HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session May 13 2008Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
May 13, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Bob Kelly
Seth Fleetwood
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2008 -024)
2. WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM LEVEL OF SERVICE
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Director, described the coordinated water resource
integration project (CWRIP) background and activity to -date. The purpose today is for the
Council to provide direction on an appropriate level of service and funding mechanism. He
referenced the packet of information submitted for the meeting. To begin, they will give a
summary of the public meeting.
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Department, stated
councilmember received a summary of comments gathered from the public meeting. Not
including staff, consultants, and councilmembers, 51 members of the public attended last
week's meeting. Comments ranged from being ahead of the game to being way behind the
game. Comments were that more public involvement is necessary. Staff has also tried to
meet with as many groups as possible to describe phase one. He will continue to forward
emails and letters to the councilmembers as they come in.
Weimer stated last week's open house was very well done.
Rebecca Craven, County Policy Analyst, gave a presentation (on file) that will go
through a hypothetical list of ten projects that have a variety of aspects shared by real
projects. It's an exercise to see how they go from this kind of a list to a budget. That is the
next phase of this exercise. Project managers go through the database and try to identify
those projects with the highest public benefits, that are ready.to go, and may be mandated.
The presentation will give them an experience of how that might work in real life.
The top projects on the list should not necessarily be the first projects done if they
leave mandated projects unfunded and aren't ready to go, for instance. Continue to go
down the list and fund projects that are ready to go and mandated. Projects ranked lower
could therefore supplant projects ranked higher in a given year.
Staff has to take into account a variety of factors to put together a work plan and
budget for that year. Some of those factors and decisions are debatable. Those are the
decisions that will come to the Council and its advisory committees every year and during
the budget process. People are frustrated that there isn't a list that says when each project
Surface Water Work Session, S/13/2008, Page 1
can be done, depending on the level of service. This exercise demonstrates why staff can't
answer that question. Also, certain projects will generate new projects, which will have to
be scored under the CWRIP analysis and be interjected into the list somewhere.
Nelson stated a project receives a ranking on the list, which is the first step for that
project. The ranking doesn't answer all the questions. The Council's job is to prioritize
using different criteria, but at least it will have this information that is within a context of
other projects. He asked where community funding is shown in the process. Craven stated
that factor is on the real list, but not on her demonstration list.
Nelson asked what he needs to look at or think about for each investment.
Middleton stated a ranking is for the benefit evaluation score only. The funding level is an
overlay on top of that score. When the Council gets the budget, the funding overlay will be
applied to the projects for the department to do during that budget cycle.
Nelson asked if the Council is to look for factors for each project such as existing or
community funding, whether it's incorporated in current work plans, and permitting is done.
Middleton stated that's correct. With funding is a policy effort. It's not just about the
money. Staff will bring forward all the investments that it proposes to work on during that
given year.
Craven stated a policy question may come up about whether the Council wants staff
to work on a project that may be ranked low, but is fully funded by an outside source.
There may be things that are bad ideas, but that are fully funded.
Nelson stated the Council now has all those projects ranked and can make those
policy decisions. The public will now understand there is a list and criteria. The public will
be concerned about how long they should wait for County funding for their project. They
should find other funding mechanisms to increase their odds with the County. Craven
stated part of the integration process includes a project development process to make the
projects better and the receive a higher score.
Kelly asked how new projects get on the list in the future. Craven stated the Council
will make a level of service decision during every budget cycle. The Council can change that
level of service annually through the levy ordinance. They are trying to establish a stable
level of funding for planning purposes and staffing levels.
Middleton stated develop a project development group to vet any idea that comes
forward for any fatal flaws, such as whether a project is legal. If an idea comes to the
Council, the Council can hand the idea to staff to do an evaluation of the idea's viability. If
the idea is viable and the Council wants to turn the idea into a project, it can be put into the
work program immediately or wait until the next budget cycle. If an idea is a policy issue
and doesn't have any fatal flaws, the Council can make the idea happen. The Council is the
body that decides the budget. Staff will do what it can to include the idea in the budget and
work program, including inform the Council about other projects that won't get done.
Nelson stated they must look at every potential project within the context of this list,
which the Council has already approved.
Kelly stated he's trying to make the public aware that additional projects can be
added to the list in the future. Middleton stated there will always be new projects and
mandates. They are trying to establish a process by changing the paradigm. The goal is to
get to a point where the staff can hand performance measures to the Council.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 2
1
2 A year ago, the Council directed staff to take all the plans off the shelves, dust them
3 off, and inform the Council about what is in those plans. That is what this list is. The
4 Council, as well as the community, decided that these things are important by approving
5 them via resolution or ordinance. Now, staff and the Council are trying to figure out what to
6 work on first.
7
8 Fleetwood asked how they use this information to determine whether they intend to
9 address house -by -house onsite filtration, its rank, how important it is, and how much
10 money they're going to put toward it. Hutchings stated staff put together an example of the
11 budget based on levels of service (LOS) three, four, and five (on file). Onsite filtration is
12 included in the project called TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan under LOS 3.
13
14 Brenner stated this isn't changing the paradigm.
15
16 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
17
18 Brenner continued to state that the Council counts on staff for information, but she
19 doesn't trust what she gets. Middleton stated he can't solve the mistrust issue. He's not a
20 program manager. He represents project development. He's been before this Council and
21 its predecessor for 20 years. This is a change in paradigm, because they're bringing all the
22 information together. The Council is going to get from staff as much information as possible
23 on every investment at once. He's trying to offer the Council another way to get additional
24 information on water resources programs. The change in paradigm is to provide the Council
25 all the information available, no matter what that information is, independent of the work
26 program. The change in paradigm is that the Council will get all the different work
27 programs at one time, so the Council can look at them side -by -side. In the past, the
28 Council has been given piecemeal information. They don't want to do that anymore.
29
30 Nelson stated this process doesn't preclude people from having a preference for
31 certain projects. Individual councilmembers will have those preferences. However, this tool
32 will allow good decision - making when they are looking at over 200 projects. It will allow
33 the public to better - understand what the County is doing and what the public can do. The
34 County isn't the answer for everything. He's thankful to the administration and staff for
35 coming up with this tool and all the programs and plans. The process does not prevent new
36 projects from being added. This is a tool to put the information right in front of them during
37 budget time to make good decisions. If someone can convince a majority of the
38 councilmembers to move a project up on the list, the program will adjust. It's the staff's
39 job to do that and to work with the Council.
40
41 Fleetwood stated they are light years' ahead of where they were with this tool. He's
42 impressed by staff's work on this tool. This list is helpful for many reasons. He would like
43 to understand how they use all this information. He asked how to get more information on
44 each of the projects, such as the stormwater retrofit project. Hutchings stated information
45 on how the retrofit program would work and the incentives is not in the stormwater
46 program. The County's TMDL study implementation plan for the DOE will require the
47 County to have the details of that program, including performance measures. That's the
48 activity on the list.
49
50 Fleetwood asked if the detailed implementation plan may not be done until next
51 year. Hutchings stated that's correct.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 3
Fleetwood asked if the Council should know by this summer what it wants to include
in the budget for a house -by -house onsite filtration project, or whether they will have to
wait until the next budget cycle. Hutchings stated the first line item under the example LOS
3 for stormwater includes funding, with the idea that it will take a year or more to be
accomplished. They also included a line item that would develop that retrofit incentive
program in parallel to the detailed implementation plan. They can start some of the ground
work from the stormwater plan immediately, and not wait for the implementation plan.
Brenner stated low impact development is important. Retrofits and low impact
development can be intermingled. It doesn't make sense to have them at different levels of
service. Broaden it to the entire county, not just Lake Whatcom. It shouldn't take a year or
more. Adapt codes from other counties with similar soils and climate, and adopt them right
away.
Bill Derry, CH2NIHill, stated the questions about low impact development and
individual retrofits for infiltration are good examples of why this process is important. It's
important so they don't raise a project priority after hearing one presentation from
someone. The person who made the suggestion was not involved in developing the
stormwater plan for Lake Whatcom. Other actions in Lake Whatcom, such as stabilizing
stream channels and retrofitting the roads, would have a bigger effect and more benefit to
reduce phosphorus loading to the lake than retrofitting. A list of those items in order of
benefit is included in the Lake Whatcom Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The development
group can help answer why certain projects may not be the highest priority and the effect of
giving projects a higher priority.
Hutchings referenced the Possible Water Resource Levels Of Service and Funding
Sources handout (on file) and describe the different levels. He doesn't recommend any one
level over another.
Nelson stated the Council needs to remember that the budget is a recommendation
from the administration. He hopes they can come to a consensus about how much of the
burden they are willing to impose upon the rate payers and citizens to achieve the goals and
objectives. Allow this to go through the administrative process for the budget before
making a decision. Give the administration an upper limit only and allow it to make a
recommendation. The Council can make adjustments during the budget process, and
decide the funding necessary to support those efforts.
They have to get started on some of these things. He asked how the Council helps
the community to help themselves on their projects. Hutchings stated that the staff and
administration have to have some idea of what the Council expects in terms of the budget,
so the staff can develop its budget recommendation. It will take staff time to develop the
Council's direction, and they would like to start as soon as possible. Once the Council
provides general direction and the staff put together options, a consultant can put together
the numbers so the Council would know exactly what a revenue stream would look like.
Then the Council could choose the option it prefers. The process is similar to the Birch Bay
subzone process.
Brenner stated they need to start giving people information to do their own onsite
solutions so they take ownership in those solutions. The only way she will support district
funding is if they provide a menu of options. She would like to hear a recommendation
from the administration, and know what they are required to do. Some of the levels are
duplicative. Before they get too far into this, the administration needs to meet with the City
of Bellingham to develop a joint program that's workable.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 4
Crawford stated this is just a funding question. They would like to have all the
programs, but they really must discuss a realistic funding mechanism.
Weimer stated this is not just a money decision. He wants to know the value of
what they want to protect, and then discuss how they are going to come up with that
money.
Crawford stated they don't have to have a level of service three to do a retrofit
program for residences. They're being put into boxes. The bottom Line is whether or not
the Council will raise property taxes to pay for some of these programs. They better have a
really good, solid reason to go to the voters and say they have to pay more to do these
things.
Fleetwood stated the Council could give a nod toward level of service six to
stimulate analysis, get the administration's feedback on that level, and have a more detailed
analysis of funding options and how they would work. He needs a better understanding of
how they would specifically go about those options and what they mean to individual
homeowners. He moved to recommend level of service six at this point.
Nelson stated he won't support the motion. He probably won't approve anything
higher than level of service three. People in the community are making around $26,000 per
year, pay mortgages, and are taking care of school -aged children. Those people are
concerned about the lake and cleaning up habitat, but feel they can't afford to pay for it. In
this economic climate, people's incomes are going backwards. It's not fair to hit the people
with an increase right now. Reflect the people in the community. Support this effort as
much as they can. They can use the $6 million surplus in the flood fund to go through 2009
and start on some of the projects and do mandated projects. In the meantime, begin to get
the public to understand that they have to support these solutions in one way or another.
He's not willing to go to a maximum level. It's not fair to take that to the administration.
The administration will say that's what the Council wants, not what the administration
wants. Be responsible about the level the administration should work on.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Nelson continued to state that he would support a level of service three.
Brenner stated some of the items are duplications. They have increased Health
Department staff enormously to deal with onsite septic. She doesn't know why that's on
the list. She wants explanations of some of these things. They won't make significant
progress toward stormwater compliance for NPDES and TMDL on a level of service three,
but she has to go to a level of four to get her low impact development. That doesn't make
sense. She doesn't agree that they have to back up low impact development with
conventional best management practices. That duplicates efforts and defeats the purpose.
None of this stuff was in the Council's packet. It came to her over the weekend, but
she couldn't open it. She just got a hard copy yesterday. She's not ready for this, and she
won't go there without answers.
Fleetwood stated the purpose of level of service six is to stimulate a more thorough
analysis from the administration. The decision today is not final.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 5
Kelly stated he agrees with Councilmember Fleetwood. They can always work
backward. Don't preclude staff from looking at all options. He agrees with Councilmember
Nelson that now is not a good time to propose taxes. At the same time, many in the
natural resources world have been waiting for this paradigm shift for a very long time. It's
long overdue.
Crawford called for the question.
Motion failed 3 -3 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner opposed.
Nelson stated support level of service three. It gets them started on some of the
mandates. It would take $3.3 million from the $6 million reserve, which leaves money for
flood control protection. Hutchings stated level of service three does not unburden the flood
fund by $3 million. The response to the TMDL is unfunded as is the implementation of the
stormwater plan. Adding those together is about $1.5 million additional. Level of service
three would unburden the flood fund by $500,000 to $1 million.
Craven stated income from a utility would not likely come to the County until 2010.
Nelson stated they would have to consider a special district to pay for just this level
of service. He moved to draw down on the flood fund or general fund to fund level of
service three for 2009. If they go with level four, five, or six in 2010, then get community
involvement and support first.
Hutchings stated they have traditionally left $5 million in the flood fund for
emergencies. That motion will draw the fund below that level.
Nelson stated the Council will have to discuss that during the budget process.
Crawford stated they are talking about this like they're not currently doing anything.
That's not true. The County has spent millions of dollars on very good projects. He feels
like they're being told that they won't get what they want unless they pass a certain funding
level. That's not right.
He asked how much of the draw down would be for flood projects. Hutchings stated
they spend about $2 million on river and flood projects.
He asked if the staff could start working with the Deputy Administrator and budge
staff on options to make other cuts in County government rather than having people pay
more.
Weimer stated he supports level of service three. Executive Kremen said level of
service three is the lowest level in which the County meets its legal obligations. How they
pay for it is a separate question. However, he won't.vote in favor of the motion. He
supports level of service five.
Fleetwood stated he will not support the motion because it doesn't reflect the will of
the majority of the Council. It doesn't make sense to give marching orders to the staff if it's
inaccurate. They need to have seven councilmembers present.
Nelson stated the current expense fund has reserves. That's why this has to go to
the administration for it's recommendation on what it is able to fund. The Council can
approve level six, but that will create a disassociation within County government. They've
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 6
1 already heard from the administration that its not in favor of increasing taxes or fees at this
2 time. They must start with this if they want to get something minimally accomplished.
3 During the budget process, the Council may still fund particular things if they are important.
4 They are never going to fund all projects, even at level six. That will only put an additional
5 burden on the public, which is already strained to the maximum.
6
7 Kelly stated it's not fair to put staff on the spot, but they should understand there is
8 significant support for them to move forward in scoping out a broader range of options for
9 the Council to consider. He will vote against the motion.
10
11 Weimer restated the motion to give direction on level of service three and to have
12 staff begin preparing the idea of a stormwater utility.
13
14 Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to divide the motion into two separate
15 directions to staff.
16
17 Nelson withdrew the motion. They will not get a consensus today.
18
19 Weimer stated they will discuss this next week.
20
21 Craven stated that Council direction is appropriate for the issue of giving staff
22 direction on the question of creating a special district or stormwater utility, in the context of
23 significant additional staff time. If additional funding is sought through property tax
24 increases countywide, it wouldn't require significant staff time. It's a boilerplate ordinance
25 the Council adopts each year. If the Council can't come to a decision next week, then
26 consider possibly directing staff on whether or not they should come back with special
27 district options. That is the option that will require significant attention over the course of
28 several months.
29
30 1. 2008 RIVER AND FLOOD WORK PROGRAM
31
32
33 Weimer stated he attended the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee,
34 which is in favor of this.
35
36 (Clerk's Note: Councilmember Weimer left the meeting.)
37
38 Paula Cooper, Flood Division Manager, submitted information on the overall flood
39 program. It is a subset of the coordinated water resource integration project ( CWRIP) list.
40 The projects are in the order of rank based on the benefit evaluation score. This is the basis
41 for the supplemental budget request coming to the Council next week. This is the detailed
42 information on each of those projects on that CWRIP list.
43
44 The focus this year is to get through some of the hydraulic modeling for the lower
45 IVooksack River, to refine the project list over the next year or two. She is also working on
46 developing a flood plan for the South Fork Comprehensive Flood Hazard Mitigation Program
47 (CFHMP).
48
49 Crawford asked if this is context of the level of service (LOS) discussed earlier, level
50 two. Cooper stated it is LOS 2.
51
52 Crawford asked if this would change if the Council approved only LOS 1. Cooper
53 stated it would.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 7
1
2 Crawford stated they are being asked to draw down the flood fund. Cooper stated
3 they've done that every year she's worked for the County.
4
5 Crawford asked if they are going to take a tour of the projects again this year. He
6 would like to do that. Cooper stated she will set that up.
7
8 She described projects on the plan with a Power Point presentation. The Lower
9 Hampton Levee back slope is proposed for funding 100 percent by the Lynden /Everson
10 Subzone. Additional back slopping in the Lynden /Everson subzone would be funded through
11 an 80/20 cost share. These projects are flood hazard reduction projects, so they don't get
12 ranked according to the CWRIP criteria. Swift Creek is the third project under the flood
13 hazard management plan.
14
15 She described the Twin View Levee project and Deming levee project. The Deming
16 levee project protects critical public infrastructure. The committee had issues with the
17 downstream end. They will work that out with the local sponsors and Army Corps of
18 Engineers. At this point, the committee totally supports fixing the upstream part. The
19 entire project estimate is about $808,000. The Corps will pay 80 percent of that.
20
21 Fleetwood asked if any of these improvements are in areas that will eventually be
22 outside the meander zone. Cooper stated not for this project. They will get into that detail
23 when she comes forward with a cooperative agreement with the Corps. She will hopefully
24 have things worked out by then. The budget reflects the entire cost estimate. They can
25 spend less if they choose to.
26
27 Crawford asked if December's emergency was in this area. Cooper stated it was
28 farther to the west, but they did a patch in this location. She described a project at the
29 Glen at Maple Falls and the Strachila bank stabilization.
30
31 The construction proposal for this year is the Everson overflow and the Deming
32 levee. There is also a site at Marine Drive. She described the dozer hole project.
33
34 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
35
36 Brenner stated she thought that protecting agricultural land was a priority right
37 under protecting human health and safety. Cooper stated the committee's criteria are
38 included in the handout. They try to protect life and property, then public infrastructure and
39 buildings.
40
41 Crawford stated it falls under the category of undeveloped private lands.
42
43 Brenner stated that category is too big. Some undeveloped private land is valuable.
44 They want to keep it undeveloped. The Strachila land is prime agricultural land. The
45 County has determined that prime agricultural land is a high priority for many reasons. This
46 doesn't reflect the Council's priority.
47
48 Crawford stated he would rather go out to the land and river to see what it's doing.
49
50 Cooper stated the committee agrees that it's important to protect agricultural land.
51 However, they try to spend the public money to protect public infrastructure first.
52
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 8
Brenner stated they need to revisit that. It should get a higher ranking. They are
charging the taxpayers to protect prime agricultural land, and then they let this get washed
away. Cooper stated the committee thinks it can work with the landowner and the subzone
on this project, using the landowner's material. There is still an opportunity to get
something done out there. Everyone agrees in concept, but it's an issue of how to balance
all the different demands.
Crawford stated this is the tip of the agricultural land issue iceberg. A private party
is applying for a zoning text amendment to allow agricultural land for wetland mitigation
banking. They have a long way to go to figure out how to balance agricultural land and soil
priorities with things such as river and flood.
Cooper described the Marine Drive project. An existing levee is washing out. There
is severe back slope damage. The State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has
submitted a project to repair some of the back slope erosion. Ultimately, they would like to
let the levee breach completely, but can't do that until the problems with Marietta and
Slater Road are solved.
Crawford asked that a tour include staff from the Planning and Development Services
Department so they can discuss this application. It is the parcel to the north of this parcel.
A private party is asking to create a wetland mitigation bank there.
Cooper described the Acme project. They will soon bring forward a grant agreement
for that project. The community is very interested in it. There are alternative ideas to take
advantage of that grant money to benefit both flood and fish in the Acme area.
Brenner stated the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board thinks this is a very good
project, which is why funding is available. Do whatever they can to make it happen. That's
the highest priority.
Hutchings stated there is a clear benefit of having the appropriate advisory
committee in place to deal with the issues that come up related to funding. The sooner they
can identify a funding mechanism, the sooner they can sort out the details.
Brenner stated asked why the flood subzone commissions aren't the advisory
committee. Hutchings stated they take their projects through the Flood Control Zone
District Advisory Committee ranking process and Board of Supervisors. At this point,
nothing regarding stormwater has the same level of advisory oversight. Staff was asked to
address that as part of the CWRIP process.
Jeff Rainey, citizen, stated he has a problem with the easement wording for the
project in Acme. Landowners aren't likely to accept those stipulations. Another issue is
bringing wood into the river from out of the watershed. The county has noxious weed
problems. Wood comes from as far away as Arlington. That will spread those weeds
through the water system. This concern has been brought before, and is ignored.
Regarding the dozer hole project in Acme, they could have easily fixed it five or six years
ago. They weren't proactive and the issue grew. Today, it could cost $1 million. The
County should be more proactive on some of these projects.
Nelson asked if the flood subzone in Acme has a priority list. Rainey stated he
believes it has. They tried to make the critical areas most important. They've had issues
with Tribal projects, and backed them last year. The Acme project was the second project
on the list, to protect the fire district and water association.
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 9
1
2 Nelson asked if they have funding to support their projects. Rainey stated they have
3 the support in the amount of their cost share percentage.
4
5 Crawford stated he got a call on the easement issue. He understands that the whole
6 point of an easement is a mutual benefit to both parties. He asked the problem with the
7 language. He asked if the County backed out of the project because the landowners
8 wouldn't agree to the easement language.
9
10 Chris Hatch, Acme /VanZandt Flood Subzone Board Member, stated most of the
11 easement language had to do with quit claim interest initially. That language was changed
12 over time. There is concern about the easement footprint. It hasn't been demonstrated to
13 the subzone or landowners that the County's offer is necessary. There has been mitigation
14 recently, so the County may be prepared to reduce the footprint.
15
16 This is an important project. The landowners support the concept. It's unfortunate
17 that it reached a point where the County opted to cancel the project as early as April. The
18 parties were closer to agreement than indicated. The community requests that the Board of
19 Supervisors and County administration support this project.
20
21 Crawford asked Ms. Cooper to clarify. They may need to go into executive session to
22 talk about certain aspects. He's surprised that staff is deciding to cancel a project that the
23 Council approved, without talking about the issue with the Council. He asked if that is
24 correct, or if staff plans to talk to the Council. Cooper stated they were at the point of going
25 out to bid for woody debris. Staff went through considerable effort last year to get this
26 easement into place, primarily with one property owner who retained legal counsel. The
27 other two property owners waited for the first to come to terms, and use the same
28 language. They worked through a lot of issues in advance of an interim project to keep the
29 damage from getting worse. There was one sticking point regarding liability. At that point,
30 legal counsel advised that the County not move forward. The interim project wasn't a
31 guarantee anyway, so they didn't want to expose the taxpayers to liability.
32
33 Crawford asked if the negotiations are still ongoing, whether staff has some level of
34 confidence that they will complete it, and whether the Council will have an opportunity in
35 ° executive session to hear about those sticking points before the deals are closed. Hutchings
36 stated there are ongoing discussions among the Executive, the Public Works Director, and
37 Mr. Hatch. Some issues are not yet resolved. The Director said staff will be redirected to
38 alternatives if they couldn't resolve the liability issues by a certain date. That date came
39 and went, a couple of weeks ago. Staff began to look at other options to retain the benefit
40 from those dollars in that reach. Mr. Hatch was interested in maintaining the dialog. There
41 has been discussion. One way or another, the Council will receive the message.
42
43 Crawford stated he encourages staff to provide an update in executive session on the
44 negotiations before making a final decision to stop those projects. Hutchings stated he will
45 communicate that wish.
46
47 Kelly asked if there is correspondence that explains the landowner's concern, without
48 folks having to speak to others. Hatch stated there has been quite a bit of email about the
49 easements. The subzone plays a liaison role between the community and the County. The
50 issue concerning the easement is not exclusive to the issue of liability. That is the least of
51 the landowners' concerns. There are three landowners involved in the footprint of this
52 project. One of the landowners has been in some form of negotiation with the County. The
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 10
1 other two have not. The two have felt that the County arbitrarily cancelled the project
2 without some sense of knowing their toleration of the easement language.
3
4 Fleetwood stated staff are shaking their heads. This seems to be a subject of
5 dispute, and probably needs to be discussed in executive session.
6
7 Nelson asked if there is a County policy regarding noxious weed contamination.
8 Cooper stated the County has a bid process. The County received one bid for this wood.
9 They don't have a lot of choices.
10
11 Nelson asked if the staff have talked with the Noxious Weed Control Board. Cooper
12 stated she hasn't, but could.
13
14 Nelson asked that the issue be brought to the Council Public Works Committee. That
15 is a big concern to farmers. Cooper stated the contractor has to clean the material
16 somewhat to transport it.
17
18 Brenner stated a problem is also with noxious weeds getting into water bodies and
19 damaging habitat. If they aren't confident that the wood is clean of noxious weeds, they
20 can spray the wood. Cooper stated they already do that before transport.
21
22 Rainey stated coordinate with the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
23 use trees within the watershed. There are timber sales along the river valley all the time.
24
25
26 ADJOURN
27
28 The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m.
29 7
31
31
32 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
33
35 The d these minutes on July 22 2008.
36 ATf ES;(.`J Y•0000� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
37 • F W HqT�� ��, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
38 V • ; (� z
39 •
41 = •
42 Dana':�rovdb y pcil CC Carl Weimer, Council Chair
•
Surface Water Work Session, 5/13/2008, Page 11