HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session March 18 2008Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
March 18, 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 None
Bob Kelly
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (A132008 -0251
1. WATER RESOURCE FUNDING MECHANISMS DISCUSSION
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted information (on file). He
discussed the history and status of the coordinated water resource integration project
(CWRIP) so far, including public involvement. Today they will focus on governance
structures. He's talked to several community, stakeholder, and advisory groups.
Brenner asked who makes sure that people in the Birch Bay watershed, other than
the Birch Bay steering group, gets information.
Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated they let as many people know as
possible.
Hutchings stated they will go to a Birch Bay Chamber meeting. They will soon be
talking to additional community, stakeholder, and advisory groups. There is a gap in the
Lake Whatcom community, however. There isn't one particular stakeholder group for the
staff to address. He asked the Council for guidance on whom to talk to in that community.
Nelson stated there are small organizations in the watershed, such as. Silver Beech
neighborhood, Sudden Valley Community Association, a Geneva transportation group, and
Water District 10. There aren't any groups like the Birch Bay group in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Discuss how to integrate all the Lake Whatcom entities into a functional group.
Hutchings stated they want to make sure they have discussions with everyone, and not
leave anyone out, without getting involved in the political discussion. They want to focus on
what they've done administratively.
Nelson stated that Water District 7 may serve the watershed.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 1
1 Brenner stated people in the outer parts of the Birch Bay watershed didn't know they
2 were a part of that watershed. There is a similar issue with Lake Whatcom.
3
4 Weimer stated councilmembers can get information to Dr. Hutchings about who to
5 contact so they don't leave anyone out. There is a group called People for Lake Whatcom
6 that is trying to re- energize. There are a number of email lists for Lake Whatcom.
7 Hutchings stated focus specifically on stakeholders who are active and part of the discussion
8 as it develops.
9
10 Middleton stated that if they can get an email list for Lake Whatcom, the staff would
11 also have a public meeting to describe this process. Any email list would be helpful.
12
13 Hutchings stated they are making a special trip out to the Lummi Nation. He asked if
14 the Council would like them to make a trip to the Nooksack Tribe as well.
15
16 Kelly stated they can contact the Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources Department
17 Director.
18
19 Hutchings stated an issue is consistency between the CWRIP process and the water
20 resource inventory area (WRIA) process. The processes are consistent. In the list of WRIA
21 implementation actions, one item in the natural resource integration policy program
22 included improving efficiency and effectiveness between existing natural resource programs.
23 Milestones including presenting the outcomes of the CWRIP and identifying additional areas
24 if necessary for improving coordination and integration. Another action talks about
25 identifying long -term funding options. What the County is doing is very consistent with
26 WRIA.
27
28 The purpose today is to look at historical revenues for water resource programs, with
29 the idea of agreeing to where they are today and to look forward. Second, look at options
30 for enhanced or changed governance structures.
31
32 He referenced the handout with the colored graphs.
33
34 Nelson stated the graphs show well what is going on with expenditures and
35 revenues. The revenues seem to be dropping from 2004 when they converted to a tax.
36 Describe why, and how that affects any potential funding formulas.
37
38 Hutchings read through the Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) and Water Resources
39 (WR) Revenue graph. The bulk of revenues for water resources comes from the flood
40 control assessment, leveraged by outside grant monies. They continually talk about how to
41 get more outside monies. He continued to read through the FCZD and WR Expenditures
42 graph. Overall, expenditures are about $4 million. Revenue is about $3.5 million.
43 Beginning in 2001, the ending fund balance has diminished. The rule of thumb has been
44 that about $5 million has been set aside for flood emergency response. There is a question
45 of what that reserve amount should be and how it plays into the operating reserve in the
46 Flood Control Zone District fund for the future.
47
48 Crawford asked if they need to subtract $5 million from those amounts in the bottom
49 graph if they want to keep that reserve. Hutchings stated that is correct. They are looking
50 into what other counties are doing for their flood reserves and operating expenses. They
51 are also looking at whether $5 million is adequate to respond to different flood scenarios.
52 There are other mechanisms for responding to floods, such as using general fund money or
53 borrowing money.
Surface Water Work Session, 3118/2008, Page 2
1
2 Nelson stated they should be developing infrastructure to prevent or mitigate
3 flooding. Hutchings stated that is the intent of the Flood Hazard Management Plan.
4
5 Nelson stated the amount they maintain in the flood reserve should be side -by -side
6 with the long -term effectiveness of a flood mitigation plan. If they can reduce flooding
7 impacts by a certain amount, they can adjust the ending fund balance accordingly.
8 Hutchings stated that's true conceptually.
9
10 Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated most of the money is for repair and
11 maintenance. The County has not done a lot of mitigation. Over the next year or 18
12 months they will analyze recommendations in flood mitigation plan and come up with a list
13 of projects they want to do so they can leverage repair money in the future to help
14 implement the plan. They haven't spent a lot of money in the past on flood hazard
15 reduction.
16
17 Nelson asked if they weighted equally repair and maintenance with flood prevention
18 when evaluating criteria for this integration project. Cooper stated the criteria depend on
19 how the project affects health and safety, property, and other things.
20
21 Crawford asked the impact of the changes to what they've traditionally done with
22 Swift Creek. He asked if cost liability risk goes up because they don't do historic activities
23 and if they must think about keeping more in the reserve. Cooper stated the cost of doing
24 anything goes up over the years. Recently, they've spent about $200,000 per year, with
25 some State money. The cost of work on Swift Creek has gone up, too. She doesn't know
26 about potential liability.
27
28 Hutchings stated it is a different liability.
29
30 Crawford stated he's talking about downstream effects, not asbestos. They've
31 dredged in the past because it improved the downstream situation. Now they will change
32 what they do. That makes the situation downstream more tenuous. He asked if that is
33 another liability they can't protect against. Cooper stated there are a lot of other significant
34 problems out there.
35
36 Hutchings asked if they all understand the FCZD fee history.
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber stated the FCZD revenue indicates a potential levy of $4.28
39 million. She asked if that has to be voter - approved.
40
41 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it is a Council decision, according to the
42 law. The Executive believes that the public should be involved in tax increase decisions. If
43 they explain themselves well, they will be successful. If not, they will get criticized. All the
44 statewide tax initiatives over the last ten years indicate that the voters want to be involved
45 in those revenue decisions. The administration respects that. There are significant projects
46 to work on, including jails, water resource issues, and health. Take those issues to the
47 voters and seek their consent.
48
49 Weimer asked if the administration believes that the bonding capacity decisions
50 should go to the voters. Desler stated that if there is going to be an additional cost to pay
51 for those bonds beyond what the County can pay back, it should go to the voters. The
52 County made a lot of decisions to redo the courthouse, all within existing revenue capacity.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 3
1 They are close to paying off that bond. They've spent 17 years trying to pay off that debt
2 with existing revenues.
3
4 Crawford asked the levy amount on a per $1,000 basis. Desler stated it is $.14.
5 That fee was reset at an amount that was about $.13 per $1,000. It generated about $2.5
6 million per year.
7
8 Brenner stated they are in a recession. They must be very aware that this isn't a
9 good time to raise anyone's taxes.
10
11 Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't advocate for raising taxes. She just wants to
12 know how to access that banked capacity.
13
14 Nelson stated he would like to know the legal ramifications of each funding option.
15 He would like to know for what the funding options can and can't be used and how they can
16 be applied.
17
18 Bill Derry, CH2MHil1, referenced the list of selected special districts and a stormwater
19 utilities in Washington State and their key components in the handout. They generally
20 seem to agree there is a demand and possibly a need for more revenue. One question is
21 whether funding is necessary. If so, they must be able to clearly articulate that need to the
22 public.
23
24 Another discussion is whether another source of funding is necessary. The County
25 has additional banked capacity, which is impressive. Whatcom County has been responsible
26 in managing its resources, and has some excess tax capacity, which is unusual. One option
27 is to use the additional excess banked capacity. If that is not adequate or appropriate,
28 other funding sources are available.
29
30 A fundamental difference in sources is whether it is a tax or a fee. If it goes to a fee
31 for services or contribution to a problem, the County must legally provide a clear, rational
32 nexus between the fee and the service provided. With a general fee to everyone for a
33 general purpose such as fish habitat, it's difficult to show that rational nexus between how
34 much someone pays and how much someone benefits. That's not an issue with a tax.
35
36 Consider whether the revenue can be collected and administered efficiently. They
37 already have an efficient mechanism set up. Make sure the public understands the need
38 and equity. The public must believe it's fair and necessary.
39
40 There are many interest groups and geographic areas within the county. The County
41 may fund the range of those activities with taxes. If there is a specific local benefit or
42 interest, they may consider a local revenue source. A question is whether revenue should
43 come from a fee, tax, or combination of the two.
44
45 Have a discussion about the role of the cities, whether there is a clear benefit or
46 contribution from the residents of the city, and whether there is a process for the cities to
47 participate. He referenced and read through the table.
48
49 Hutchings asked if the river improvement fund was a precursor for the flood control
50 zone district.
51
52 Desler stated he would have to check.
53
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 4
Derry continued to read through the table. Most of the funding sources cross -
reference each other. There isn't a big distinction about what they can do with these funds
in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Hutchings stated the Flood Control Zone District funds can be used for a broad cross -
section of things, including stormwater. He asked if it works the other way.
Derry stated it does.
Brenner stated she thought flood control is supposed to be about flood. It was
changed from a fee to a tax. This looks like another way the State keeps throwing
unfunded mandates to the counties and allows the County to use County taxes for those
unfunded mandates. She asked if there was ever an intent for them to ever be different.
Derry stated they were all generated at the specific request of counties. At some point in
the past, there was a need requested of the State. In the late 1970's, counties asked for
stormwater utility authority from the State, which the State granted. At some point, the
counties asked for and received this additional authority. Many jurisdictions established
stormwater utilities. Some later decided to ask for additional authority From the legislature
to do flood work. Other counties went the other way and established a flood control zone
district. It wasn't clear that they could do urban drainage, so they asked for that authority
from the legislature. That's how they evolved.
Fleetwood asked the distinction between a stormwater utility and the stormwater
projects allowed under the flood control zone district, in RCW 86.15. Derry stated there
isn't much difference. The difference is that a stormwater utility is a fee, based either on
contribution from impervious area. The FCZD authorizes that utility mechanism. The FCZD
also allows a tax. RCW 36.89 is specifically a fee.
Nelson stated a problem is associated with trying to raise the revenues necessary to
accomplish anything useful because of the cities. The population in the cities have taxes as
well. They may talk about raising revenues in a flood control zone district countywide or a
flood subzone. They can't really impose a flood subzone tax on city citizens because of the
City's senior stormwater rights for that type of work. He asked if the City already has taxes
from residents in the city for stormwater protection in the watershed and water quality
issues.
Dan Gibson, Prosecutor's Office, stated the City is currently imposing a fee for
stormwater issues. Politically, it would represent a significant conflict for the County to
impose a tax at the same time for the same stormwater purpose.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Gibson continued to state that any tax imposed by the County would be outside the
city limits, and just in unincorporated areas of Whatcom County around the lake. It would
not generate an amount that is significant.
Weimer stated it would be politically difficult, but not illegal.
Derry stated it's not a junior taxing authority. It's not a taxing issue.
Weimer stated it's something they'd have to work out with the City.
n, 3/18/2008, Page 5
Nelson stated that the City's fee doesn't preclude the County from creating a
subzone that uses additional monies for water resources and stormwater protection of their
drinking water source. He asked if a sub - district could include the city. Derry stated it's not
a junior /senior taxing district issue. It's a different issue. They are also limited from
charging twice for the same service. That's the issue.
Gibson stated that for taxing districts, the flood sub -zone is the most junior of the
taxing mechanisms. That is for taxing purposes. That doesn't answer the question of how
it relates to a general purpose district imposing an assessment. The question is whether a
tax from a junior district could override a fee from the general district. The political issue is
joined. The fee by the general purpose district doesn't rule out the junior district tax. The
people paying the fee may have a strong argument that they are paying a fee for something
for which they are taxed by someone else.
Derry continued to read through the table.
Nelson asked who sets up the Lake Management District.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the issues would be the same with the City as the previous
issue. The stormwater fee is supposed to go to that purpose.
Derry stated the question is whether counties can impose a lake management district
inside a city. The Lake Stevens Lake Management District includes portions of the city of
Lake Stevens. It can be done.
Gibson stated they've used the lake management district at Lake Samish. Special
assessment is the revenue mechanism, based on benefit or rates and charges. That has the
same conflict with another jurisdiction imposing a rate or charge for the same thing.
Brenner asked if the conservation real estate excise tax (REET) is for cities and
counties, or just counties. Derry stated he believes it's just for counties.
Brenner stated that seems disingenuous from the State. The County is forced to
funnel all economic development into the cities. The County doesn't get any REET from the
cities.
Nelson stated the County has to correct all the problems, but doesn't get any money
to do that.
Desler asked to what the tax in the stormwater utility option refers. Derry stated he
will find that information.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are not going to use any of the taxing options. The
best thing for them to do is to prioritize and then take it to a vote of the people.
Fleetwood stated the table talks about the underlying assumption that they need
more revenue. A question is also whether funding is necessary. There is a difference
between necessity and need. He asked how they've defined necessity. He asked if the
Speicher 9000 decision support system (DSS) will prioritize need or necessity. They must
have a clear notion of necessity. Derry stated they need food, water, shelter, and safety.
Everything else is a want. They began this process by looking historically at what County's
must do. It's a short list. Everything else is public expectation. Legally, they don't have to
provide flood protection. They have to have a plan that says how they will or will not
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 6
reduce flood hazards. A road closed sign on the road, for example, can be the extent of the
plan.
Fleetwood asked if they are considering that what is necessary and what is needed
are the same things. Derry stated they are.
Hutchings stated the database allows them to define mandates. There are hard
mandates and soft mandates. They can figure out the cost of implementing mandates, and
begin the discussion there.
Weimer stated that's what they'll discuss at the next meeting.
Fleetwood asked if they must define what is necessary before going to the public for
more revenues. He asked if they've done that. He's not sure the Speicher system does
that. Derry stated necessity is national pollutant discharge elimination system ( NPDES)
compliance and doing some plans. There's no requirement to build and maintain Flood
structures, but they have to maintain them to get Army Corps of Engineers funding. There
is no requirement for counties to restore habitat, but there are strong public expectations to
do that. There are requirements to have land use plans that define how and whether they
are going to protect habitat.
Desler stated there are requirements from court decisions about total maximum daily
load (TMDL) study standards.
Derry stated that's correct.
Nelson stated they would only lose funding sources. They still have a choice.
Derry stated the TMDL requirements would go into the NPDES permit, which makes
them enforceable.
Fleetwood stated they must find answers to these key questions. He asked if Mr.
Derry will put together a recommendation that the Council will consider later.
Hutchings stated the intent now is to provide the Council with a look at what those
mandates are. Talk about the level of service. There will be a list of activities that are
sorted by when they are implemented, whether they are required by any kind of legal
mandate, and whether funding is identified. Make some sense out of all those pending
activities over the course of the next couple of years. From that list of activities, the Council
can decide whether it agrees with the list and then whether it is reasonable, given the
existing and projected resources. The Council can also take a look at what resources have
to be raised to fund a higher level of service. They will bring that information to the Council
based on the concept of what the County must do versus what the County wants to do. It
is a discussion about the Council's priorities.
Weimer stated that at some point, define the legal mandates and desired projects.
Derry stated he will present to the Council a list of projects identified in the CWRIP process,
ranked by their environmental benefit. There will be a separate list of the legal
requirements and their associated costs.
Fleetwood stated another question is general funding source or local funding source.
He asked how that information will be processed and presented. Hutchings stated that as
they define the activities with a larger, countywide benefit that are also mandated, they'll
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 7
find certain local activities that they can't afford. If those activities are important for local
communities, the County can create an environment in which the communities can complete
those activities.
Nelson stated prioritize countywide plans and projects. They have a community
response to those needs. The County must have a similar process in place for communities
to identify their priorities. If a community has a highly developed project with funding, it
becomes a higher priority for him.
Desler stated they are considering the tools that may exist. He would like more
information about a stormwater utility and see examples of how other counties and cities
have worked together to overcome that tax /fee issue. The City of Bellingham and Whatcom
County are talking about working together intensely around Lake Whatcom. This could be a
test of whether or not they can carry out something significant in a collaborative way. The
road fund is used for some stormwater work. It isn't listed in the table. Derry stated there
are clear limits on the use of road funds. The funds don't have to be spent specifically in a
right -of -way, but it has to be clearly tied to a road need. Since a majority of increased
stormwater flows come from the impervious surfaces of roads, they can do a lot more with
road funds than people have historically done.
The issue of local options is a good discussion. The discussion of taxes versus fees
was also good. Whatcom County now has excess taxing authorities. It's unusual for a
county to have excess capacity. A reason many jurisdictions have gone to fees is because
they've used up all their capacity, or they want to save it for emergencies. In weighing a
tax versus a fee, consider that the tax revenues changes over time. It becomes difficult to
manage a program that takes six years to finish a capital project when revenues depend on
taxes. An advantage of a utility fee is that it's more predictable and stable. They can plan
a capital program on that certainty.
Weimer stated he's been looking at these things for years. The flood control zone
district mechanism, which they already have set up, provides the most flexibility and can
raise the most money, especially if they get over the junior /senior taxing priority. He would
like to know how Drayton Harbor shellfish issue fits in. They can do everything they want
with the FCZD.
Nelson stated he also has the same questions about the shellfish protection district.
The FCZD seems the best mechanism for countywide purposes. He would like to see if they
can work with the City on a lake management district for Lake Whatcom regarding
stormwater management. There may be opportunities to work with the City on a fee
structure to manage stormwater.
Weimer stated a drawback of the FCZD is that a subzone of the district can be
overthrown and taken over by a vote of the people. That can't happen with a stormwater
utility. He asked if that's ever happened. Derry stated he didn't know.
Hutchings stated they will address the Council's questions at the beginning of the
next work session. They will review different levels of service at that time. At that point,
the discussion will become interesting. Staff will provide a summary of what that
information will look like, for the Council's review, before the work session. If there are
specific questions, bring them to him before the meeting so he can provide an answer at the
meeting.
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 8
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on June 3 2008.
ATTEST: t`'� 1"111111811111
.Y CO-(
AA
Danj Brctvn1- f15,ifE
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 3/18/2008, Page 9