HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session February 19 2008Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
February 19, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Whatcom
County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham,
Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Bob Kelly
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2008 -025),
1. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROJECT SECOND
PHASE, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DISCUSSION, PUBLIC WORK AND PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, discussed the background of project
phase one. The database and tool can be used to consider prioritization. The next question
is about future implementation with adequate public participation and defensible funding
decisions.
Today they will talk about the scope of public involvement and how to structure a
process that adequately includes public input while allowing the Council to make appropriate
funding decisions. CH2MHill and staff prepared a public involvement strategy (on file). He
read from the purpose statement in the handout. County staff will meet with CH21VIHill to
make sure information from stakeholders gets to the Council. They have interviewed
administrative staff. County staff will make sure area residents and stakeholders have an
opportunity for small group meetings to understand where the County is headed.
Therefore, everyone will attend public meetings adequately informed. He read through the
Phase two comprehensive water resource integration project (CWRIP) Stakeholder and
Public Participation section of the handout. Future surface water work sessions will continue
to address these issues.
Brenner stated items three and four of the stakeholder and public participation
section should include a statement that the County will incorporate public comments. The
purpose of the annual process, page two of the handout, should also say that the County
will incorporate public comments. Also, she doesn't support reconstituting the Flood Control
Zone District Advisory Committee. Too much has gone into it. Flood issues are too
important to water down with other issues.
Nelson stated the criteria discussed previously aren't in the handout. The public
won't know those criteria, which should be -included. Also, consider a smaller scope of
criteria for decision - making. Hutchings stated that at some point, they have to go to
stakeholders and the public with the database. Show the public how this analysis tool
works and what it produces. That's what the first public meeting should accomplish. They
will reach out to key members of the community who are actively engaged in water
resources issues. Follow that up with a public meeting, during which there will be a
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 1
1 presentation of the database and tool. The second public meeting will talk more about
2 going forward, comments they've received, and funding.
3
4 Nelson stated the criteria should follow each of these discussions and meetings.
5
6 Weimer stated the first meetings talk about core criteria. He asked if the meetings
7 will include a structure change. Hutchings stated they will. Everyone must be on the same
8 page to have that discussion. That's the reason for two separate meetings, with time
9 between each. They will get everyone up to speed on the tools before discussing funding
10 options.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the notion of expanding the Flood Control
13 Zone District Advisory Committee to include all stakeholders. Now, one group is making all
14 the decisions. There are problems when they don't consider each others' perspectives.
15 There are benefits to have a mixed group that thinks about the big picture of decisions
16 being made. Stakeholders are those who represent the interests of fish, shellfish, water
17 quality, stormwater, and possibly City interests as well as flood protection.
18
19 Brenner stated shellfish has nothing to do with flooding.
20
21 Caskey- Schreiber stated Geoff Menzies would beg to differ.
22
23 Bill Derry, CH2MHill, stated the only difference from the process laid out in the scope
24 of work is that the stakeholder meetings instead be a series of one -on -one meetings. There
25 is much background to go through. Once they move past phase two, they'll have to do this
26 annually.
27
28 People should have a chance to understand, and the County should have a chance to
29 hear concerns. Annually, look at the results of the tools, gather feedback, and see if the
30 priorities still make sense. Don't ask stakeholders to come up with their own separate lists
31 every year. Instead, ask stakeholders to provide input on the master list.
32
33 He described the existing water resource funding request structure in the handout.
34 This is for the specific task of asking for funding, not for communication in general. Elected
35 officials are shown across the top of the chart. Now, everyone comes to the County Council
36 for money, other than diking districts and drainage districts until they run out of their own
37 money.
38
39 Nelson stated the Council and the Council acting as the Flood Control Zone Board of
40 Supervisors receive many separate requests through separate processes. They have to
41 make funding decisions out of context and out of sequence with all these groups. There is a
42 total disconnect. The Council isn't connected with the community's needs for flooding and
43 many other water and habitat protection areas.
44
45 Derry stated an issue is having adequate opportunity for input and meaningful
46 participation and an opportunity for them to listen to each other. The flood interests, fish
47 interests, shellfish interests, and drinking water interests should all understand each other.
48 They should understand that there is more to prioritize than just their projects. Create the
49 dialog in a way that doesn't end up in endless staff time and meetings. It also shouldn't
50 add to the confusion. Having too many groups can be expensive and add to the confusion.
51 He read through the options for public participation in the annual prioritization process.
52
53 Nelson stated phase two looks at current structures and how to set up new
54 structures. He thought phase three is to incorporate the rest of the community. Hutchings
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 2
stated they combined the two phases when they wrote the contract. They realized they
can't talk about one without the other. They will first talk about representing the public
interest before talking about funding options. Both discussions inform each other.
Nelson asked if the staff looked at these options and have a recommendation.
Brenner stated the County has a fund that was a flood fee to begin with. If they are
going to add all these expenses to that fund, there won't be enough money to do anything.
She's uncomfortable mixing flood interests with all the rest. Derry stated they acknowledge
that there will be different iterations in the structure and financing. They will talk next time
about financing alternatives. Depending on the outcome of that decision, they may want to
revisit the public participation process.
Hutchings stated it's difficult to get past a conceptual picture of what's most
functional until they have a good picture of funding.
Weimer stated they are trying to achieve surety for all the groups to know what
they're going to get. The flood fund typically is for flood activities. In the last few years,
the Council has been dipping into that fund for different things. Create a fund that will go
toward all the interests, which means they will either need to increase the pot of funds or be
more selective with prioritization.
Crawford stated there was flooding in Sumas. Then the County Council passed the
flood fee. A few years ago, the fee changed to a tax, and the County reduced the amount
collected. At the same time, they raised the general fund property tax by an equal amount.
State law limits the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee membership to 15
persons. Whatever they're doing today must still be regulated by State law. He favors
using what they thought was flood taxes or fees for flood projects. Those funds shouldn't
be a resource for other kinds of things, such as Lake Whatcom. Face issues about Lake
Whatcom water quality management head on, and not call it a portion of the flood tax. He
asked if a bigger committee subverts the intent of the State law.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the statutes that set up the flood
control zone district allow much broader uses than flood control. That may have been the
County's original intent for that fund, but the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) authorizes
much broader uses. It's a bad name, but it's allowed for very broad purposes, including
habitat improvement, water quality, and stormwater. It's particularly allowed if done
cooperatively with other entities. The district has the authority to do cooperative watershed
management for any of those purposes.
Crawford stated the residents of Whatcom County are glad the County has money for
flood control purposes. Now, the County has to tell those residents that the pool of money
can be watered down and used for all kinds of things. He's not in favor of that.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this money isn't spread out. It's primary function should
still be for flood issues. Everyone would benefit from a larger perspective when they think
about their projects. All stakeholders affected by their decisions should influence what
projects are done and how they're done. Don't have one group make decisions while
unaware of another group. All parties should be forced to hear from all perspectives, like
the Council is. Then they would think more from a habitat perspective than just for flood
control. She wants to broaden that committee to more than property owners directly
affected, which may not be the best outcome for the County's big picture.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 3
Weimer stated one purpose of phases two and three is to determine how to fund
such work.
Fleetwood asked if there are any activities on the handout that aren't within the
scope of the authority of the flood control district. That is an argument in favor of renaming
and reconstituting the board. Craven stated the statute is quite broad. It has been
amended over the years.
Nelson stated the flood control tax /fee, when put in place, was to dredge and armor
the river. That's generally what people thought they were going to pay for. That's been
thrown out over time. It's no longer an accepted practice, and there are other demands.
That tax has been broadened. This is the best funding mechanism. Other mechanisms are
available and being used. They must broaden the scope and their minds to think forward
into the future to manage water resources, habitat, agriculture, forestry, and other
practices. Structurally, he's inclined to set it up geographically. The Council will have a
better understanding of what's happening in that region and how that can be incorporated
into the countywide planning processes. Don't get locked into what the fund was in the
past. Think about what that fund can do for the County. The fee was cut because the
County had no plan and nothing to spend it on. The pot of money had grown without
anything to spend it on.
Crawford stated the County was also being threatened by a lawsuit.
Nelson stated this was before the lawsuit threat. Over the years, everyone began to
come forward, but there was no process.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the flood fund can be used for multiple
purposes. The potential uses have grown over the past few years. The administration
wants to make sure the County follows the law. They looked carefully and prudently at the
flood fund for funding those other purposes.
He asked if 15 members is large enough for a committee that is going to address all
these issues. If not, there could be a committee of 15 with other subcommittees to focus
on special areas. Derry stated that if limited to 15, there could be five representatives each
from flood, habitat, and water quality /stormwater interests. There could also be
subcommittees of ten for each of those topics, which would then report to the existing
Advisory Committee. Another alternative is to have a stormwater /water quality /water
supply group and a habitat group that are equal to the Advisory Committee, all under a new
umbrella committee.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated these issues will compete with each other for funding. That's crazy.
Most of the issues are individually paramount. Don't have a committee look at these first.
Caskey- Schreiber stated some of these will have their own local funding for projects.
The bigger projects will come to the County Council.
Brenner stated that's fine. The subcommittees should come to staff and the Council.
Don't combine interests from all these areas into one committee. Don't put them under a
competitive umbrella. They shouldn't have to compete to anyone but the Council, not to an
advisory committee.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 4
1 Hutchings stated the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee purpose would
2 be to vet the priority budgetary considerations for the County, as opposed to
3 micromanaging the Marine Resources Committee, for example. The Marine Resources
4 Committee would exist as it does today. It would engage in grant opportunities and bring in
5 outside funds. In cases where it wants to draw on County resources, there would be a
6 process that committee members would know. The Committee would go through that
7 process.
8
9 Brenner stated don't do away with the Flood Control Zone District Advisory
10 Committee.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Advisory Committee would be larger than what it is
13 now. It would be more comprehensive, not watered down.
14
15 Weimer stated the flood subzones, diking districts, drainage districts, shellfish
16 protection districts, and Marine Resources Committee would all still focus on their issues.
17
18 Brenner stated the flood subzones still work with the Advisory Committee.
19
20 Nelson stated the shellfish advisory committees still work with the Marine Resources
21 Committee. The stormwater action committees that may form would work with a
22 stormwater group. The flood subzones would still work with the Flood Control Zone District
23 Advisory Committee.
24
25 Craven stated the existing Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee meets
26 and talks about many other things besides the annual work program. Those functions of
27 the committee need to carry forward if the committee were reformed. They considered
28 having a subset of folks on a larger committee act as a subcommittee for those flood
29 purposes, to carry on those existing activities.
30
31 Weimer stated the five flood interest representatives on the proposed new Advisory
32 Committee would be the subcommittee that meets with the rest of the flood
33 representatives.
34
35 Crawford stated the new advisory committee ends up doing what the County Council
36 is doing now, which is prioritizing. He asked the difference between that option and the
37 County Council. The Council is just punting it's decision - making requirement to that new
38 advisory committee. Derry stated funding requests would go through the staff first, who
39 would apply benefit ranking and overlay factors for a tentative list for this group to consider.
40 It would be consolidated into a master list using these tools. One option is to consolidate all
41 the requests at the staff level. Then it would go to the overall board. In each structure
42 option, they presume that staff will apply the tool to come up with the benefit ranking score.
43 The benefits will be ranked uniformly. The results would go to the advisory committee for
44 review.
45
46 Nelson stated the County has limited funds available for resource management.
47 People have already requested funding for over 200 plans and projects. The County staff
48 recommends a prioritization process to the Council. Other groups should come up with their
49 own ideas to help fund those projects. Bring everything together in a prioritization process
50 for all items. After projects go through the local committees, it could be incorporated into
51 the County prioritization process. Staff prioritization will happen at all times, whenever
52 funding is requested. There has to be a filter so the best solutions and plans are put
53 forward. They have to create that filter system.
54
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 5
Weimer asked if prioritization would go directly to the Council or through some new
umbrella group. He asked if the purpose of the new umbrella stakeholder group is to take a
closer look at projects that have gone through the staff process and argue if something has
fallen out of place. Derry stated that if they create a group, the group will assume it has an
authority, whether it actually has that authority or not. The group will want to prioritize.
However, the group's role is to review whether the process, criteria, goals, or point system
are correct. It's role isn't to prioritize projects. When creating the committee, the County
will have to be very clear about that. The committee will have to be reminded of their role
each time they meet.
Hutchings stated they aren't discouraging interest groups from lobbying for what
they believe is important. This levels the playing field so everyone understands the
process. The interest groups will be able to work with staff to broaden their projects to
receive a better ranking and have more public benefit. Before going to the County Council,
programs would have been vetted by the advisory committee in terms of whether the
process is sound and provides an accurate representation of the collective view of the
advisory committee. That should help everyone coming into the process.
Brenner stated don't make it like a Planning Commission. If the Council doesn't go
along with Planning Commission advice now, someone doesn't like it. The Council makes
the decisions in the end. Flooding has become the stepchild for funding in the last five or
ten years. When the Council first passed the fee, it was for flooding. Flooding is a life or
death issue in many cases. The issue of flooding should not become less important than it
is.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is an opportunity to coalesce projects. The Flood
Control Zone District Advisory Committee members told the Council that they hate having
to do mitigation. If the committee worked more on the ground level, it could do projects
that wouldn't need so much mitigation because the projects would be more environmentally
friendly. Bringing the parties together will let them see each others' perspectives. They
may be able to avoid costly mitigation projects and communities won't have to fight against
each other. That's what this process will accomplish. The process won't be without
problems.
Craven stated there is no need to establish a new committee. One goal of the
integration process was to integrate the projects at the staff level. However, without a new
committee or reformed advisory committee, separate districts with their own funding
mechanisms will come to the flood control district for additional funds. They will also have
general fund - funded subject groups coming to the County without an additional process to
vet those projects. If that's what the Council wants, that's okay. However, individual
programs will come to the Council separately, without any integration across those subject
matters and funding source divides.
Brenner stated those are tasks for the staff. Staff are the experts, not a citizen
group.
Weimer stated they are better off already because they have the prioritization tool.
If the Council is happy with that tool, it doesn't need to form another committee. People
can just bring their priorities to the County and make their own pitch for their projects. The
problem is that the Council doesn't know enough to make sure separate but similar projects
are integrated.
Brenner stated that won't happen with a citizen advisory committee, who aren't the
experts. Staff are supposed to be the experts.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 6
1
2 Weimer stated stakeholder groups have a different level of knowledge than the staff.
3
4 Hutchings stated reconsider the question of staff support. They are asking for an
5 increased level of activity, which means more staff support and more money. The step of
6 reformulating the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee will require additional
7 staff time.
8
9 Brenner stated she supports having more staff support. If staff are overworked, the
10 Council won't get the information it needs. At some point, it becomes very political. She's
11 not comfortable with that. They definitely need more staff.
12
13 Weimer stated he prefers to keep the structure as simple as possible so it doesn't
14 become complicated and costly. Start with the simpler model and see if they end up
15 needing something more complicated.
16
17 Hutchings stated he would like the Council to affirm staff is going down the right
18 direction in terms of public process.
19
20 The Council concurred.
21
22 Hutchings stated he also would like the Council to affirm whether or not they are
23 analyzing the right information and presenting the right options for how they are going to
24 do this annual review. There will be plenty of time for more discussion.
25
26 Crawford stated it's fine. Make certain they don't lose sight of flood control projects.
27 Empower those in flood prone areas, who have institutional memory of the river, to have an
28 adequate amount of input into this process so they have practical results of flood impacts.
29 Acknowledge the importance of flood control in and of itself.
30
31 Nelson asked how the water resource inventory area (WRIA) fits into this process.
32 People are already coordinating on WRIA. Hutchings stated the WRIA planning unit
33 representatives are high on the list of stakeholders.
34
35 Nelson stated he'd like to see their responses.
36
37 Brenner stated the proposed structures could become another WRIA process. One
38 WRIA process is enough. Those people have spent much time and energy on WRIA. An
39 advisory group could be formed through WRIA. Hutchings stated the planning unit
40 members represent other governmental entities, not just the community.
41
42 Fleetwood asked the work the advisory committee could do. Staff would do the
43 ranking. He asked if the advisory group would review the ranking and affirm the ranking.
44 Hutchings stated the purpose is to affirm the process. It would review options for levels of
45 service. It would recognize a wide variety of different classes of activities in which the
46 County is engaged. Within a class of activities, such as capital projects, the committee
47 would decide whether projects are right and ready to proceed. Staff needs to review all of
48 those things and come forward with options that becomes a suite of planning activities,
49 capital projects, and programmatic activities that would go into the Executive's budget.
50 Staff would bring that recommended portfolio of activities to an advisory committee, which
51 would decide if the process represents the community's expectations, and if the portfolio is
52 consistent with the needs of the community. It wouldn't debate the funding priorities.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 7
Fleetwood asked if the advisory committee could propose additional projects.
Hutchings stated it could. Those projects would have to start at the beginning of the
process, just like any other project. The Council would receive a staff recommendation and
an advisory committee validation or suggested refinement of the process.
Crawford stated they are violating the intent of the State law unless they call the
super- committee the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. It's clear they're
talking about expending the resources of that tax base, which has to be done through the
Flood Control Advisory Committee, with its 15 members. They could create a super -
committee called the Flood Control Advisory Committee and a task force of people who look
specifically at flood issues.
Weimer stated the Council is leaning toward the model of having a Flood Control
Advisory Committee with five members each for habitat, flood, and stormwater /water
quality.
The Council concurred.
Craven stated they shouldn't make any decisions today. They must first consider the
funding mechanisms, which may dictate the structure of the process and advisory role.
Today, they are looking at the process rather than the governance structure and funding
mechanism that pays for it all. As the Council continues to make decisions in this process,
the structure may change.
Weimer stated the Council concurs that it approves of the stakeholder involvement
process. At the next work session, the Council will discuss levels of service.
Nelson stated the result of any process they choose is a mechanism where the
different interests are talking to each other and using resources to the best advantage for
the entire county.
Fleetwood stated change the name from something other than the Flood Control
Zone District Advisory Committee, which would be slightly deceptive and less descriptive of
the committee's purpose.
Brenner stated the result is getting feedback and incorporating that feedback. Her
fear is that the staff team work will change through politics. She supports having
stakeholder information. Staff should incorporate that information so the Council has a
better understanding of its limitations. Staff has better knowledge of County budgetary
constraints and other issues. She's tired of making more and more advisory committees,
which makes the Council further away from specifics when it takes a final vote.
Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, stated be cautious
of creating new advisory committees. The County can't get anyone to apply to the subzone
committees it has now.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Bronsema continued to state that the Flood Control Zone District Advisory
Committee now has people from many different backgrounds with a variety of interests. Go
slow in this process. Having 15 people on a committee makes it very unwieldy. They won't
accomplish anything with a committee that is even larger. Seven or nine is a good number
for a committee.
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 8
1 Nelson stated this process is important because people will know how things will
2 work. He asked about the option of reviewing projects on the criteria they've already talked
3 about for the benefit of the entire county. Bronsema stated the existing group could do
4 that. The Council may appoint.people with more varied interests to suit what the Council
5 wants from the committee. Some of the people on the Advisory Committee are strictly
6 flood oriented and don't want to deal with other issues. He's not that worried about flood
7 issues getting lost. The result of this ranking process is that the first priority is Lake
8 Whatcom, but the next seven priorities are flood issues. If they go off the priority list,
9 protecting flood issues will already happen. In terms of flood issues, they must implement
10 the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Program for the lower river. The Advisory
11 Committee was charged with that task when the district formed in 1992. They are just now
12 in the process of finally developing these projects. Many things will come to the Council in
13 the next six months. Some of those things will be big- ticket items. Flood prevention
14 projects are often de facto habitat projects. Flood storage creates habitat.
15
16 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated she agrees with Mr.
17 Bronsema. The name may be controlled by State legislation.
18
19 When the public meetings are held, one meeting style is a panel discussion and the
20 other meeting style is having different tables focused on different issues, amongst which the
21 public can mingle. She prefers the panel discussion style because it better - informs the
22 public about the comments and interests of the other members of the public.
23
24 Weimer asked if the staff and consultants will respond to stakeholder comments.
25 Hutchings stated there will be an accounting of written comments and summaries of what
26 they hear as they visit stakeholder groups. A reasonable compromise, rather than going
27 through each comment, is to categorize the comments into different groups and then
28 summarize a response.
29
30 Craven stated the next meeting will address available financing options. The April
31 meeting will address levels of service.
32
33 Fleetwood asked if staff feels that today's meeting addressed the governance issue.
34 Craven stated the governance structure will be formed based on the funding structure they
35 choose. They want to be done with this by June, to be incorporated into the budget
36 process.
37
38
39 ADJOURN
40
41 Tbpmeeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
42
43 `
44
45 Jill Nixon``0114 t M%Fription
46 ,.
47 minutes on March 11 2008.
48 i
49 ATTS�� Q� CCU ;< WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
50 =_ U• ~" = WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
51 - •
52
• = L�
53 •'
54 Dana 5,,qwn -lt"i, ounce lerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 2/19/2008, Page 9