Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session January 22 2008Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session January 22, 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 None Bob Kelly Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2007 -025) 1. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROJECT, 1ST PHASE, FINAL PRESENTATION John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated they will present a progress report on staff's activities in gathering a baseline of water resource information regarding plans, capital projects, and programmatic activities. Those plans and work programs have been reviewed in detail and entered into a database that will result in a standard and objective priority for County investments related to water resources. Today, they will show what has happened thus far to pull that information together and putting it in a format the Council can use to inform its decisions in the future. The purpose today is to give staff an opportunity to demonstrate details of the database, request Council guidance about formalizing the use of the information, develop a timeline for future related activities, and affirm the Council's expectations. He discussed the background of the comprehensive water resources integration project (CWR1P). Today, there are 278 investments or activities in the database. That number will change. He described the information in the database. The staff developed measures of public benefit for each project. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated she presented the information to individual councilmembers last week. The information is essentially the same as she presented. She submitted a handout of the top 25 projects in each database category (on file). They can sort each investment in a variety of ways. The benefit evaluation score is helpful. The estimate of potential outside funding is not dedicated funding. At this point in time, it's the amount that is the likely percentage of outside funding that might be available. The other overlay in the model is a regulatory overlay. Those are the columns they are most likely to use when working on work plans and budget proposals. Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 1 Fleetwood asked about the Lake Whatcom Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Cooper stated it isn't in the database. That plan is a source document for projects and investments in this database. That plan is mostly done. If a plan isn't created yet, such as the North Fork Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, there is a project to create that plan. That is on the planning list. Nelson stated (inaudible). He asked what they are measuring in C4 of the evaluation score. Cooper stated there are two components of that criteria. One component is the speed that a benefit accrues once they spend the money. A re- vegetation project, for example, may take five years before they have a real benefit. Another component is how long a benefit lasts. Nelson asked how cost becomes a criteria. Cooper stated the criteria deal with the amount of benefit received for the money and how quickly they receive the benefit. Cost is an overlay. Nelson asked how the cost is evaluated. Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated the benefit evaluation score is one small piece to consider when prioritizing projects. Cost and funding are still considered by a manager. That is not evaluated. Cost is an overlay, discussed separately and through a public process. Nelson stated cost and regulatory requirements are overlays. Middleton stated that is correct. Sequencing is also an overlay. Nelson asked if those overlays are equal to all projects and can't be used as criteria for evaluation. Middleton stated that's correct. They introduce the idea of level of service in phase two. Caskey- Schreiber stated there are many flood control projects identified. She asked if this prioritizing list trumps the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee's prioritization. Cooper stated this is not a prioritization list. It's a reflection of the benefit evaluation score only, before the overlays are applied. She would use this tool in developing the work plan. It shouldn't trump anything from the advisory committee, which would use this as a tool to develop a work program and budget. How the advisory committee uses this tool will be developed in phase two. It would be appropriate for future work proposals to include some reflection of the benefit evaluation score and overall investment rank. Middleton stated the database is a way to consider alternatives and compare projects. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they will also consider as a factor projects that are already in progress. Cooper stated they will. She develops her work programs based on things they must do, things that are already underway, things they could begin, and things that are clearly parked for later. She submitted a copy of the top 25 projects in each database category with her projects highlighted in yellow (on file). The other projects don't affect her program. Some of the higher ranked projects are parked, and others lower on the list are already in progress. She described her projects on the lists. Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 2 1 Middleton stated that a project may receive a high benefit evaluation score, but 2 there are other factors to consider, such as cost and other factors, that prohibit them from 3 doing those projects for a few years. 4 5 Nelson asked how the projects will be presented to the Council when it considers 6 projects. Middleton stated that's what phase two is about. 7 8 Nelson asked if phase two will come up with a sequence for the projects. Middleton 9 stated phase two will come up with a process to develop the sequence of projects. 10 11 Nelson asked if there is a way for sequencing to be reflected in the criteria. Cooper 12 stated they can't. It can be a category in the spreadsheet. They can add a field that 13 indicates when a project can be done in relation to other projects. 14 15 Weimer stated staff will inform the Council about sequencing when they come 16 forward with projects. 17 18 Brenner asked if staff will make recommendations to the Council through the various 19 advisory groups. Cooper stated she takes this information to her advisory groups first, 20 before the County Council. She envisions that will continue. 21 22 Middleton stated that is also a component of phase two. 23 24 Nelson asked if phase two is about how they integrate this with the rest of what the 25 County is doing and with the community. Hutchings stated it is. 26 27 Kelly asked about the list of criteria used to get here. Middleton stated that 28 information is in the Council's packet. 29 30 2. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROJECT, 2ND PHASE, 31 TIMELINE AND EXPECTATIONS 32 33 Hutchings stated they now have a database full of useful information. They have a 34 tool for analyzing that information and extracting subsets of information useful to future 35 decision - making. The question now is how they formalize a process for using that 36 information and ensure that it has the appropriate public involvement. The question now is 37 to develop a prioritization process that the administration and Council can use for budgeting 38 and work programs. Phase two will address that question. 39 40 Brenner stated set this up similar to the six -year road plan. They should be able to 41 change it as necessary. 42 43 Caskey- Schreiber stated create a color -coded overlay that indicates a project's 44 readiness in terms of sequencing. The Council will know what can realistically be done. 45 46 Weimer stated the Council is deluged with different groups who are trying to move 47 forward their projects. Now this list will develop prioritizes. He asked what will keep groups 48 from trying to forward their projects through this list. Hutchings stated this doesn't absolve 49 the decision - makers from making decisions. It provides objectivity to the discussion. The 50 Council may be able to say to a particular interest group that it should go through that 51 process to see how its proposal falls among all the other proposals. If a project doesn't look 52 good in terms of benefit, things can be done to broaden the community benefit. Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 3 Cooper stated this will motivate people to broaden their projects to have multiple public benefit. Brenner stated it's important to consider what is most important to certain people and certain areas. Don't leave that out of the process. Weimer stated he agrees. The County Council will take that into consideration, not the advisory committees. Middleton stated they've tied phases two and three together. Fleetwood asked to what extent the funding reality will inform level of service. Middleton stated he will present that information. He described the background for the CWRIP and future meeting topics (on file). Caskey- Schreiber stated the consultant for the Parks Plan did a useful public survey about which funding mechanisms they would support. Tie in public outreach with funding options to find out which options are most palatable to the public. Bill Derry, CH2MHill, stated they will come forward with a financial strategy package that lays out all the options. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Middleton stated they want to set up the citizen advisory group to figure out the funding mechanisms and then talk about level of service options. They will also discuss how sequencing and regulatory compliance fits into this. After they pull these together, discuss it with the stakeholders, who are everyone who has anything at all to do with water resources. Discuss the community response to this. They will come to the Council with the results of the discussions and a recommendation for a future process to make any County investment in water resources. Brenner stated have more than one meeting. Have several meetings in different parts of the county. Also allow for written comments. Middleton stated they will do that. They want this process to succeed by getting as much information as possible. Brenner stated include a way to invite the cities into the process. Middleton stated they will. They will also include diking districts and all other jurisdictions. Derry referenced the scope of work for phase two (on file) and stated he will work with the Council and staff to define the stakeholder process to make sure everyone participates and feels like their comments have been heard and considered. The second item in the scope is that they will talk through the financial strategy and options. The third item is about the level of service. Fourth, they will refine the tool to make decisions within the departments and as the full County. They will come up with recommendations for measuring success and to incorporate the findings into this process. They may want to change the criteria in the future. Fifth, they will consider how to integrate this process into the day -to -day activities of the departments. IVelson asked if the community would have the capacity to start looking at and evaluating their proposals by June. Derry stated they will develop that strategy with the Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 4 Council and then hold a series of public meetings. There will be a strong stakeholder process for their comments and suggestions on the process and tools. In the end, they will make recommendations, which may or may not be the same as the staff recommendations. Both recommendations will come to the Council. Staff will prepare their annual work programs and load that into their budget recommendations. There are independent routes for public input into that process, directly to the County Council. Incorporating the stakeholder process internally requires a culture change. Nelson stated they must show the community how this process works within the County and how their projects can be successful. He asked how they will provide that education to the community. Derry stated there is a process for providing feedback to groups who present their projects. Hutchings asked if the scope for phase two is in line with the Council's original direction. Brenner stated she's impressed. This will be extremely helpful. Weimer stated it's good. He likes how they want to get this done in time for the budget cycle. It's clear they need more money. He hopes the Council and Executive build new funding sources into the two -year budget. Caskey- Schreiber stated funding is one of the strongest project driver. Funding is vital to implementation. Communities who have taken funding into their own hands will rise to the top. They will have to provide equity to large projects that don't have an associated community. The phase and projects are well done. She likes the visuals. The information will help the Council make decisions. Brenner stated they may decide to change existing funding and internal structures. Hutchings stated the contract for phase two will come to the Council for approval. Cooper stated the Council already approved the budget for the contract. Hutchings stated they are between the administrative activity of compiling all the information and the political discussion of how to implement in the community. To formalize what they've developed in phase one, there is a proposed resolution. The Council could demonstrate its support for the process so far by approving the proposed resolution in the Council packet. Crawford stated he's concerned about the strength of the comment, "Now, therefore, be it resolved that all water resource investments of Whatcom County shall be subjected to...." First, priorities change over time. They need a framework that can reflect changing priorities. Second, they must be flexible enough to deal with emerging issues as they come up. The language seems rigid to neglect an emergent situation or changing priority. Nelson moved to approve the resolution. He's comfortable with what he's heard today about staff's work to put this together. If there is a flooding situation, there will be many projects not on the list that they'll need to do. However, the highest criteria is public health and safety. That would allow those projects to rise to the top. By it's very nature, this tool allows adaptability. That's the point of these types of decision - making processes. Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 5 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment, "Now, therefore, be it resolved ... a standardized, transparent, a-n# objective, ' and adaptive management process for prioritization...." Nelson accepted the friendly amendment. Nothing precludes them from making their own decisions. They will have a process to support their decisions. Weimer stated this resolution will come to the Council at its next meeting. Nelson amended his motion and moved to recommend approval to the full Council with Councilmember Brenner's suggested amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Nelson stated he likes the existing criteria. He asked how (inaudible) affects ranking. Dan Speicher, CH2MHill, stated that from a mathematical decision science standpoint, it doesn't make much difference. The important part of the weighting process is that the weights are a reflection of the values of the people who are a part of the process. Nelson asked if 11 criteria with smaller weights won't change anything about the five criteria with heavier weights. Speicher stated it won't. Weimer stated the consultant is providing the same information to the Executive and Council at different meetings. He asked why they need two separate meetings if they're acting as a team. It would be good for the Executive and Council to hear each others concerns. Middleton stated the idea isn't to present the same information, once to the Executive and once to the Council. They will discuss internal organizational issues and training issues with the Executive. They are making sure that they get all the work done with the consultant they need to in one day. Weimer stated that's not what the scope says. The scope says it's the exact same meeting. The Council doesn't know what the Executive's concerns are because they don't go to his meetings. If they really work together, they may all be on the same page. Nelson stated he hoped that the administration will be at the Council meetings. It's important that they all be on the same page as they move forward. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated part of the work plan for this process included a review of how the County is organized to address water resources. He asked when that occurs. Middleton stated that is the last part of phase one. It is part of the discussion with citizen advisory involvement. That is one of the things that came out in phase one. Desler stated they want to complete that discussion. How they address water resource management and their investments has been an internal debate within the organization. Revisit the discussions they've had thus far, possible ideas, and CH2MHill's involvement. They wanted staff deeply involved in the administrative development and orientation process. They will make fundamental decisions about assigning staff and resources. Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription Th`,R.06l�� Map �oved these minutes on March 25 2008. C+ O'� ".i ATTEti�� \� �•�:04TCv • C/ /�� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL J� ,y,•� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON O ; o cA • do • r Dan. Brow 4QQ►anci1,Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair / / /// • • • • • • • • � ''`tom Surface Water Work Session, 1/22/2008, Page 7