stated she doesn't agree with the LOS as presented. A low impact
46 development manual should be a part of level one or two, not four. It's already been done.
47 The State's already created a low impact development manual. The County could adapt it
48 for local conditions. There are new circumstances, so they should re- categorize the LOS
49 options. The Council was never allowed to re- categorize the LOS options. She wants to do
50 that before they commit to higher taxes.
51
52 Kelly stated appropriate money towards something, or nothing will get done.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 4
1 Brenner stated money is already there. They're talking about raising taxes. Money
2 is already there. She doesn't agree with how it's being spent.
3
4 Kelly stated the money is available for LOS 1, not LOS between 4 and 5, which the
5 Executive has said he would support. This proposal is how the County gets there.
6
7 Weimer moved to recommend adding $500,000 from REET II for the year 2010 for
8 stormwater projects.
9
10 Kelly stated it's important for people to understand these are one -time expenditures,
11 not ongoing.
12
13 Fleetwood asked the balance of REET II.
14
15 Brenner stated she doesn't have a problem with REET money, since they already
16 have it. She does have a problem with raising taxes right now.
17
18 Weimer stated that according to the budget documents, there is supposed to be
19 about $7 million in REET II at the beginning of 2010. At the beginning of °'200%. there is
20 supposed to be about $8.5 million.
21
22 Motion carried unanimous /y.
23,
24 Weimer asked if they want to recommend attaching this list of, projects to the:
25 budget. Clarify for the Public Works staff whether this is the starting ,point or whether."they-
26 want to leave it open to changes.
27
28 Brenner stated she is not comfortable with bringing this forward at the .last£ minute.
29
30 Weimer stated all this was in the packet last week.
31
32 Fleetwood stated he wants to make a strong statement that they are committing this
33 money to implementing stormwater retrofits for Lake Whatcom and improvements to
34 shellfish districts. If they are going to increase taxes, have a very specific idea of the
35 reason for the increase. He likes the idea of being able to review the specifics at a later
36 time. He asked if this is a tactic or strategy as opposed to something that is required. The
37 budget required a list of eight things to implement.
38
39 Weimer stated all the budget items have specific line items.
40
41 Kelly moved to recommend approving Councilmember Weimer's proposal as long as
42 they get to refine it in the future.
43
44 Fleetwood stated the main thing he wants to see come out of this is implementation.
45 If they are going to consider raising taxes and generating more money, it should be
46 dedicated to project implementation, not planning or monitoring. He asked if they will get
47 that from this proposal. Hutchings stated they will. The stormwater utility money may be
48 forthcoming at some time in the future. In the meantime, they have work to do. They are
49 ahead of the game in terms of implementing things that will be required in the future under
50 the TMDL. They're doing that because the Council and administration pursued stormwater
51 planning in the watershed several years ago. They are beginning to implement those
52 activities now. In fact, that REET money will get those things done on the ground, such as
53 engineering and building.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 5
1
2 Kelly stated they've already adopted the stormwater plan. It doesn't make sense to
3 not fund and implement the plan.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7
8 OTHER BUSINESS
9
10 There was no other business.
11
12 ADJOURN
13
14 The meeting adjourned at 10:42 a.m.
15,��
16
17_�
18 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
19 �%J11u►►►►► ►,,
% IY C��.
2� Al��
22 �• .0 *HA
23 o COUNTY �•
24 0 _
25 _
26 - F
27 i5p na Qr'�gv�i n li oun Clerk
N
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 11/25/2008, Page 6