Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session September 16 2008Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session September 16, 2008 Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner Bob Kelly Seth Fleetwood Sam Crawford Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2008 -024) 1. WATER RESOURCE INTEGRATION PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT, ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted a flyer for a workshop (on file) on the national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) phase two permit. This form is designed for the councilmembers. Most of the work they've done the last year resulted in something of substance being used daily by County departments and staff who work on water resources programs. The database is useful for reference and helps prioritize investments. It's being used to develop the 2009 -2010 Budget, which is as close to the County Water Resources Integration Project ( CWRIP) priorities as possible. New program elements being proposed to the County go through the analysis and eventually to the Executive and Council with a statement of where they fall in the CWRIP analysis. The Council can ask what that means for the various programs. The staff will uncover the questions relating to public benefit. The Council can have the debate and make the ultimate decision whether or not to honor the CWRIP list or deviate as they see fit. The process brings a microscope to that analysis. It gives them the ability to more accurately scrutinize costs and the determine revenues they will need. Nelson asked if staff is adding new projects to the list or evaluating them against similar projects to see if they can be combined. Hutchings stated the staff work with project proponents to develop the projects so they are more suitable for outside funding and have more public benefit. Weimer asked how long it takes to evaluate a new project. Roland Middleton, Public Works Department, stated it varies by project, but it generally takes an hour or two. People with expertise help with the evaluation. Hutchings stated that is in the initial analysis for ranking. He described the process for project development. They identify decision points along the way. This process isn't completely formalized at this point, but they will be able to track a project in the development process and communicate that to the proponents. Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 1 One question that came up was whether the CWRIP effort was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Water Resources Plan. Mr. Middleton looked at the provisions in the plans and made sure they were staying with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, and tied up any lose ends. That report is available. Mr. Middleton found that they are consistent. Middleton stated the integration project tried to get more detailed information on what investments Whatcom County was doing to implement the Comprehensive Plan. There are eleven goals and approximately a hundred policies in the environmental section of the Comprehensive Plan. In the next couple of years, the County will go through the process to update those goals and policies. The Public Works Department and Planning Department put together the Water Resources Comprehensive Plan a few years ago. It was the work plan to implement the Comprehensive Plan. They found missing elements in the work plan. The integration project took care of those missing elements. The integration project determined the number of investments they have and how to organize those investments. They figured out which investments the County will do and how it will pay for them. They haven't gone astray from the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. In a couple years, they will need to make sure the evaluation tools they use and the information provided to the Council and advisory committees, as decisions - makers, are updated with any Comprehensive Plan policy changes. Nelson asked what happens to the CWRIP project list if the Council changes anything in the Comprehensive Plan and Water Resources Plan. Middleton stated that if the Council makes a policy decision that shifts, they will need to reevaluate the CWRIP program's policies. They will do that through an open process through the advisory committees and Council. Hutchings stated they would need to rework the criteria. Middleton stated they will make it a living document to incorporate changes. Brenner stated they already went through this process with Birch Bay, which already has a formula in place. It may be more efficient to use the Birch Bay plan and build from there. Hutchings stated that is another loose end on the list, consistency with other plans and programs. The County determines its priorities. The question is whether those priorities are in line with the original community plan. The County can't make its larger order prioritization with every plan that comes in, but they can analyze where they are and are not consistent. They will ask themselves if the County's priorities are generally consistent. Mr. Middleton did that analysis. The database includes a field that describes how the County prioritization ties to the source plan. It's not possible to have complete consistency. However, the priorities of the local community plans are consistent with the County's for the most part. Brenner asked to have basic tenets that they all agree to, and each area could have its own particulars. Before looking at the particulars, they would have to meet the outline. Make sure everyone is playing by the same rules. Hutchings stated that is what they've done with the CWRIP process as a whole. The original objective was to create a highest list of priorities at which the Council can look when other organizations are asking for money. Brenner asked if different districts from different areas in the county would be on the same playing field. Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 2 Nelson stated there are different districts. There are systems in place evaluate the consistency of goals and objectives from different community and district plans with the County. The next question is future funding of the different areas. Everyone should know each others' goals and objectives, and be consistent. The next discussion is how the various areas in the county relate, in terms of future funding. The one goal is to get to a place where everyone knows everyone else's goals and objectives and they are consistent. Make sure other participants in the community are on board. Hutchings stated another question is the advisory structure that is appropriate for the funding mechanisms in place today that allows them to grow with future funding mechanisms. Local money should pay for local needs. Countywide funds should pay for things that have a larger benefit to the community. At times however, acute local issues will need attention from countywide tax dollars for help or to make a community plan. The advisory solution must be simple and inexpensive. Don't reinvent existing functions, such as the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee (FCZDAC), water resources inventory area (WRIA), and Planning Unit. It must include a broad representation. The members must be sufficiently informed on the coordinated water resource integration project (CWRIP) process and the diversity of water resource issues. The Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors oversees the three flood subzones and the FCZDAC. The existing subzones receives funding from existing local assessments, authorized by RCW 86.15. The existing countywide assessment funds the FCZDAC, also authorized by RCW 86.15. Today, things are being funded from the district fund that aren't being reviewed. They are mostly stormwater - related, which is new. They know they will have to have stormwater funding, separate from flood funding, at some point in the future. Brenner asked about stormwater that causes flooding. Nelson stated that would be one of those acute situations where a stormwater event causes a flood. Brenner stated there is a development situation that is causing the ditches to flood. It's not from a specific stormwater event. Hutchings stated that at some point, they have to make a judgment about local benefit versus countywide benefit. That will always be hotly debated, as is defining what is acute and what isn't. The Birch Bay community has a plan for addressing stormwater issues. The advisory committee can look at it and advise the Council on spending the local money. They can ask for countywide money. Nelson asked why the local advisory committee would come to the Council, if they're using their own money. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated they are only advisory committees. The Council is still the Board of Supervisors. Nelson stated the Council needs a process to recognize how that expenditure is being used. Hutchings stated they have a process for that through the budget process. Each Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 3 subzone has its own fund. Whatever they collect will ultimately go in that fund. The staff proposes a budget for that fund to the Council as the Board of Supervisors. Nelson asked if the subzone will likely try to match their funds to create a bigger project. Cooper stated that is correct in most cases. Brenner stated subzones are part of the countywide flood zone. If they collect money countywide, the Council still is in charge of how the funds are spent. The subzone is still part of the bigger district. Hutchings stated the countywide fund is funded from a tax. The subzones collect fees, so they are limited in what they can spend the money on. Assume that the bulk of stormwater expenditures in the future is on urban activities. If it is, they will need an advisory committee to spend money raised by the County Council, not by the Board of Supervisors or the flood district. The money would be spent doing something on the ground that satisfies the terms and conditions of a permit for which the County is liable. If they are looking at a special district that could potentially have a Board of Supervisors other than the County Council, and the job doesn't get done, the County is liable for not meeting permit requirements. Nelson asked if they have to choose between projects from County staff or projects from the stormwater utility district. Hutchings stated they are not creating a new priority process. This is about how they fund the projects. If they end up with a stormwater funding mechanism under the purview of the County Council, they may want to appoint an advisory committee. Brenner stated people will get hit up twice for both of these things. She asked why they couldn't have a stormwater process and get rid of the flood control process, and fold the flood control process into the stormwater process. Everything is caused by stormwater. Hutchings stated they could do that. Cooper stated Nooksack River flooding isn't caused by stormwater, which is an urban, manmade thing versus natural flooding. Brenner stated simplify instead of having these separate things. Hutchings stated they could do that. The Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors isn't liable for noncompliance for the permit requirements. The County Council is liable. . Weimer stated the people could elect a different Board of Supervisors Brenner asked if they could do that with a stormwater utility. Rebecca Craven, Council Policy analyst, stated they could not. Hutchings stated that going into 2009, the FCZDAC will broaden its representation to property vet surface water expenditures from the FCZD fund. Staff and advisory committee members will also be trained on the CWRIP database and project development process. Weimer stated the City of Bellingham says its not getting its fair share from the flood fund. Most of the City's interest would be in the stormwater. He asked if they can allocate money from the flood fund to support the stormwater utility district. Hutchings stated there is a mechanism to do that, whether or not they should. Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 4 Weimer stated the FCZDAC membership doesn't include the Birch Bay committee. He asked if they will have to expand or change the committee membership. Hutchings stated broaden representation to properly advise the Council on stormwater expenditures. He's not sure how that will happen. Craven stated the subzone advisory committees will continue to go directly to the board of supervisors on the expenditures of locally raised funds. If Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resources Management (BBWARM) district wanted to tap into the countywide tax money, it would take that proposal to the FCZDAC, which would need to be reworked to have broader representation in terms of subject matter. Also consider subzone- specific geographic representations on the advisory committee. Nelson stated the County has paid money from the flood fund to City of Bellingham projects and programs. Other cities can apply through this process also. The cities can go after preexisting funding mechanisms. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Nelson asked how WRIA will be integrated. Hutchings stated WRIA has a role that is focused on those broad questions about planning. Their role is consistent with this fund - based advisory network. Caskey- Schreiber stated they could have zones and fee structures per zone, and have subcommittees under the stormwater advisory committee, so they can have a direct say about how their money is spent locally. For instance, a Lake Whatcom zone will have to pay more than an area such as Kendall. Kendall will resent subsidizing those who affect the Lake Whatcom watershed directly. Weimer stated they are only talking about the stormwater NPDES, so people in the north county won't pay into the stormwater funding structure. They are mainly talking about areas around Lake Whatcom, Bellingham, and Ferndale. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's a relief to her. The scope of expertise on the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee needs to broaden. Typically, this group hasn't dealt with marine issues as much as flood and river issues. Cooper stated there are two vacant positions on the advisory committee that are reserved for the tribes. The tribes don't participate. Those positions could be reallocated. Staff has other ideas it will bring forward. Caskey- Schreiber asked if only two new positions would be a fair representation of west county shoreline marine needs. Hutchings stated the existing advisory committee and staff can develop options for a new flood advisory committee to recognize the underlying purpose of flood response and flood hazard mitigation. The 'existing advisory committee includes fish biologists, geologists, and a wide variety of folks. The questions are whether or not they want expertise to be geographic or topical and whether they want to shake up the committee all at once or add new members gradually. Caskey- Schreiber stated the group should be as inclusive as possible across geographic areas and interests. Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 5 Brenner stated the second go- around for the NPDES will include Birch Bay, Lynden, and other areas. She asked if those areas would be in the same place or tiered. Hutchings stated it's possible they'll be in the same place. Staff and the Council can discuss that next. Brenner stated they are trying to tweak different things to make them work. She asked if there is an existing program elsewhere in the state that could work. Cooper stated King County had a stormwater utility for use, and just created a flood district, too. Nelson stated they'd have to go through the State legislature, for funding. Hutchings stated that if they want to do it right, they need a comprehensive water resource change. Cooper stated it's difficult to make it fair by using only one. Hutchings stated they can, according to the statute, use flood control zone district tax dollars to fund stormwater - related things. There are some things they have to do in terms of interlocal agreements to show where the money is coming from and going. Brenner asked if they could call it a flood control and stormwater district. Hutchings stated they probably could. Brenner asked why the citizens would elect their own Board of Supervisors if they have to depend on the County for help. Hutchings stated that if the citizenry elected its own Board, it would probably do so with a specific interest in mind that may not be in line with the County's interest. Craven stated the Board would also decide how much to assess the citizens. Nelson stated the NPDES permit requires the County to meet the permit requirements. Hutchings stated the Council would have to go find other sources of revenue to do what is mandated. Ron Bronsema, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Chair, stated the advisory committee talked about this, but hasn't made recommendations. He concurs that there is a lot of expertise on the advisory committee now, including State and federal representation. They are always on the fringe of stormwater issues. There is always confusion between stormwater and flooding. Stormwater is manmade. Flooding is natural. Stormwater is from impervious surfaces. They are making a lot of assumptions to protect people. They must spend money carefully, because they aren't stopping flooding. They have to manage it. A question is how to integrate stormwater. The advisory committee is good, with a lot of expertise. Don't throw them out. Positions are vacant now, or will be at the end of 2009. Brenner asked if there is a legal definition that stormwater is manmade. Cooper stated she can look into it, but that is the industry practice. Bob Knutzen, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Vice - Chair, stated they can kill the good work of a committee by making it too big. There is a broad spectrum of knowledge and background on the current committee. The current members can be trained to deal with stormwater issues rather than make the committee too big. Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 6 1 2 Weimer stated they can't make it bigger, according to State statute. 3 4 Knutzen stated the group of people who are there are capable of giving the Council 5 the best service it will get. 6 7 Hutchings asked if this fund -based approach is appropriate and if there is a need to 8 do something with the flood control zone district advisory committee to make it be able to 9 address stormwater. Ask the advisory committee and staff to make recommendations on 10 how that might work. 11 12 The Council concurred. 13 14 Brenner stated she likes the funding approach that ties the funding to the creation of 15 the impact. Craven stated they will talk about that next. 16 17 Brenner stated focus greatly on incentives. She supports this. 18 19 Nelson stated he supports this also. He asked if transfers could take place between 20 the flood fund and a stormwater fund. He asked what would prevent too much siphoning 21 from flood projects and the flood fund. He asked how the integration project guides the 22 decision - makers at the County level, to make sure they are careful and hitting all their 23 priorities. The stormwater utility issues may not protect the flood groups. Cooper stated 24 the CWRIP process does that. 25 26 Hutchings stated it is a service level discussion. 27 28 Nelson stated he likes that because it still leaves the responsibility in the hands of 29 the elected people, yet it provides a process that they have to be careful of and explain to 30 the public. 31 32 Hutchings stated they will have a clear process of checks and balances. That didn't 33 exist before. 34 35 Weimer stated he is also in favor of it. The advisory committee has enough 36 expertise to make good decisions. 37 38 Brenner stated she is confident in the flood advisory committee members. However, 39 leave the door open to use funds from existing funds elsewhere, rather than create a 40 separate utility. Hutchings stated they will work those things out starting in October. 41 42 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is another fund, such as the general fund, from 43 which they can use money to create this stormwater district. She asked how much money 44 they need to do some of the work that is out there. Hutchings stated that to continue a 45 stormwater program, the cost is about $2 million per year to be commensurate with what 46 they've done in the past. Now, it comes from the flood fund or the general fund. They 47 need to find $2 million. 48 49 Cooper stated that $2 million they are spending now is from the fund balance, which 50 they are spending down. 51 52 Caskey- Schreiber asked if everything will come to a halt if they don't implement 53 another revenue stream. Hutchings stated it won't. They will eventually fund only those Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 7 things of the highest priority on the priority list, which are federal and State mandates. They will be funding mostly stormwater programs. The river and flood program will be De minimis. There won't be money for marine resources and that sort of thing. Middleton stated they would only do the things mandated by law. 2. PRIORITIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 2008 APPLICATIONS FOR FLOOD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the Council passed a resolution for a dedicated funding mechanism to pay for stormwater management to deal with national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) phase two requirements and the Lake Whatcom total maximum daily load (TMDL) study requirements. He read from a handout (on file) on the coordinated water resource integration project (CWRIP) next steps. Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated there is a list of capital projects in the stormwater plan. Brenner stated retrofitting is very important. They need to do that. She hopes grant monies are available for those kinds of things. Hutchings stated a pilot project is coming forward to create incentives for neighborhood homeowner retrofits. Brenner asked if they would consider anything else besides the watershed area that they would consider in terms of topography. Hutchings stated there isn't. If they are talking about topography, they're generally talking about the watershed. Fleetwood stated items two through four concern establishing a fair and equitable rate. He asked when they will see a proposal. Hutchings stated this work needs to be done in the next four to six months. The work will come forward at future work sessions. Staff will do some internal analyses and then get an external review. They will adopt the ordinances next spring. They have to deliver the data to the Treasurer in the fall. Before that, they need to determine boundaries and rates. The first collection will be in April 2010. They will give an update of the six activities at the November work session. He asked for Council approval of these six activities. The Council concurred, Nelson stated he's fine with it. He's not sure how it relates to the level of service requests for stormwater utilities. By November, the Council will have almost completed the budget process. Hutchings stated there will be no new revenues until 2010, even if they make the decision this year. That's how long it will take. When they discuss service levels, consider how these things will be funded. Nelson asked if conversation about service levels will be conversations about 2010. Caskey- Schreiber asked if an option is bonding to get things going right away. That might be difficult with property values falling. Hutchings stated there are other options, also. The flood fund is not broke. It can bear the current level of service for another year. They have taken substantial cost - cutting measures. The proposed budget is very lean to Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 8 allow them to operate in that interim. The question to address during budget time is whether or not the proposal to continue level of service two is satisfactory. Caskey- Schreiber stated they can always do a budget amendment. Weimer stated the Council asked the administration to prepare a proposed budget based on service level four to five. Hutchings stated the idea is to indicate what they can afford given projected revenues. If there is going to be a revenue increase, they will indicate what that increase will provide. Weimer stated the CWRIP process will help this fall. The stormwater utility could begin in 2010, but they already have a stormwater plan and NPDES requirements that may rank higher and they may want to do in 2009. In that case, they'd have to decide whether to use flood funds to fund those before the utility begins. The Council also asked the administration to propose an increase for the flood fund. The Council will discuss that this fall. Brenner stated she supports this theoretically. Don't expect State and federal funding if things get much worse. At some point, the County will be on its own, so it must prioritize accordingly, no matter what the State and federal mandates are. Kurt Baumgarten, Public Works Department, stated they will use consultants for some of these steps. Paula Cooper, Flood Division Manager, gave a presentation (on file) on three projects. She handed out the same information the Council received in May, with the addition of three new projects. All three projects are on the North Fork. The first project is on Bennett Farms. She indicated the location on an aerial photo and described work done so far. The benefits of the program to the Bennett Farm are very local. She described the repair and maintenance project prioritization criteria. When ranking a project, they look at what is threatened and how critical that threat is. The committee felt this wasn't an emergency situation. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Nelson stated there is no subzone in that area. He asked if there should be. Cooper stated there has been interest in the North Fork area, but not an organized interest. Nelson asked about the ranking system. Cooper stated it is the criteria matrix they use to evaluate all the projects. The Committee gave the Bennett Farm a score of 19. Private facilities are at risk. Hutchings stated this project ranks low against other projects. Cooper stated the committee doesn't recommend a project. Nelson asked if they have flood insurance. Cooper stated she doesn't know if the owner has flood insurance. It's not a home, it's a horse - breeding operation. Surface Water Work Session,. 9/16/2008, Page 9 Brenner asked the type of soil. There are some kinds of soils that have a public benefit and they want to protect. Cooper stated the soil is river alluvium, which is basically gravel and cobble. Brenner stated areas that flood usually have really rich soils. Nelson stated there is only rock in the area. Brenner stated make sure they check the soils of these places to make sure they protect valuable agricultural soils. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's concerned about areas that don't have representation. She asked if its ranking is affected by projects that do have representation, or if this is a naturally occurring thing with no influences from some work the County has recently done. Cooper stated this is not related to work the County has done. The gravel bed river moves. If they do a project, the goal is to keep the bank intact until the river decides to leave. There is an extensive channel migration zone. Caskey- Schreiber stated they have invested resources in this area already. Cooper stated that have downstream. To protect the property correctly, they would have to go farther upstream. The project is based on criteria, not on whether it's in a subzone. This is one of the most contained problems she's seen. The river won't migrate .through sandstone. It is a serious issue to the property owner, but from a public perspective it's not threatening any public infrastructure. John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated a key limiting factor of North Fork Chinook is egg survival once they go into gravel. Research shows that side channels, when activated, tend to be more stable. This is a facility within the historic meander zone. Side channels have better survival rate for the eggs. There is a public benefit to letting that channel reopen and reform. Cooper stated this is where the Coordinated Water Resource Integration Project (CWRIP) process is helpful. It helps her determine which projects they should work on. Changes in the flood control maintenance program are to integrate projects better. People historically have requested repair projects, and they never get to work on the big picture. She hopes some of the changes through the Code and the CWRIP process can help bring those together to work on projects with a broad public benefit. Hutchings stated the big picture is to reduce the cost and threat to life and limb in the long -term. Cooper stated reduce risk in a sustainable way. At this point, this project won't even be on the CWRIP list because it didn't meet flood criteria. The second project is the Newell project. She indicated the location on an aerial photo. There is no facility onsite to begin with. It's. in the flood plain and in a historic channel migration area. The third project is the Olson project. She indicated the location on an aerial photo. This project is ranked like the last project, but is a little better. They told the owners they would go through the rank process, but that it wouldn't generally rank well. Nelson moved to uphold the advisory committee recommendation. Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 10 1 2 Motion carried unanimously. 3 4 5 OTHER BUSINESS 6 7 Nelson referenced the Lake Whatcom land reconveyance. Hold this over from 8 Tuesday, since two councilmembers won't be at the meeting. Misinformation is going back 9 and forth. The full Council discussion should be with all the councilmembers. 10 11 Fleetwood stated Mr. McFarland clearly told the committee that the memorandum of 12 agreement (MOA) was tantamount to formal approval, although it wasn't final approval. 13 14 Nelson stated there is confusion, and they must make sure to get correct information 15 before all the councilmembers. 16 17 Brenner stated have the work session in committee on September 23, but schedule 18 final approval at the first meeting in October. 19 20 21 ADJOURN 22 23 Th eeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. 24 . 25 26 27 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 28 29 q%% 1��1 r, epproved these minutes on October 21 2008. Cp • C/ ��'�, 31 CS T ;�pT • WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 32 •` J� r� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 33 G'N r— :- - - 34 35 36 • 37 na fro • • • vi 5,r ` ci Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 9/16/2008, Page 11