HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session June 10, 2008Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
June 10, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.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 (AB2008 -024)
1. WATER RESOURCE FUNDING DISCUSSION -LOCAL OPTIONS FOR STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the level of service includes a
variety of activities associated directly with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) phase two and the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study for Lake
Whatcom. They have a comprehensive stormwater plan that addresses many of those
mandated activities in the watershed and urban growth areas. The Council asked staff for
ideas about a more detailed stormwater utility.
Today's work session includes four informal decision points to point them in the
direction they need to go.
First, affirm the Council's last direction to move forward with a utility as a preferred
funding mechanism for paying for urban stormwater pursuant to the NPDES phase two
requirement, including the TMDL.
Second, decide the boundary options for some detailed analysis of an appropriate fee
structure. That takes a fair amount of community outreach and time. With Council
guidance, the administration would begin that process for the 2009 budget. Staff would
have recommendations for the Council some time in 2009. If they create a fee levy, that
money would not be available until 2010.
Third, affirm or provide direction on the appropriate scope of a resolution that would
establish the Council's intent to move forward with a stormwater utility under the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW).
Fourth, affirm the budget authority that already exists in the 2008 budget to develop
a funding source to implement the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan. Make sure that is
consistent with what they do today. The staff would begin to create a scope of work and
get into the details of this funding source.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 1
Brenner stated their experience with Birch Bay makes her uncomfortable with setting
up a district without some sort of message from the County Council. The Birch Bay
consultant wouldn't put focus on what people can and should do on their own properties.
There was no incentive. There was more emphasis on people paying government rather
than individual lot owners doing things to make it better. They are sending out the wrong
message. That's what happened in Birch Bay. It's important to provide incentives. If
people can show they aren't causing any stormwater runoff on their properties, there should
be a minimal fee or no fee at all. The difference should be made up by people who aren't
doing anything at all. Public infrastructure that causes runoff is used by everyone, not just
people who live in the watershed. She didn't like the direction of the Birch Bay consultant.
Fleetwood stated the district would be one of a couple of sources of money to
increase the level of service. He asked if the money from the utility would go to projects
countywide or just within the district. Hutchings stated the money would be applied within
the district.
Fleetwood stated the NPDES is for sources beyond Lake Whatcom. He asked how
they decide how much of the money would go to Lake Whatcom. Hutchings stated that is a
question about item two, boundary options. Apply the boundary fairly is a big question.
Fleetwood asked how they define a person's benefit. Hutchings stated the federal
and State governments assume that managing stormwater runoff prevents other problems;
such -as increased costs of drinking water treatment and degrading salmon habitat. Higher
levels of government have decided on the question of benefit, and pass that down to County
government. The County Council recognized those benefits through other programs related
to stormwater management.
Fleetwood stated he understands the societal benefit of clean water and the
reduction of increased costs. However, they keep talking about a benefit to an individual.
That's the benefit he doesn't understand.
Bill Derry, CH21vIHill, stated there is a difference between a utility fee and a tax. A
tax must demonstrate a direct benefit for the property owner. A stormwater utility fee is
definitely a fee, and the same legal test isn't there. The benefit is the right to discharge the
stormwater to the county system, and the County manages the volume and treatment of
that runoff. About 30 percent of impervious area is rooftop. The rest is car habitat.
Individual property owners receive a benefit from using that public system and treating that
runoff. They don't have to tie a direct dollar benefit to each property owner. The benefit is
to discharge stormwater into the county system, and the County's management of that
stormwater.
Crawford stated the benefit to the people outside the Lake Whatcom watershed is
that they get to use the water. The stormwater can only be accounted for in the watershed.
The people who should pay for the effects of pollution in Lake Whatcom are the people who
live in the watershed and the people who drink the water. A funding mechanism needs to
be tied to one of those two things. He doesn't understand how to justify a fee due to the
runoff from someone's house that isn't in the watershed and doesn't have any impact.
Hutchings stated they will discuss that issue during this meeting.
Weimer stated the NPDES costs are from Ferndale, too. He asked how this will deal
with Ferndale.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 2
1 Crawford stated this utility is one funding mechanism. A question is about other
2 funding mechanisms, outside the watershed, that will contribute funds.
3
4 Kelly stated the County is funding schools that other citizens benefit from, by logging
5 areas around the watershed. Most places that supply water to this amount of people don't
6 allow people to build around those water sources. There are issues related to logging
7 practices, specifically the logging roads. They become sediment transports. That logging
8 activity benefits schools. That's a strong link to the entire county.
9
10 Fleetwood asked if the stormwater utility includes areas other than Lake Whatcom.
11 Hutchings stated it does.
12
13 Nelson stated all those activities, such as logging and residential use, existed in the
14 Lake Whatcom watershed before the lake became a drinking water source. It's not the
15 same as in other communities. This is a stormwater management problem, not a drinking
16 water source problem, per se.
17
18 Hutchings stated Whatcom County is required by the State to respond to the NPDES
19 phase two permit. That will include a response to the TMDL study for Lake Whatcom. To
20 develop a predictable source of revenues for responding to the NPDES phase two permit and
21 this TMDL response, they must consider alternative funding sources. The administration
22 gave a preliminary look at a stormwater utility. They must get an idea of the number of
23 equivalent residential units that would be built, including homes and commercial activities.
24 There is some amount of impervious surfaces related to those activities.
25
26 He submitted and read from the preliminary stormwater utility analysis (on file). To
27 respond to the NPDES phase two permit and TMDL at level of service three, they need $3
28 million per year. About 9,000 residential units are in the study area. There is also
29 impervious surface on non - residential land and County roads. It's conceivable that they can
30 generate about $4 million. They realize there are mitigating factors, such as what to do
31 with roads, agriculture, or forestry lands. They can raise revenues on par with the amount
32 necessary to comply with the legal mandates.
33
34 There are considerations about showing a nexus between the fee and the benefits
35 and impacts. There are solutions to that problem, including the possibility that they don't
36 include Ferndale urban growth areas (UGA's) in this construct or coming up with a fee
37 structure that recognizes that inherent difference in the level of service. They must
38 question whether the administrative cost of a fee in those areas outweigh the amount of
39 money those folks would pay.
40
41 The areas outside the watershed, and within the Bellingham UGA, receive some
42 benefit because the NPDES phase two applies to those areas. They also benefit because
43 they drink water out of the watershed. There must be an analysis of the proportion of the
44 fee is going to a particular class of benefit.
45
46 Within the watershed, people may or may not live in the UGA. There is a suite of
47 possibilities for how they parse out the benefits and impacts. They won't address or solve
48 those specifics today. Today, whittle those down to a reasonable set of options for staff to
49 put together in a defensible proposal. Don't deal with specifics of exactly how much money
50 can be raised and define exactly what the fee structure would look like. Rather, put
51 boundaries around what is and isn't reasonable.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 3
Weimer asked why they included the Ferndale UGA's, and not other UGA's.
Hutchings stated they aren't in the NPDES phase two area.
Weimer asked for a cost analysis to protect the Ferndale area. Hutchings stated
there isn't, other than recognizing that the NPDES is phased in. Today's cost for compliance
today are less than what they will be in the future. It's likely that the Bellingham UGA's
areas and the watershed area will receive a much more substantial level of service than
areas adjacent to the city of Ferndale.
Fleetwood asked if they have considered creating two stormwater utilities, Lake
Whatcom and the other remaining areas. Hutchings stated the underlying issue is about the
connection between the benefit and the fee. One question is whether they can generate
enough revenue to accomplish the task at hand. They will not be able to do that, unless
they include the other beneficiaries of managing stormwater in the Lake Whatcom
watershed, who are the folks who drink the water. The Ferndale UGA can be a separate
utility. The question is whether or not the level of service to the Ferndale UGA will be
substantial enough to warrant a fee.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated there isn't a need to create two
stormwater utilities for other areas that may eventually need additional stormwater
services. It would be easier to redefine the rate structure, which is defined by benefit or
cost geographically.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated that the NPDES permit will be
reviewed for renewal in 2011. The NPDES permit requirement area could grow. It will
probably grow to Birch Bay and other areas.
Hutchings stated they could set up the utility so there is an automatic adjustment
when UGA boundaries are adjusted, annexation occurs, or the NPDES phase two boundaries
are changed as those permits are renewed. It raises questions about the stability of the
revenue source. If the Council moved forward with the idea of creating a stormwater utility
to be inclusive today, it may have benefits down the road as opposed to excluding them
today and then trying to create a new area later.
Kelly asked how the residents in Ferndale don't get dinged two or three times. There
are areas that drain into Birch Bay. There are other areas in Ferndale that drain into other
areas. Hutchings stated that they can't assess people more than once for the same service.
There would have to be a mechanism by which the division of that service is given to one
entity or another.
Kelly stated those folks already have the Birch Bay Watershed Aquatic Resource
Management District and the flood district. Now this. Hutchings stated the proposal is not
to overlay an additional fee for stormwater management upon those folks who will already
be paying, because they are in the Birch Bay watershed. The County would have to resolve
that question before anyone is assessed.
Brenner asked why they can't set up the boundaries by watershed. She asked how
they will do anything in the Lake Whatcom watershed without the Bellingham City Council
on board. Hutchings stated that as the County develops its proposal, they will have to
reach out to the City. This isn't going forward if the City is opposed. There are reasonable
questions about the governments on both sides of the city limits spending an equal amount
of money on stormwater activities. They will have to address those questions at some
point. The problem with creating the boundaries by watershed is a problem of jurisdiction.
Surface Water Work Sessic
1
2 Brenner stated the government is a layer over the watersheds. The people can
3 visualize a watershed boundary. It's what the County has promoted all this time.
4
5 Crawford stated he agreed with Councilmember Brenner. People who live in the
6 watershed should pay, as should the people who drink the water. He asked if they collect
7 revenue based on the physical property that causes stormwater runoff, and also have a fee
8 attached to the water bills for the drinking water. Hutchings stated that they would have to
9 be clear about what the money is to go to.
10
11 Craven stated the statute allows the County to consider a list of things in fixing the
12 rates and charges for a stormwater utility: the services to be furnished, the benefits
13 received, the character and use of land, income level, and other mechanisms. They must
14 identify a connection by either benefit received or an impact to cost. They could create a
15 series of categories under which people would be associated, and people could be in more
16 than one category. Each category would have an associated fee.
17
18 Crawford stated he likes that idea, as long as it is by watershed. He is not excited
19 about the NPDES permit. Craven stated they are stuck with the NPDES permit construct
20 from the State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Other than that, it would make more
21 sense to leave it at a watershed level. The permit lays over the top of that and causes
22 additional consideration. If the Council wants to go this way, these are the details they
23 need to decide upon when they develop a rate structure.
24
25 Crawford asked if that list of categories would apply to people in the City of
26 Bellingham. Craven stated the City of Bellingham has its own stormwater utility. It is
27 dedicated to a use within the city. More than half of that money collected has been spent in
28 the watershed, even though a small amount of the city's area is in the watershed. Staff
29 doesn't suggest that the County collect a fee within the city limits, only the UGA areas.
30
31 Nelson asked who supervises the stormwater utility. Hutchings stated a utility may
32 or may not have a lower tier advisory committee that answers to the County Council.
33
34 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the purpose of this is not just for the
35 NPDES permit requirements. They are trying to achieve other things in the watershed. It
36 would be useful if the Council develop statements on what those things are. When this
37 issue is presented to larger groups of people, they will all be on the same page with
38 consistent values they all reaffirm.
39
40 He asked if they've talked about a collection method. Hutchings stated that at this
41 point, the only mechanism in place is through the property tax.
42
43 Desler stated the system is about ready to be overloaded. If they institute this,
44 make sure the County has the capacity to set it up.
45
46 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
47
48 Desler stated the County doesn't have access to software engineering for the system
49 that allows the Council to make these kinds of changes. That's one reason why they are
50 going into a significant overhaul of the system quickly. Don't assume this can happen.
51
52 Weimer asked if that discussion happened at all with the Birch Bay stormwater
53 district, which is much farther along. Desler stated he doesn't know that.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 5
Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, stated he's talked to the Treasurer's Office.
They know it's coming. He hasn't been told by the Treasurer's Office that they couldn't load
it onto the system.
Unidentified speaker stated that there has been discussion today of watershed -by-
watershed distinctions. The IVPDES phase two permit requires the County to do cost and
activity tracking. They are implementing that right now. They may not have estimates now
on what they're spending per watershed, but they will have to start documenting that. If
they implement this permit within a year or two, they will know where they are spending
the money. At that time, the County can adjust things based on the level of service
received by each watershed.
Brenner asked if they can make some initial assumptions. Unidentified speaker
stated they can.
Fleetwood asked if the staff or advisory committees concurred that a stormwater
utility is the preferred funding mechanism, or if there was any dissent. Hutchings stated
this is the preferred alternative. It's consistent with how most other local governments are
dealing with water issues and stormwater management.
Weimer asked if there is anything they can't do with a stormwater utility that they
can do with a flood subzone. Craven stated a subzone can tax. A utility can levy fees.
They pretty much have the same services. They are both cross - referenced in each others'
statutes.
She strongly prefers the utility mechanism over a subzone because they are looking
at using the mechanism for the purpose of complying with a County obligation. There is a
process under the subzone and flood control zone district statute that allows a request by
petition for a special election of the supervisors of the district, which leaves control of the
district uncertain. Because they are trying to make this comply with a County obligation, it
makes more sense to have a County structure raise those revenues and make those
expenditures.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Brenner left the meeting.)
Kelly asked (inaudible). Hutchings stated that if they scoped this out as the NPDES
boundary, including the Lake Whatcom TMDL, it leaves the County options for dealing with
those boundary changes automatically.
Kelly asked if there is an opportunity that priorities change when that happens. If
completely linked to benefit or contribution, the County may lose control over this. That's
his concern.
Kelly stated the geographical scope will eventually change. He's concerned that the
focus will shift over time from what they originally intended to something completely
different. He asked if staff has thought about that. Hutchings stated parallel to that is the
thought that boundary changes would automatically create new ratepayers. Then there
would be an expectation that they would receive a benefit commensurate with the permit
requirements.
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 6
1 Nelson asked if 20 percent of the benefits would go to Birch Bay, for example, if 20
2 percent of the fee revenue comes from Birch Bay. Hutchings stated they should have that
3 rational nexus.
4
5 Nelson asked if they can't do 15 percent or 40 percent.
6
7 Kelly stated he thinks they can.
8
9 Hutchings stated they would have to be careful about that.
10
11 Derry stated Snohomish County questioned whether its stormwater utility should be
12 separate for each sub - watershed to demonstrate responsiveness to where the money is
13 collected and where its spent. If they do that, they won't be able to do any projects for
14 several years until they collect enough money. Instead, limit it to the urban areas and
15 provide flexibility to collect throughout the area on a short-term basis. In the meantime, he
16 would report back about where the money is collected and where it's spent. Over time, he
17 can assure that it will level out. Don't tie their hands to spending exactly what they collect
18 in each subarea.
19
20 Nelson stated it would be like having a five- or six -year project program. He prefers
21 to have a system that the County manages.
22
23 Craven stated it would be worth looking into whether it's easier to set up the system
24 once, and define the boundary, or do it annually.
25
26 Weimer asked if the Council was comfortable with the stormwater utility.
27
28 The Council concurred.
29
30 Hutchings asked if the Council is willing to have staff look in more detail to things
31 such as whether they include the Ferndale UGA, Ferndale census area, and Chuckanut
32 census area. Staff can create about three options that address some of those question
33 about benefits and impacts in more detail. The .staff can make a recommendation about
34 whether or not that rises to the level of collecting from those folks. The mechanism they
35 would use to do that is to use the $110,000 already in the 2008 budget for developing a
36 funding mechanism for the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan.
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber stated they really need to be on -point about what they want to
39 accomplish to address the permit and TMDL requirements. Know what, in the entire list of
40 projects, will specifically be tied to this kind of fee.
41
42 Craven asked if it is okay for staff to use the $110,000 that is already in the budget
43 for the stormwater plan to do the rate structure, which is a little broader in scope than the
44 stormwater plan, although it includes the stormwater plan.
45
46 The Council concurred.
47
48 Nelson asked if it includes the option of doing it one -time countywide. He would like
49 to see that option, in addition to a cost - benefit of that option compared to the annual
50 automatic changes.
51
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 7
1 Weimer stated he would also like to look at that option. Don't have sub - utilities.
2 Have it all as one utility, with the series of categories that would or would not apply to
3 ratepayers.
4
5 Nelson asked if there would be an option to residents in a specific area with problems
6 can voluntary be a part of the utility to solve problems in the area.
7
8 Weimer stated it is up to the Council to determine which categories are charged
9 particular rates.
10
11 Crawford asked if the utility can go beyond the NPDES boundary. Hutchings stated
12 there are nuances they haven't addressed. They may be able to get around that question
13 about areas not in the IVPDES boundary, if the nexus for the utility is the NPDES permit.
14
15 Craven stated the staff can consider that question in the course of trying to figure
16 out a rate structure.
17
18 Hutchings stated it will take six to nine months for the Council to make a full
19 decision. It will take a long time to go through the process of securing the appropriate
20 contractor to assist with analysis and do a tremendous amount of geographic information
21 system (GIS) work. They must also have assistance to resolve some of the questions
22 brought up today. He will provide the Council updates during work sessions along the way.
23 There is also the question of public outreach.
24
25 Nelson asked how they evaluate the cost - benefit to infrastructure in the UGA, in
26 terms of annexation. Craven stated there is an interlocal agreement in place to deal with
27 those annexation transition issues. Staff is in the process of negotiations with the City to
28 incorporate NPDES compliance issues once annexations happen. They must establish a
29 similar agreement with the City of Ferndale.
30
31 Hutchings asked how the Council wants to demonstrate it's intent for staff to move
32 forward with this effort. He asked if the Council wants to just concur right now, or put
33 forward a resolution. It may be worthwhile to develop a resolution to affirm the Council
34 intention to move forward.
35
36 Crawford stated he agrees with what Councilmember Brenner said earlier about
37 watersheds. Birch Bay has moved forward slowly, which is appropriately careful. Look at
38 other watersheds similarly if there are identified problems. Lake Whatcom is different,
39 because it has a perceived benefit beyond the watershed. He concurs, but keep on the
40 table the issues of overlapping of watersheds and the overlapping nature of Lake Whatcom
41 and its benefit. Hutchings stated that would be appropriate. Lake Samish is one area that
42 they may have to address in the future. A question is how they encourage those residents
43 to be proactive.
44
45 Crawford stated that the message from Olympia is that the Puget Sound is not
46 improving enough. Everyone from Nisquaily north will be part of a solution. If they don't
47 address it today, they will be told to address it in the long term. Hutchings stated it would
48 be a cleaner way of dealing with things if there was a solution to Lake Whatcom that could
49 be divorced from associated urban issues. However, he can't see that solution. It works for
50 other watersheds because of the geographic and governance differences. This is not the
51 same situation.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Weimer stated that if the County doesn't have to stick- to the NPDES boundaries,
they can go outside the area and include other watersheds in the utility. It would be a new
category on the list. Derry stated they should remember the Snohomish County
experience. There was a huge public backlash when they expanded it beyond the urban
areas.
Weimer asked if the Council approves of moving forward.
The Council concurred.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on July 22 2008.
NtiluIftoo,#$
ATTN `, t Y C ��i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
`%� 0f••'0t••.•. '���� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
hanc1. .nw,i��is, Goun f Clerk
••• �NGT4 •.• ,`�.
%
""lift 111%10
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 6/10/2008, Page 9