Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session July 15 2008Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session July 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: . Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Bob Kelly Seth Fleetwood Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2008 -024) 1. CONSIDER A DRAFT RESOLUTION DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO .CREATE A STORMWATER UTILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING NPDES AND TMDL COMPLIANCE ]on Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted a revised draft resolution (on file) that includes suggested changes from the version in the Council packet. The purpose is to declare the Council's intent to move forward with some sort of funding for stormwater management. He summarized the substitute draft resolution. He submitted a list of suggested changes to the draft resolution (on file). They are not included in the substitute draft he just submitted, so he will incorporate the changes into another draft. He read through the suggested changes. Brenner stated she would like the title to say, "...limitations, funding options, and %or incentive - based.. option. ,s Use the word "incentive" in the title, and keep emphasizing incentives as much as rates and funding. Kelly stated that's a good idea. Hutchings continued to read changes suggested by people. Councilmember Brenner had recommended the second suggested change, and another person recommended the third suggested change, which is the one he put into the draft resolution. Brenner stated she is fine with the third change instead of her recommendation. Hutchings stated the fourth suggested change belongs at the end of the first 'Now Therefore Be It Resolved' statement. Brenner stated that if there were no stormwater impacts offsite from individual properties, as if every single person in the watershed eliminated stormwater runoff by 100 percent from their property, they would obviously still have problems. She asked if the work on those problems would come from the flood fee or road fund. Hutchings stated it could. They could put the burden of improvements to specific road - related issues and ditches that served only the road on the road program or flood fund. Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 1 Brenner stated they can't charge particular properties for public infrastructure, because the infrastructure benefits everyone. Hutchings stated the reason is putting a burden on those who use that public infrastructure to the greatest extent. A question is why or how much money should a north county resident put toward fixing stormwater problems in the watershed, because the problem being resolved by stormwater expenditures in the watershed is a much greater level of service than what a north county resident receives. Brenner stated it's open to all the public. She understands the connection between fees and problems with stormwater runoff from a property. Taxes are for public infrastructure, even if they do use more of the tax for the watershed. People who live in an area shouldn't pay more for public infrastructure just because they live there. Everyone can use the public infrastructure. Weimer asked if Councilmember Brenner wants to raise the flood fund for everyone in the county. Brenner stated she doesn't. Make sure they aren't charging a fee for anything not created directly from someone's property. The public infrastructure involves everyone. Reassess what they are taxing and how they are taxing everyone. Weimer stated that for six months, they've gone in a direction to realize that they must increase revenue to address Lake Whatcom. Brenner stated she agrees with the district and having people paying for it. Caskey- Schreiber stated those folks directly impacting and degrading the water body should pay more than those in outlying areas of the county. Birch Bay residents wouldn't be happy about paying more for Lake Whatcom water quality. Brenner stated figure the cumulative stormwater effect, and assess a flat fee. If someone individually is willing to do retrofits that take a lot of time and money to not have stormwater runoff, they should be exempted because they are not creating a problem. Everyone comes and goes on the roads. No one has a right to create stormwater runoff from their property. Nelson stated the question is whether it is disproportionate to charge those in a stormwater area for the use of a public right -of -way. Caskey- Schreiber stated this is different because it's a specific watershed. A Lake Whatcom watershed flood fee is a good way to go to specifically address problems there. This resolution won't be the only revenue source they need. It's a starting point. Figure out what those who are directly creating problems should pay. Having incentives for retrofits is a good idea. Start there and look at a larger way to spread out the expenses. Hutchings stated there will be investment in the watershed and national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) areas outside of any stormwater fee or assessment, because maintenance and operation investments will go up. There will always be outside investments to roads and road construction. They will pay a portion of their share of converting ditches to swales, and those sorts of things. There will always be outside investment into the stormwater program, above and beyond just what they raise from individuals. Keep in mind that any stormwater fee is also assessed on businesses. The Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 2 County has mandates to provide an enhanced level of stormwater management outside of the watershed, in the urban growth areas (UGA's), as a result of the NPDES. The County must find a revenue source to implement that, as well. Those areas will also receive an influx of road funds for maintenance and operation (M &O) for road maintenance. Brenner stated she is not in favor of having a portion of the road fund being funded another way, and having the people in the watershed pay another portion of public infrastructure. Weimer stated the new wording "utility or comparable mechanism" leaves all options open. Hutchings stated that is correct. Nelson moved to approve the substitute draft resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Kelly asked if there is a timeline associated with the resolution. Hutchings stated he has had discussions with the administration. Staff is working on a timeline. They have talked about the budget authority. They are talking about a six -month timeline that will begin in August. If the Council approves a stormwater utility or other funding option that needs to go on the tax roles, they must have those tax roles prepared by October 2009. If they are going to have a dedicated source for stormwater management, they need something ready for October 2009 to begin implementation. They will not have a lot of money in 2010. They need to build up a pot of money. Brenner stated an option to raising more money is to find it in the existing budget. 2. DISCUSS OUTCOMES OF THE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROJECT AND DETERMINE NEXT STEPS Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated this discussion will wrap up the coordinated water resource integration project (CWRIP). Implementing any major shift in the paradigm requires serious follow- through to be successful. As they consider where they've come, think about things they will have to deal with within the program and with the community. Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated the group tried to pull together all the water resource investments they've done in the past. They have established a database of different projects and investments the County does regarding water resources. They tried to hold true to the Council request to put together a tool for organizing everything that is going' on, and to seek out those things adopted regarding water resources. They've been very successful. They've identified costs and defined levels of service. A benefit of this process is to allow the Council to see details and also concentrate on policy issues in terms of how they want to spend money and what direction they want to take regarding water resources. They've done quite a bit of public outreach. The vast majority of the comments received has been positive. They are addressing the concerns if the water resource inventory area (WRIA) Planning Unit members. They will contact those with questions and concerns. Much of the concerns and questions received has little to do with the process, and has more to do with continuing the WRIA process, which is just one element of water resources. Staff has brought forward all elements of water resources. The public Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 3 appreciates being able to look at all the water resource issues and investments in an organized way. They've received the most comments about level of service four or five. That would require a stormwater utility and a raise in the flood control zone district tax. Staff will wrap up the final stages of phase two with CH21vIHill, put together documents from public comments. The documents from phases one and two will go on the County website. CH2MHill will not produce a final report, because it met with the Council monthly instead. He will gather everything together for the website. The Council just passed a resolution to define a funding mechanism for a stormwater utility. They must still decide on the public involvement and decision - making matrix. Decide on the kind of advisory committee, they want to review water resource investments from here on out. The project development group is up and running. Staff can now do investment review to evaluate projects and proposals. With the stormwater utility, there is potential for an advisory committee. There are different means to develop an advisory committee. Nelson asked the name of the staff group. Middleton stated it is the Project Development Group. Councilmember Brenner indicated that it should not be a short-term group, and it won't be. However, the individual members with expertise appropriate to a potential project will work on the project short-term. They will bring together individuals with expertise to evaluate projects. Nelson stated some of the individuals in the group with expertise aren't related to the County. Also he doesn't understand how the Council can be assured that this has gone through the CWRIP process and not just through some individuals in a department or from the public to make a decision. Middleton stated he is leading the Project Development Group. He must ensure that each project is taken through the same process each time. Hutchings stated that any new resource - related project that comes forward gets routed through a project - development group, headed by Mr. Middleton. Mr. Middleton will put together those who have expertise in areas related to the project, and evaluate the project according to the CWRIP model. As the Council and administration build budgets, they can look at the projects compared to all the other activities and objectively decide priority. Nelson stated the public will still be able to talk to the Council and talk up their projects, just like the six -year road program. Weimer asked if the Council will see a CWRIP evaluation form that comes forward with each contract or additional service request (ASR) regarding water. Middleton stated they will. They are looking at how each are evaluated now and trying to bring that information to the Council as the projects come forward. Hutchings stated all supplemental budget requests coming forward have included information on where the projects rank. Brenner stated all the people mentioned as having expertise are of the same ideology. The group of experts should include a more diverse group. Hutchings stated he Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 4 was talking about the interdisciplinary group that would be used to develop a project proposal to the level it can be analyzed using the CWRIP model. It is project- specific. Middleton stated the Conservation Program on Agriculture Lands (CPAL) project is a pilot project for the Drayton Harbor, which is why they asked Geoff Menzies to attend. About 20 people were involved. Brenner stated include people with other perspectives. Middleton stated they are inviting the best. They are inviting as many people in for each investment to get as much expertise as they can, so the Council gets the best evaluation it can have. They will get to see the list of people who are involved. Caskey- Schreiber asked why they have a list of priority projects if they develop another review process. Hutchings stated that's what the Council must decide. They now have a consistent and objective list and process. At some point, the Council must decide whether or not there should be an additional level of interaction with the community about broader priorities. That's where the role of some advisory committee could come in. Caskey- Schreiber stated mesh many of the groups into one. Everyone has a vested interest. The County has spent a lot of time and energy building this list, and she will give deference to that list. It's scary that they are going to open it up again. Don't spend all their time building lists, and not actually do any work. Hutchings stated he agrees there isn't a simple solution. Brenner stated some of the 300 projects that aren't yet done seem duplicative. She asked if they can be merged or whittled down. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Middleton stated they are working on that. Some seem duplicative, but really aren't. They are pieces of other projects. Hutchings stated they will be merged and whittled down as activities come forward with a budget. They will tie similar activities together where possible. Nelson stated two things are happening. First, there are over 300 projects that have gone through the CWRIP process. Second, there must be a mechanism to address the new projects that come forward. That's what they're talking about in phases two and three. Funding mechanisms must be integrated. Look at all this from the perspective of water resource management and its use throughout the county. New and old projects will continue to come to the Council. The County must have a process to define the County's responsibility, include new projects in the list, and address funding. Other types of things go through the funding mechanism. He would like to see how those things are incorporated and how they will work within the broader scope of the community. Kelly asked whether or not there are criteria folks will have to meet to be added to the list of the County's priorities. There are folks on the Planning Unit who have invested a lot of their time. The County must be clear to those folks about the criteria to allow them to know whether any project belongs on any County list. He understands that the Council isn't bound by the list, but the councilmembers need guidance about what staff considers as Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 5 County priorities. The Planning Unit is one example of folks who feel slighted. Be much clearer about the role of the list and how projects are added to the list. Hutchings stated all activities brought forward by the Planning Unit and others exist in the database and are on the list. They have been ranked. There is still a question about whether or not those criteria should be validated or affirmed against what the Planning Unit or a broader cross - section of the community thinks the criteria for priorities ought to be. They could go through a process with those folks and look at their criteria and priorities, to see if they are the same or different from the County. That's one way to affirm or validate those criteria, thereby affirming the rank of all those activities. The County must be able to show whether or not that is consistent with the organization that proposed that action in the first place, in spite of the County's ranking. The process should include a consistency analysis. Prepare a report of the County's recommendations, and see how those recommendations are consistent with the organization who proposed the project. However, the County's priorities could be totally inconsistent with the Marine Resources Committee (MRC), for example. Kelly stated avoid the perception that the County's priorities are inconsistent with the priorities of the MRC or any other organization. That's how it appears now. No one really understands how the County got to where it's at. The County doesn't want the folks on the MRC to think they don't matter. Be clear about what is on the list, how one gets on it, and what happens if a project isn't on the list. Hutchings stated there are two possible resolutions. One resolution is to affirm or validate those criteria, so a broader cross - section of people will agree as a whole. The second resolution is to be able to demonstrate just what level of consistency there is between the County priorities and individual interests. They can't do that today, but they can and should do that eventually. Nelson stated every other organization in the community has different concerns, priorities, and criteria they would establish to protect their priorities. The County has a fiduciary responsibility to the entire County. The County criteria may not match everyone else's criteria. Don't try to match everyone else. It would be a disservice to what they are trying to accomplish. However, create a system by which everyone can communicate together. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated she used the list at a recent Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee in developing a budget. That is an example of relying on the County's prioritization process, the technical input from staff, and the community's review. The committee approved the list without a hitch. Kelly stated the advisory committee is not the best example. Cooper stated it's a good example of how the list can work. Brenner stated she agrees they've already allocated time and resources to people. She thought the Planning Unit represents many different interests, including the MRC and salmon recovery interests. The Planning Unit is perfect for screening these projects. There should be some stable citizen group that will do this review before it comes to the Council. Hutchings stated they won't resolve this today. However, think about whether or not the County's priorities are necessarily consistent with the priorities of all the other interest Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 6 groups that come to the County for resources. The Planning Unit doesn't deal with the full suite of issues that the County deals with, such as public health and safety. Brenner stated that's correct, but it deals with water resources issues. The Planning Unit would do the water resource screening. Hutchings stated he's nervous about having everyone bring forward individual recommendations, and the Council having to sort through all those things, because they have tried to structure the conversation about what the priorities ought to be. It seems regressive. Brenner stated the Planning Unit would create a majority report and a minority report. It wouldn't be different opinions from everyone. She's concerned about the appearance that some of these people are hand - picked. Caskey- Schreiber stated there will be different citizen groups who have to be true to their individual missions. Don't think they will get buy -in from everyone about the projects.. She's okay that the County won't get buy -in from everyone. However, she approves of creating a large, representative group to address some of the larger projects. Middleton stated the database is for any County investment that requires County staff time, money, and resources. Projects that come before the Councilmembers at their meetings and are approved go into the database. If a project doesn't go through the County, it doesn't go on the database, because this is a County function. They are trying to organize the County's investments. Everything the Planning Unit asked for from the County is in the database. The Planning Unit didn't prioritize the vast majority of what it asked for, but the County put everything through the County's process. It doesn't meet the desire of everyone on the Planning Unit, but it makes sense from the County's perspective. Kelly stated that needs to be made clear to folks so they don't feel left out of the County's priority list. What the Council decides it will fund is a policy decision. The Council will have to justify that better. Don't disenfranchise those other groups. Middleton stated they have no intention of disenfranchising those groups. The work they've done is the reason the County has these 300 investments. The County has 300 projects for the Council to decide on, because those groups have been so successful in the past. Weimer stated there isn't a big concern from some groups about the priority rank of the list. Kelly stated everyone is fine with where things stand now, but don't allow some additional opportunities to forward a project. Weimer stated that additional opportunity they heard about was for a new program that will go through the County CWRIP process. Middleton stated that is correct. It's an entirely different proposal. Brenner stated she's heard from Planning Unit members who already feel disenfranchised by what's been done. Staff should figure out a way to make sure any advisory entity is inclusive. Middleton stated he's met individually with the three people who have been the most vocal about their disenfranchisement. Many of their concerns were about where the Planning Unit is going in the future, not about the County's CWRIP process. Brenner stated those three individuals are representatives of even more people. There is representation on the Planning Unit that feels disenfranchised. The County must acknowledge and work with that. Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 7 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated it sounds like there is still confusion about the Project Development Group, which is a staff group running the CWRIP evaluation tool for new projects. The Project Development Group will be staff- based, with input from folks elsewhere who have expertise in a particular issue. Also, they must figure out how to change the public involvement structure for both the Board of Supervisors and the County Council, as a result of CWRIP. A question is how the councilmembers want to restructure their public involvement to reflect- the integration that has happened with the model. The Council won't make decisions today, and will talk about it again in September. One reason it's confusing is because different groups are interested in different subject matters, and the County has different funding mechanisms that fund pieces of different things. Figure out an advisory committee structure that accommodates a variety of subject matter, a variety of funding mechanisms, and the fact that the Council sits as two separate governmental entities. Make it as compact as possible while recognizing the two governmental units. There is no tidy way to interject stormwater or other interests into the existing Flood Control Zone District, which is not the only funding mechanism for any single subject matter. The question is whether they create an overall, over - arching advisory committee to advise both the District and the County, and deal with all funding mechanisms and subject matter, or reconfigure the existing Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. Another question is whether it makes sense to have stormwater districts go to a district advisory committee or create a separate stormwater advisory committee. These are things the Council will have to decide over the next few months. Brenner stated it would be nice if, when they set up these stormwater districts, there were ground rules where they are all the same. They can set up their own specifics. Craven stated staff will bring forward a resolution at the next Council meeting to adjust the Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) Advisory Committee rules to establish consistency among all the subzones. Included in the resolution is a recommendation that all the policy making actions of the district be collected in one place and published as a separate tab in the code book, but not codified in the Code. They will not put laws created by the Board of Supervisors into the County Code. The County can't control other types of districts, created by statutes and petitions. In terms of the subzones, they are working to make them consistent. Because they have different interests, a goal is to put together an interlocal agreement between the district and the County to establish the rules of interaction between them, including staff rules and budgeting rules. It's important as a fiduciary matter that it be clear. The Flood Control Zone District is a separate government and needs to have a separate fund. Brenner asked if the Council will govern the subzones as the Council or Board of Supervisors. Craven stated it will govern as the Board of Supervisors. The stormwater work is under County obligation from the NPDES. The work must be done as a County entity. A subzone or district could seek separate election of its supervisors. At that point, the control of that district would no longer be from the County. Because they are setting it up to do a County function, it made more sense to have it be from the County. Brenner asked if Birch Bay could do that. Craven stated it could. Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 8 Brenner stated she's not comfortable with that. The Council appointed people. The people weren't elected. It must be one way or another. Either they all must be separate or all advisory to the Board of Supervisors. Weimer stated the County doesn't have a choice, according to the State statute. Brenner stated they have a choice for Birch Bay. They could change it, and keep the same advisory committee. Nelson asked for information on Planning Unit statutory authority and a list of who is involved. Also, he would like information on statutory requirements for the MRC and other groups. He prefers to have a committee or commission composed of all elements currently out there, including flood subzones, stormwater utility districts, and special districts. Create a commission that will evaluate water resource issues countywide before it comes to the County process. Councilmember Brenner's concern is an interesting concept. Birch Bay, as a flood subzone, pays into a certain system that can be matched. He asked if the BBWARM would be able to have the same thing. Hutchings stated it would not. They expect any implementation of the Birch Bay Stormwater Plan to be locally funded. Nelson asked if the funding they can raise is different if it were a stormwater district. Craven stated subzones can tax or charge a fee. Nelson stated they would have the same funding capability. The only difference is that it's up to the Council to decide who sits on its board. However, they could change to have an elected Board of Supervisors. Hutchings stated one idea was to form a countywide stormwater utility. It would be problematic, but the suggestion is out there. A long -term solution may be to begin with a bite -sized stormwater utility bounded on the NPDES permit area. As these areas urbanize to the point where they become part of the NPDES permit, they would automatically become subsumed by the stormwater utility. Review it every four years or so, as the permit is renewed. Brenner asked what happens if the community goes through an election and it becomes a separate government entity. Hutchings stated that if the community votes to remove the authority from the County Council and create its own Board of Supervisors, the question is whether the Council can erase the existence of a stormwater utility. It couldn't. However, they wouldn't want to continue to pay into a subzone and a stormwater utility. It isn't a major problem. Weimer stated he doesn't know the purpose of a larger, over - arching advisory committee. The smaller committees are focused on specific areas. He asked what an over- arching advisory committee would do. Middleton stated that's up to the Council. It depends on what advice the Council wants from an advisory committee. Nelson stated the smaller groups give good information, but they don't coordinate with each other. This is an opportunity for local communities to go through a process and begin communicating with each other. Projects can join together to become better projects. Weimer stated they will have to take care of and nurse some big advisory committee. He asked if they can model the road fund process, and invite all the groups to Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 9 one Council meeting to have a hearing about the CWRIP process, just like they do with the six -year road program. Brenner asked why that wouldn't work well. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Nelson stated he's interested in having the Planning Unit participants, not the Planning Unit itself, and others incorporate into the process. He is concerned that projects aren't effectively integrated. They can't match up and integrate projects effectively by having interest groups bring these things forward. The Council will sit there for hours in a budgetary fashion trying to evaluate programs without proper information, but with a group of people who happen to show up at the meeting. The purpose of an advisory group is to evaluate programs with staff assistance to help them look at projects to make sure they have the best possible chance in the CWRIP process. Caskey- Schreiber stated the decision - support system vetted all the needs out there. That is why they can finally make decisions. They've already vetted the information, criteria were implemented, and everything fell into place in a way that can be quantified. Councilmember Nelson is saying they will go back to this human element. It's a step backwards. Nelson stated he doesn't want to change the existing process and list. He's talking about adding new projects and programs that come forward. They should get a chance to be vetted. An over - arching advisory group can vet the new things that come up. It can review the larger projects regarding flood, stormwater management, agricultural practices, and fish habitat. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's what they have County staff for. Don't create another layer of bureaucracy. Brenner stated both can work. The existing programs on the list should be screened for duplicity and effectiveness. Integration isn't the Planning Unit's purpose, but the Planning Unit should be involved with a generic screening process. However, the Planning Unit should screen the new projects that come forward for the list. She doesn't want a new group. Weimer stated the Planning Unit is much different from a broad advisory group he'd like. The Planning Unit was formed as a group of special interest groups. They are people who are trying to protect certain parts of water management. He is concerned about using the Planning Unit's special interests over those with water interests. Brenner stated the Planning Unit has a balance of different interests. If an advisory group includes only specific interests, everyone will be upset at the County. Don't set themselves up to decide based on who has the loudest voice, rather than an existing screening process. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's what the list is for. They are now in a position to make decisions, now that they have the list. They don't need another group to vet the projects. Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 10 1 Weimer stated he agrees that they could have some broad group to look at new 2 applications submitted. Once the project comes through the CWRIP process, don't have 3 another review. 4 5 Nelson stated he agrees. 6 7 Caskey- Schreiber stated she also agrees. 8 9 Nelson stated the list should be fluid to include new projects that can be added at an 10 appropriate ranking level. 11 12 He has a problem with the Project Development Group bringing in people with 13 expertise, because he doesn't know who those people are. He doesn't have a problem with 14 the group going through the CWRIP process for the County's interest. A question is how 15 they will educate and involve the community. 16 17 Weimer stated that the idea would be for every proposal to go through this Project 18 Development Group. 19 20 Hutchings stated staff will narrow down these comments to a couple of 21 recommendations he will bring forward at the next work session. 22 23 They can look at the question of an over - arching board. They can look to make sure 24 there is appropriate involvement when projects are injected into the evaluation process. 25 There is a model for a consistency analysis between the County's priorities and special 26 interest priorities. Staff can flesh out those topics and continue this conversation at the 27 next meeting. 28 29 Weimer stated make sure they know the CWRIP prioritization is consistent with the 30 organization that proposed the project. 31 32 Nelson stated make sure they get the best bang for the buck and don't waste 33 money. 34 35 Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Chair, stated there is 36 varied expertise on the Advisory Committee, including federal and State representatives. 37 With term limits and people leaving the committee, the Council has the opportunity to 38 tweak the membership. 39 40 Nelson stated the County must look at its fiduciary responsibility and how that 41 applies to stormwater and other districts. He asked if Mr. Bronsema feels like the Flood 42 Control Zone District Advisory Committee members could work with a larger group and 43 others on flood control issues and broader issues. 44 45 Bronsema stated there is a learning curve when they bring in new people. If they try 46 to reinvent the wheel, the first year will be consumed by politics, grand- standing, and 47 people trying to maneuver for control. 48 49 Hutchings submitted the Washington State 2008 Surface Water Utility (Residential) 50 Rates survey (on file). It is something to think about. 51 52 Brenner asked if there are any locations in the state that have been affected by the 53 NPDES that haven't created a surface water utility. She doesn't understand what this Surface. Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 11 1 information shows. Hutchings stated there are such locations. This handout shows the 2 range of rates. One staff person is working with the Association of Washington Cities to talk 3 to elected officials around the state about the NPDES permits implications. There was a 4 recent workshop that yielded very useful information. 5 6 7 ADJOURN 8 9 The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:07 p.m. 1 11 �� 12 13 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 14 15 The Council approved these minutes on September 9 2008. 16 17 ATTEST \\ \ \ft\11111111������ WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 18 �������(� C0�/,'�i, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 19 �� • • ..... '�. 21 — U• ' 22 — 23 Dana owr 1c,4pipci , erk Carl Weimer, Council Chair ••� " 0' Surface Water Work Session, 7/15/2008, Page 12