Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session April 15 2008Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session April 15, 2008 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner Bob Kelly Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2008 -024) 1. PRESENTATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS FOR WHATCOM COUNTY WATER RESOURCES PROGRAMS John Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted information (on file) on the water resource level of service options. He described the background and work done to- date regarding the comprehensive review of water resource activities. The community is beginning to understand the importance of what they're doing. There have been questions about the consistency with the water resource inventory area (WRIA) work and what they're doing here. Those are valid questions that need to be answered. Given WRIA's accomplishments and intent, there don't seem to be any major inconsistencies between the two, except the future role of the WRIA Planning Unit and other WRIA groups. There is a question about how those entities will be able to inform Council . decisions going forward. Nelson asked which groups represent Lake Whatcom. Weimer stated there is a new group that will be called People for Lake Whatcom. Nelson stated there is also the Silver Beach Neighborhood and a group from Geneva. Hutchings stated there is also groups from Sudden Valley and the Water and Sewer District. Crawford stated Squalicum Valley is another group. Nelson stated make sure more than one group represents all of Lake Whatcom. Crawford stated Mr. Richards sent information to the Council. Mr. Richards' concern seems to be that the thought ten years ago was that WRIA would be at the top of the chart, that projects would feed through WRIA as a decision - making process, and is not one of a group of other groups. Talk about that at some point. Historically, this Council has vested confidence in the Planning Unit to take the lead on some of this stuff. If Planning Unit members are concerned, make sure the staff understands those concerns and integrates the WRIA members into the process. Hutchings stated he takes the WRIA members' concerns Surface Water Work Session, 4/iS/2008, Page 1 seriously. The concern has more to do with how this process is married with the Planning Unit's decision - making process. He doesn't think there is a general dissatisfaction in the fact that the County is trying to prioritize its activities. Kelly stated several caucuses make up the Planning Unit. It would be good for that group to identify their representatives and concerns. There is a lot of vested time and effort that has gone into it. Folks are concerned that their projects and time will fall. off the table in terms of resources. There is also the Joint Board, which oversees the Planning Unit process, with significant input from the Planning Unit. There are other interests that are not represented at the table, specifically the Tribes and small cities. Hutchings stated that when the Council is ready to involve the community in prioritizing, this issue will have to be addressed. Crawford stated no one caucus speaks for the Planning Unit. Only the Planning Unit collectively speaks to the Interjurisdictional Board. The only feedback he got was from one caucus. It was an extreme concern. He doesn't suggest that the entire Planning Unit shares the same concerns. He doesn't know when to address those concerns. Hutchings stated the community involvement component is to validate whether the proposed expenditures are in line with what the community wants, rather than have a particular community group make budget decisions. They must find the right balance with public scrutiny and involvement. That discussion has yet to happen. Nelson stated the original intent of this process was to help the County prioritize proposed projects from the past. Phase three was to get into the communities and let the community know of the process. If the community wants to be a part of the process, their input must be filtered to the Council so it can evaluate the community priorities. If the community finds that something isn't as important, that should be decided at the local level. Weimer stated they considered the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, with its funding mechanism, to help oversee some of these things. WRIA doesn't come with its own funding mechanism. However, WRIA has a broader base of stakeholders who represent different interest groups. At some point, figure out how to include that group. Hutchings stated he would like an affirmation from the Council about whether the information provided is what the Council expects. He would also like Council direction about where to go next with analysis, before the next surface water work session. He read through the handout of level of service options summaries. Level of service one is a budget balanced on the existing revenue stream, principally from the Flood Control Zone District. Crawford asked if the estimates are annual amounts. Hutchings stated they are. Nelson asked if any of these estimates include grant funds. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the estimates are net expenditures. Hutchings stated grant funds are not included. Nelson stated there might be grants for certain projects, such as the total maximum daily load (TNIDL) study. Hutchings stated a lot of the work by the Natural Resources staff is water resource related. At some point, they had to draw a line between natural resources work and work that is strictly Planning and Development Services (PDS) Department activities. Therefore, Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 2 existing permitting and enforcement staff aren't included in the analysis. That cost is included in the PDS budget from the general fund. However, level of service (LOS) 3 includes two positions for National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement and permitting staff. Those staff would have to be funded from whatever new revenues come forward. Also, LOS 4 includes staff for flood hazard reduction work. Fleetwood asked how much new money might be available for stormwater retrofits on Lake Whatcom. He asked if that would fall under LOS 3, and whether the projects listed as Implement TlVlDL and Implement Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan are the same thing. Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated there will be additional actions for the TMDL, beyond the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan actions. Fleetwood asked if the additional money for those items would be around $1.5 million per year, not including grants. Hutchings stated that is correct. They are talking about implementing the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan, which is specific to Lake Whatcom and implementing the TMDL actions in response to the State Department of Ecology (DOE). These estimates are annual costs in millions of dollars for particular programs. They're broken down by those activities that will be new under the various enhancements. In the following notices, there is a brief summary of what does or does not happen under that level of service. Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated that LOS 1 is balanced on existing revenue. LOS 2 is reflects existing expenditures, which exceed current revenue by a little over $1 million per year. Cooper stated there is a financial difference between LOS 1 and LOS 2 for the flood program. The stormwater program would be relatively unaffected from current levels. The flood program would be reduced. Instead of having $3 million available for the flood program, which is about what they spend on average over four years, they would only have $1.85 million. She read the handout on the River and Flood group. Nelson asked if staff resources would be diverted under LOS 2. He asked if there are additional staffing needs for LOS 3, and what impact that would have on other County resources. Cooper stated if there is a really big flood, it will divert resources for a year or two anyway, unless they have flood hazard reduction projects queued up. When they get to LOS 4, they can implement the plan a little more quickly. To implement the flood hazard mitigation plan much quicker than 2030, they have to have additional staff. Hutchings stated that this LOS table was developed to be staff neutral, with the exception of the three staff mentioned earlier. Cooper stated LOS 2 isn't sustainable without new funding. Once they get to LOS 3, funds are freed up so she can have the full $3 million for the flood program. Hutchings stated LOS 3 has a different funding mechanism for the portion that is for stormwater, frees up money under the flood control zone district fund that can be applied to the other fund. There is a margin of enhancement of all programs. Crawford stated limit their scope in certain areas because they don't get revenue enhancement. They can't partition out the pot of money they have to address what they can, as opposed to cut off whole program areas if they don't get revenue enhancement. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 3 Cooper continued to read the handout on the River and Flood group. Under LOS 1, they remove the bulk of the construction program. Flood damages will likely get worse. Under LOS 3, they free up the money that stormwater has been spending out of the Flood Control Zone District fund. They can begin to implement the Flood Hazard Reduction Plan by doing one large project approximately every three years. Hutchings stated about $1 million from the Flood Control Zone District fund supports stormwater activities each year. If the stormwater activities were funded elsewhere, that $1 million can be reallocated to other programs. Ms. Cooper assumes that a portion of that money would go to activities that implement the Flood Hazard Management Plan. Kelly stated additional projects that may not be incorporated into the Lake Whatcom Management Plan will arise when the TMDL science comes through. He asked the County's options for addressing those issues. This Council may make relevant decisions on spending money on projects that will allow the County to make better decisions about the Lake, other than what is in the management plan. He asked if the Council would have an opportunity to do that. Hutchings stated it would. In the next month or so, the County will get a report from the State Department of Ecology about what it found in its TMDL monitoring and will stipulate their expectations of the City and County to reduce lake phosphorus loading. The Department of Ecology will leave it up to the County to determine how to make those reductions. Kelly stated it's good they're making science -based decisions. The Lake Whatcom plan doesn't give him enough information to make science -based decisions. Hutchings stated the County response to the TMDL study will require the County to go above and beyond the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan. Christensen stated he'll discuss that when he discusses LOS 3 for stormwater enhancement. Cooper stated LOS 4 will provide an additional $500,000 to the flood program to speed up implementation. It could happen about 20 years earlier than the current level, in 2030. Christensen read the handout on the stormwater group LOS options. There is no difference between LOS 1 and LOS 2 for stormwater at this point. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Christensen continued to read through the stormwater group LOS in the handout. Weimer stated the LOS 2 regarding Lake Whatcom stormwater management is to establish a funding mechanism. He asked if that funding mechanism will pay for the enhancement of LOS 3. Christensen stated it will not. They aren't sure how they will move forward with that. Weimer stated Birch Bay is trying to do a LOS. He asked if the County isn't going to put money toward Birch Bay, and if any of Birch Bay's services will be covered only if Birch Bay comes up with its money. Christensen stated that's correct. Hutchings stated that LOS 3 assumes any alternative revenue source to support stormwater will support urban stormwater management. That's when they can raise enough revenue to actually do something. Because it's a fee for service, the County must demonstrate that residents get adequate service. There is plenty of room for discussion Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 4 1 about what the term urban means. If the Council chooses, communities like Birch Bay 2 could be included in some sort of stormwater utility. The Council can provide guidance on 3 that. 4 5 Weimer stated it looks like only Lake Whatcom will get an enhanced level of service 6 without any funding mechanism. Birch Bay, which is setting up a mechanism, won't get an 7 enhanced level of service. Christensen stated that's how it's laid out right now. 8 9 He continued to read through the stormwater group LOS in the handout. 10 11 Weimer stated a TNIDL study is scheduled for Drayton Harbor. That isn't addressed 12 in the LOS options. Christensen stated that's correct. 13 14 Hutchings stated that the principal cuts from LOS 1 to LOS 2 come from the river 15 and flood program. They recognize that stormwater activities are more important. They 16 are things the County is mandated to accomplish, regardless of whether or not money is 17 available. The money may have to come from someone else's program. That's why there 18 isn't a reduction in the stormwater program if they reduce LOS to service level 1. 19 20 Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, read through the 21 handout on the Natural Resources programs for the Planning and Development Services 22 Department. 23 24 Nelson asked if they would not have additional staff for enforcement and 25 implementation of the NPDES with grants and the general fund under LOS 2. Hutchings 26 stated they would not. 27 28 Nelson asked if there is no funding for setting instream flows. Hutchings stated 29 there is not. The County is minimally involved in those activities. They would have to go 30 above and beyond LOS 4 to set those priorities. 31 32 Weimer asked when the Council would see a low impact development ordinance 33 given the limited amount of staff. Gill stated it's hard to say. It may be a couple of years. 34 35 Hutchings stated these activities in LOS 4 are the highest - priority projects on the 36 comprehensive water resources integration project (CWRIP) list that are ready to go. Other 37 high scoring activities may need more work until they are ready to become part of the work 38 plan and implemented: As projects are completed, other high priority items would begin. A 39 low impact development ordinance for Whatcom County facilities and road maintenance is a 40 high priority, and can be implemented cleanly. It is a high priority. That's why it's included 41 in LOS 4. 42 43 Crawford stated that if this information were presented according to what they've got 44 and what they can do, LOS 1 would have a lot of information in it. The way this chart is 45 done, it looks like they can't do anything without raising more money. Don't think that the 46 LOS 1 will accomplish nothing. That's not the case. 47 48 Nelson stated the staff was tasked with doing prioritization and considering funding 49 options, which is what they've done. 50 51 Hutchings read the handout on the Natural Resources group for the Public Works 52 Department. The full -time equivalent (FTE) employee's allocated to the Marine Resources 53 Committee (MRC) and on salmon recovery spend their time on administrative tasks and Surface Water Work Session, 4115/2008, Page 5 other projects. Fewer than one FTE is dedicated to actually doing tasks that result in implementation of either salmon recovery programs or through MRC. They are not taking steps to implement capital projects to further their plans. To get to LOS 4, recognize that there are limitations to what existing staff can do. The LOS 4 does not include any staff increases. Therefore, with a few extra hundred thousand dollars, managers can use summer help and contractors to implement portions of those planning activities. That's all they get at LOS 4. They can throw more money at the programs, but can't implement much more. Kelly asked if the Executive has made a decision about how the Puget Sound Partnership would fit into these scenarios in terms of additional staff. It's one of those "spend money to make money" deals. It's highly likely that the County will receive funding from that effort, which can offset stormwater costs and other costs. Hutchings stated they've met with the Partnership and Executive. There is cautious optimism. They don't want to dedicate tremendous resources and find that the money isn't there. At the same time, realize that they have to participate to benefit. There is an allocation of some funding under LOS 2 to coordinate the County's interest in the Partnership. Caskey- Schreiber stated she likes the information. It's backwards in terms of how they've just done the road fund financing. She hopes the next step of this process is to get information on the scenarios for achieving levels of service three and four, and. if there is a compromise. Weimer stated the State is now forced to swap out culverts. That cost will trickle down to the local governments. He asked where that cost would be in the LOS table. John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated that happens under the maintenance and operations (M &O) crew. Cooper stated LOS 4 could address it. Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated a plan was put in place to identify all the culverts a few years ago. They have a plan to replace two or three culverts per year. Thompson stated 300 or 400 existing culverts were identified. Hutchings stated that over the course of time, community planning efforts identified $300 million worth of investments to accommodate all the projects. That is $15 million per year for 20 years to accomplish all those things. Those numbers are preliminary. Some projects are not doable. Some projects aren't fully developed. The Council can consider levels of service above and beyond LOS 4. The question is what is realistic and what the Council thinks it can accomplish. Another question is whether these activities reflect the highest priorities activities according to community expectations, or whether they missed important projects and more money must contribute to one of these levels of service to do more investments. Three additional revenue sources available are the general fund, the Flood Control Zone District as it exists today, and the possibility of a stormwater utility. The nexus of a stormwater utility might be the boundaries of the State IVPDES permit. If they assess people a fee for service, the service should be clear, as are the permit boundaries. Those are the boundaries they used. The County would have to raise an additional $3 million for the total program cost of $6.6 million under LOS 3. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 6 1 2 For an extra $3 million per year for LOS 3, the County would get everything it is 3 doing now, movement toward compliance with NPDES, the ability to address the TNIDL 4 study, and the ability to develop a Lake Samish stormwater plan. It's possible to look at 5 other funding mechanisms to go above and beyond that level. To accomplish LOS 4, they 6 would require an additional $5 million per year toward a total program cost of $8.74 million. 7 8 Nelson stated much of LOS 3 has to do with Lake Whatcom. He asked if a Lake 9 Whatcom district funding source would offset that extra $3 million. Hutchings stated it 10 would. 11 12 Nelson stated it seems premature to get community involvement until they define 13 phase three of the integration project. They can take these levels of service to the public. 14 He asked what would happen to other programs'and projects. Hutchings stated the staff 15 didn't presume a model for raising additional funds, other than separating urban stormwater 16 from natural resources projects, because much of the stormwater work is mandated. 17 18 Nelson stated the NPDES is predominately in urban areas, which will require City 19 participation. He asked if the cities and County could cooperate to comply on their own 20 permits. Christensen stated they've talked about working together where practical, such as 21 public education and outreach. There isn't anything more specific. There is potential for 22 more cooperative work as the regulations become more burdensome. 23 24 Fleetwood asked for an overview of how they go about getting the funding for LOS 4. 25 He asked the steps. Hutchings stated there are options for that funding. They could pay for 26 all of LOS 4 simply by raising Flood Control Zone District taxes, for example. There could 27 also be a combination of local fees from a subzone and an overall district increase. LOS 3 28 can be funded by creating a stormwater utility and levying fees. 29 30 Caskey- Schreiber asked if citizens in a Lake Whatcom �subzone would be bound to 31 enforce the County's mandate, or could choose another priority. Hutchings stated he can't 32 answer that. 33 34 Nelson stated the flood subzones are created by the citizens. 35 36 Weimer stated they don't have to be. The County could create a subzone. 37 38 Nelson stated the people can change it. Another question is defining who has 39 impacts and who has benefits, and how they get full participation from both groups. 40 41 Hutchings stated that it is difficult to raise enough fee - for - service money in rural 42 areas to accomplish anything meaningful. When administering a subzone, the subzone has 43 its own board. The responsibility for the NPDES falls on the Council. 44 45 Caskey- Schreiber stated that if they maximize the Flood Control Zone District 46 capacity, it is $7 million. They could get another million from the general fund or from a 47 stormwater fee. She asked how much each household would have to pay if they maximize 48 their capacity in collecting from the Flood Control Zone District.. She asked the amount 49 assessed per $1,000 of assessed value. 50 51 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated one nickel per $1,000 of assessed 52 value would raise about $1 million. 53 Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 7 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Hutchings stated that a NPDES stormwater fee for Lake Whatcom would be about $10 or $14 per month. Caskey- Schreiber stated they can't charge that fee to city residents. Hutchings stated that's correct. Only unincorporated Whatcom County residents. Kelly stated the watershed improvement district seems to have been successful for many reasons. It's an option that should be on the table for consideration. They could have a combination of the two. There is less control by the County Council, but there is significant buy -in from the folks who are paying the taxes. Make sure they have the best projects that will get the results they want. They must have their act together in terms of the science, or folks won't fund it. Weimer stated this level of service discussion is good because it describes where they want to be and the associated costs. Now, think about the different funding mechanisms and what mechanisms would work for the different levels of service. Different areas of the county can have different levels of service, depending on how much the citizens are willing to tax themselves. Caskey- Schreiber stated they can get to LOS 4 in the flood control zone district. Craven stated much of what doesn't get paid for until they reach LOS 4 or higher are large- scale, countywide natural resource planning and implementation activities that don't lend themselves well to subzone by small district implementation. They are much better suited to large- scale, countywide efforts. There is a significant cost in terms of staff to administering and providing technical assistance to all the small districts. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated many County programs are funded with funds specific to the program or project, and can't be moved to another, unrelated program. This is an example of what's going on countywide. The general fund has two major tax sources, which are the property tax and sales tax. That limited amount of money has to support many things. Unless they are prepared to cut other, significant things to do non - mandated tasks, it's not appropriate to think about that as an easy funding source. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County got rid of the flood fee, and used banked capacity to make it up so there was more flexibility with that money. They were assured that the funds in the general fund from the extra banked capacity would be available to subsidize important projects. Don't forget that. Desler stated they collected approximately $4.3 million with that flood fee. They were threatened with legal action on the part of the Water District. The administration recommended reducing that amount to $3.95 million. Of that, $2.95 million went to the flood fund and $950,000 went to the general fund. There is $650,000 to support this effort. Hutchings stated that during the next work session, staff will bring together the last three discussions regarding the advisory committee, public engagement, and how that should look; the funding sources most reasonable for the levels of service they expect, and; selecting a LOS. He asked the Council to affirm that what the staff presented today meets Council expectations, and to indicate where the staff should go next. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 8 Nelson stated the handout is good information. However, he would like to see certain elements of the different levels of service in one option. If they are going forward with public participation, determine how that offsets other mechanisms in place. He's being forced into a situation in which the County provides all the funding. The public must indicate the level of service they want to fund. Hutchings asked if Councilmember Nelson wants a LOS option bounded by a subzone. Nelson stated he is interested in the Lake Whatcom area. They also have an alleged TMDL study that will come forward. He asked how they will implement that. Take just Lake Whatcom and look at scenarios for that area. Look at opportunities that could offset costs in other areas. Identify funding that is available, could be generated, consider programs they can use to achieve the goals of the NPDES or TNIDL. If Lake Whatcom is a large portion of LOS, then take it out of the equation and deal with it separately. Hutchings stated it will look a lot like a stormwater enhancement. Nelson stated create a model for phase three to develop these in other areas. He understands concerns from the Planning Unit members. However, the Planning Unit was set up strictly for salmon enhancement. That may be a separate entity that can look at mechanisms. Fleetwood stated he has supported doing that very thing. He thought Councilmember Nelson specifically didn't want to go that way. Councilmember Nelson had said he wanted to solely take a macro look at Whatcom County and not concentrate on any one particular subarea, including Lake Whatcom. Nelson stated he still wants to keep what was done. It's important information. However, the elephant in the room is Lake Whatcom. They must determine how to address Lake Whatcom without detrimentally impacting other areas and programs. Now is a good opportunity to do modeling for Lake Whatcom. They will be able to see what kinds of impacts they will have if they formalize the geographic areas. They may want to look at Lake Samish in the same, inclusive context. Hutchings stated he will set up a level of service specific to the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Nelson stated it can also include Lake Samish. Hutchings stated the only activity for Lake Samish is to develop the plan. Weimer stated that at the next meeting, get scenarios on how to meet LOS 4, with Lake Whatcom being a separate LOS, which is what they've done through LOS 3. When they get to LOS 4, some people will complain because it will cost more in taxes and other people will complain because they aren't doing anything to save salmon. Present clear ideas of how they can achieve LOS 4 through taxes and funding districts. That way, the public can discuss whether or not it wants that LOS. Hutchings stated he can do that. If they raised the urban stormwater utility by $10 to $12 per month to fund stormwater enhancement and then increase the flood control zone district to $.19 or $.20, the County will receive its additional $3 million for stormwater enhancement and $2 million for flood and natural resources enhancement. Craven stated Councilmember Nelson's request is to look at funding methods for Lake Whatcom, which can be a piece of that larger response that Councilmember Weimer is looking for, in terms of options to get to LOS 4. If they want this in the budget for Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 9 2009/2010, the Council must really discuss all three items at the next meeting in June, and come to a decision. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five- minutes break at 12;15 p.m.) 2. PRESENTATION OF FUNDING OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 2006 BIRCH BAY STORMWATER PLAN Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, stated the Birch Bay funding plan has been underway since June, with multiple meetings with the Birch Bay community. This is the last meeting in the internal review process, which began last month. They will discuss actual funding. Bill Derry, CH2MHill, read a power point presentation. This is a stormwater comprehensive plan that looks at drainage, flooding, and erosion problems; water quality, and; aquatic habitat. It included recommendations for education, maintenance, monitoring, land use, capital projects, and funding. He indicated the location of the watershed on a map. Terrell Creek is the largest tributary in the watershed. The goals included maintaining the beach lifestyle, sustain the fish and shellfish populations in the bay, and keep water resources safe for beneficial uses. Citizens formulated a subarea plan in 2002. The Council adopted the plan in 2004. The subarea plan recommended that there be a stormwater plan. There was intense public involvement in the stormwater plan. They looked at bay conditions. There has been rapid growth. There isn't one single cause of the problems, but many causes that have a significant impact together. The biggest impact comes from removing the forest and putting in roads and drainage systems. After that, the impacts are incremental. Most development is near the beach. Community expectations are changing. Fine grain soils in the watershed limit the ability to infiltrate stormwater. Landslide processes create issues with bluffs. Problems include many small, local drainage problems; low -lying areas around the beach; increased flooding from increased development, and; changing expectations. Key water quality problems are driven by coliform because of shellfish harvesting. There is a variety of sources. Infrastructure is aging. Septic systems are an issue, as are wildlife and pets. There is limited livestock in the watershed. Temperature and dissolved oxygen below Terrell Creek are also issues. The flow is wide, flat, and slow, which is a natural condition. However, there are no trees. Shade has been removed. Tide gates block fish movement. New development results in the loss of wetlands and encroaches upon stream corridors. All the problem areas follow development around the bay. The plan recommends a suite of programmatic issues, not unlike Lake Whatcom. Recommendations include complaint response, inspections, finding illicit connections, spill response,, maintenance and operation, and education and monitoring. The National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit will require all of these recommendations in the next permit cycle, as the area urbanizes. Recommendations also include regulatory changes, record - keeping, and a watershed keeper position. The plan requires low- impact development or stormwater infiltration. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 10 The process identified 41 surface water problems that require capital costs. They ranked those problems. The top seven capital projects included the Birch Bay Drive roadway improvements, drainage improvements in the Cottonwood neighborhood, drainage along Shintaffer Road, lower Terrell Creek water quality, and drainage at Birch Point. Bluff failures are driven by stormwater from new development being routed over the bluffs. Intercept that stormwater and get it safely down the bluff. Nelson asked if those high priority projects are to address stormwater or fecal coliform. Derry stated these priority projects are capital projects to address drainage and bluff stability issues. They don't address fecal coliform. Structural solutions to address coliform are limited. Coliform is address by programmatic solutions. Some of the solutions are to address fish habitat. Lower Terrell Creek water quality addresses temperature and dissolved oxygen. One element of the plan is low- impact development and keeping streets, curbs, and gutters small. The plan recognizes the costs of the proposed solutions. They need additional funding. The plan recommends an adequate and equitable funding source. They looked at all the alternatives and reviewed local and countywide issues. The plan recommends a flood control subzone district. Include additional public involvement prior to adopting the rate, which they are doing now. That function should be a part of the County, not a separate elected board. An impervious surface rate of $7 per month, per home would fund most implementation. The watershed analysis looked for sources of water quality issues. It didn't find large concentrations of livestock. There are lots of pets, wildlife, and septic systems, which are related to fecal coliform, which are in turn related to impervious surfaces. Agricultural areas do have an impact because the forest has been removed, the road system serves them, and a drainage system associated with the road system pulls water out of the system. Impervious surfaces are a direct reflection of human activity and other non - natural sources. That is the rational nexus for the district and a stormwater rate. Kelly asked the percentage of total amount of impervious surfaces within the urban growth area (UGA). Derry stated it is the watershed, not the UGA. He doesn't know that percentage. Olason stated they have estimated impervious surface amounts through aerial photos. That is the basis for the calculations they've done. They. don't have a septic survey. Derry stated the waterfront area is served by the sewer district. New development now is all using sewer systems. John Ghilarducci, FCS Group Project Principal, stated the total amount of impervious surface is about 50 million square feet. The total area of parcels with impervious surfaces is about 283 million. About 17 percent of the developed area in the watershed is impervious. That doesn't include undeveloped areas in the watershed. Kelly stated he was wondering about keeping track of that figure. The goal seems to be water quality, and they're talking about establishing a district. Ghilarducci read a presentation (on file) on the project goal and summary of recommendations. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 11 (Clerk's Note; End of tape two, side A.) Ghilarducci continued to read the presentation on summary of recommendations. Nelson asked if a property owner who has already taken steps to reduce stormwater impacts, before this is implemented, would get a credit. Ghilarducci stated no credit would be available if a property owner mitigated runoff to just benefit that property owner. However, there would be credit if mitigations provided benefits to others, such as a neighbor. The onus is on the property owner to identify the control measures. It's up to the County to decide if those measures provide enough of a benefit to receive a rate credit. That County decision could be appealed to the County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors or a designee. Crawford stated he would like an explanation of how a credit would work for British Petroleum (BP), which has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in existing stormwater infrastructure. BP is concerned about paying $120,000 per year for this fee. Ghilarducci continued to read the presentation through the ESU Summary. Crawford asked about BP. Olason stated BP is under an industrial discharge permit, which governs how BP manages water. The water is not going into the watershed. BP is going to discharge to another property, so it will go through engineered wetland mitigation. It goes to the rule of whether the mitigation is more than they had to do. It isn't. They are complying with other permit requirements. It's still a volume issue draining into the watershed, off the impervious area. Crawford stated people closer to Birch Bay should pay more. Make sure they charge folks a fair share if they contribute. If BP treats and puts out pristine water from its facility, a question is whether it is fair to charge them a fee. Balance what is easy and what is fair. The questions is not of impervious surface square footage, but of who is really contributing pollutants. Olason stated it's easier to count square footage than to monitor the transitory nature of water runoff. This proposal, in its simplest form, is based on impervious surface. Crawford stated balance easy with fair. Ghilarducci stated they are. BP is managing their own runoff, but not doing anything to reduce the costs to the program, which has to deal with the collective water being run off in the watershed. They have to buy in to the idea that everyone in the watershed is served by a clean Birch Bay. Impervious surface area and contribution of runoff is an imperfect measure, but it's the best measure they have of contribution to that problem. Science shows that increases in impervious surface is the cause of all problems having to do with water quality, habitat, degradation,, and other issues. All those issues are about development. If BP provides a facility that is accessible by other development near BP, it would reduce costs to the program. BP would then be eligible for a rate credit. He continued to read the presentation on total monthly rate and rate credits. Nelson asked how an undeveloped property is defined. Ghilarducci stated it is defined as having no impervious surfaces. Nelson asked if logged forest land is undeveloped. Ghilarducci stated it is. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 12 Nelson asked how much forest land is in the watershed. Ghilarducci stated he doesn't have that information. He continued to read the presentation on rate credits, sample customer bills, top ten customer bills, statistics by land use, and issues for consideration. Fund any senior and low- income rate credits outside of this program, such as through the general fund. Very few folks will apply for and receive this discount. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, asked the percentage of the total revenue collected is from the top ten customer bills. Crawford stated it's about 35 -40 percent. Ghilarducci stated there are many small vacation properties with very little impervious surfaces. Allow them to appeal their rate and get a rate reduction. They propose that smaller agricultural properties be treated as single family residential properties until their impervious surface area is more than an acre. At that time, charge them the commercial rate. Citizens are concerned that the Birch Bay watershed program continue to receive value from the countywide flood control zone district, if folks continue to pay into that district. They assume that folks will pay both the district tax and the subzone fee. He submitted a handout (on file) that compares rates in different area. Crawford asked if Birch Bay incorporation affects this at all. Ghilarducci stated it doesn't have to, but it could. It could be resolved through an interlocal agreement. John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the Council must answer the question of how this funding mechanism and the new board for this come together. The next steps include an upcoming public meeting. The plan now is to take it to the Council, with the public's input, for a Council decision. Another plan is to develop a new subzone. Weimer stated he suspects the people who end up on the new Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) Committee will make sure they go forward with something this year, for implementation in 2009. Wait and let the BBWARM Advisory Committee meet and not miss the 2009 implementation date. Don't delay to put it off a yea r. Nelson stated the Council is to help and assist the community process, not make decisions. The process should start at the bottom level and come forward. He asked if there is a chance to change the BBWARM Advisory Committee to become a controlling board. He asked if the County government wants to be the agency to make the decisions for this community. Allow the community to 'make decisions on what projects it wants to bring forward for County funding. Weimer stated the community decision is to leave the decisions to the County Board of Supervisors. Nelson stated he's not comfortable with that. Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 13 1 Hutchings stated Councilmember Brenner also brought up this question. She is 2 concerned about credits, that this won't get the appropriate level of public review, and 3 would like (inaudible). 4 5 Weimer asked when the Council needs to act to make sure this happens in 2009. 6 Olason stated there will be a public meeting announced to everyone in the watershed. They 7 will get a broader group at that meeting than they've had. There will be a wider range of 8 opinions. The Council will have a summary of those comments before the public hearing, 9 then all those people can testify at the public hearing. 10 11 Caskey- Schreiber stated try to educate the community on what this money will pay 12 for. The community will support it if it knows what it's paying for. 13 14 Ghilarducci stated there is a concern with using the self - elected board for the 15 subzone. There are advantages to using the County Engineering staff to support the 16 district. There are efficiencies to using the existing governance structure. It's an 17 advantage. 18 19 20 ADJOURN 21 22 The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. 23 24 25 26 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 27 28 The Council approved these minutes on July 8 2008. 29 i 30 ATTEV , �( C O i��i�' WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 31 ��` a� 0000006 ;,�/ � WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 33.7 34 35 36 Dina �q�ld i r1ciLlerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 4/15/2008, Page 14