Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 8 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee May 8, 2007 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Carl Weimer Also Present: Barbara Brenner COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT RECOVERY PLAN 2007 UPDATE (AB2007 -230) Weimer stated staff had asked the Council to approve the plan, so he created this resolution. In the past, this plan has been updated and approved a number of times. The Advisory Committee has done a good job identifying areas that remain to be worked on and the specific needs and projects. One concern is that they're outside of the budget cycle. These plans need to come forward during the budget cycle. They should work with the administration to make sure that happens. Brenner stated the Council has dedicated money, but it didn't get to where they wanted it to go. Add language that says the Council dedicated funding for this. She doesn't know where the funding is at this time. Many of the requested personnel needs are going to be fulfilled through the Health Department's request for personnel. The Council requested that onsite septic system (OSS) personnel be added and work on the most sensitive areas first. Drayton Harbor area should be worked on first. Weimer stated they have increased the OSS budget in the Health Department and added new staff. Those people are for the countywide program to track septic systems. There isn't a specific staff person for Drayton Harbor at this point. That is a discussion they need to have with the Health Department to see if priority can be given to Drayton Harbor. The Council also added $150,000 for the Conservation District's conservation program on agricultural lands (CPAL) activities. The Council hasn't identified those priorities. McShane stated this is about prioritization of natural resource issues around the county. There are some presumptions that things will occur, but the prioritization isn't as clear as they may prefer. Brenner stated they need to work on a countywide plan and subdivide it from there, instead of duplicating efforts in each area. It's not appropriate to designate a different contract for every watershed. Instead of approving the Birch Bay study later today, broaden that contract to do both areas. She likes the resolution, but they are doing this effort piecemeal by area. McShane stated he is comfortable with the resolution as proposed. Natural Resources Committee, 5/8/2007, Page 1 1 2 Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee Chair, 3 stated they should read the information put forward in a March 21, 2007 memo to the 4 County Council regarding a dedicated funding source, which is the highest priority of the 5 Advisory Committee. They can't fully restore the bay without dedicated funding. There is 6 value to marine bays in terms of shellfish harvesting, which is an indicator. When they lose 7 the industry, they lose the entire monitoring program with the State Department of Health. 8 This is a critical time for the harbor. The County Council has the authority to levy an 9 assessment of the area, according to State law. The other programs that address livestock 10 waste from small farms and septic systems won't get the job done. He understands the 11 need for prioritization. If this isn't funded promptly, this committee won't continue its work. 12 Revisiting the natural resource structure in the county is another issue. This is more 13 important. The community recognizes this harbor as a place they want to protect. He 14 doesn't want to be held hostage by another process that could go on for years and years. 15 16 McShane stated that other process isn't even in place. Issues fall off the table 17 because of the lack of a prioritization process. Money has been spent in Drayton Harbor. 18 He asked how much money the County has put into Drayton Harbor over the years. They 19 don't know that. Menzies stated he can find that out easily. It's about $40,000 to $70,000 20 for the last three or four years. In addition, the County has gone after grant funds. The 21 onsite survey done in 1997 was a special one -time, onsite grant in shellfish growing areas 22 that have been downgraded. That was done ten years ago. There is no ongoing inspection 23 program. The existing program is complaint- driven only. 24 25 McShane stated the County Council just approved an ordinance that will greatly 26 change that effort. The County is implementing a robust program in that regard. Menzies 27 stated the State has dictated that a program be in place. They don't know what that 28 program will look like for a marine recovery area. When they've done surveys in this 29 watershed, they've found a high failure rate. It remains to be seen whether the County's 30 operations and maintenance (O &M) program will get to all those systems in a timely 31 manner. It will take three to five years. They know this watershed has soils that present 32 challenges to septic systems. 33 34 McShane stated they have two shellfish districts to work with. Their OSS problems 35 are phenomenal compared to Drayton Harbor. He is concerned about prioritizing and where 36 the money is coming from. The County has spent money in Drayton Harbor. The one thing 37 that needs to be done for Drayton Harbor, the most simple thing, is a plan similar to the 38 Birch Bay stormwater plan that the community put forward. In the big picture, all the sub - 39 districts will compete for the countywide flood fee or tax. It will be interesting to see how 40 that fund is approached in the future for supplementing what these different districts are 41 doing. 42 43 Menzies stated the Council has the authority under State law to assess watershed 44 residents for that dedicated funding source. That's what the County Council should do. He 45 is concerned that Drayton Harbor will not be able to maintain their conditionally approved 46 status. He is concerned they will not be able to solve the problem in a timely fashion. 47 48 Weimer stated he supports this resolution. The State law gives them the ability to 49 form the district, which they've done, and to also fund it. That may be a separate way to go 50 about this, other than a stormwater district. 51 52 McShane stated they need to decide where to focus and then decide how to 53 implement things. If it isn't a priority of a councilmember, it won't get done. He has not Natural Resources Committee, 5/8/2007, Page 2 1 brought forward the funding mechanism because he doesn't fully understand it and doesn't 2 have the time to study it. No one has brought one to him. That is a personal frustration on 3 his part. 4 5 Weimer stated they all have the same frustration that this doesn't seem to happen. 6 They may need to add language that ties into their natural resources. The Council has 7 provided money to different departments that should be able to solve some of these things, 8 but the Council never hears how the money is being spent. Add language in the resolution 9 that asks the administration to have a discussion with the Council about whether they need 10 a new funding source or whether enough money can be dedicated to Drayton Harbor. 11 12 Fleetwood asked if the monies generated would be enough to implement the plan or 13 just enough to get them a step closer. Menzies stated this is a reasonable request to 14 accomplish a lot in a couple of years. The goal is to get to a fully- approved status. Most of 15 the harbor is still prohibited. These funds would go a long way toward accomplishing that 16 approved status. 17 18 McShane asked if the committee and County staff have discussed this. Menzies 19 stated they have. This has been a long time coming. Other sources of funding is drying up. 20 This is a critical time for the harbor and committee. 21 22 McShane stated money from the County general fund went to providing County staff. 23 The County Council never asked the administration to put forward a proposal. Menzies 24 stated he appreciates the time the Council puts into this. It's not easy to do. Just figuring 25 out a fair rate structure is a lot of work. The County government must go through that 26 process, The policy decision is whether the Council will assess watershed residents to 27 provide a dedicated funding source to save this bay. They must decide it's worth protecting 28 because the County values commercial, tribal, and recreational shellfish harvesting. Leave 29 it to the administration and Public Works Department to implement that plan. The Advisory 30 Committee is advisory to the Council and is asking for support to move forward with a 31 dedicated funding source in one way or another. 32 33 Weimer stated that Dr. Roll said Whatcom County is good at planning, but not 34 implementing a plan, and that the Drayton Harbor issue would go away if they implemented 35 the plan for two or three years. The County needs to begin implementing its plans and 36 dedicating funds to move some of these issues off the list. He asked if it's true that the 37 County Council can't ask for more money. This is a separate district. 38 39 Brenner stated the new OSS program is coming on line. It was mandated from the 40 State for marine recovery areas. That program should start in Drayton Harbor first. Mr. 41 Menzies mentioned OSS septic and the farms. Because the County has prioritized farms as 42 an important resource in Whatcom County, she doesn't want to heap more costs onto them. 43 The County provided funding to the Conservation District to work with farms to help them 44 with their plans and avoid these kinds of problems. She would like to know why that hasn't 45 happened. The County has dumped money and time into both of these things. She's not 46 convinced about charging people an assessment. They can't assess the City of Blaine 47 residents. Many of the problems are from City and Port issues. They must have an 48 intergovernmental effort with the City of Blaine and the Port. She would like to know the 49 percentage of all the properties in the Drayton Harbor watershed over which the County has 50 control. She would like to see how much money the County has spent. She supports this 51 resolution, with the stipulation that it include wording about finding out where the money 52 for these endeavors has gone. 53 Natural Resources Committee, 5/8/2007, Page 3 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. McShane suggested a friendly amendment, "Be It Further Resolved, that the Whatcom County Council begins exploration of creating a dedicating funding source for the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District, with special consideration of special assessment programs under RCW 90.72 or other appropriate district." Weimer accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. Fleetwood asked to include funding by any means, and not limit the options. McShane stated the first part allows that flexibility. Brenner stated she wants to understand where the money for Drayton Harbor has gone. The Health Board has a right to prioritize the district. There are other ways besides those assessments. She's not sure if those assessments would give the district what it needs. Also, she doesn't want to burden the farmers. This language targets assessment specifically. Weimer stated the money they've allotted for the entire county could easily be used for Drayton Harbor alone, according to John Wolpers. Brenner stated the Health Board prioritized sensitive marine areas. She heard the Health Department is doing a countywide program. She won't support the resolution without the language that gives the Council the ability to make Drayton Harbor a higher priority. McShane stated the OSS program has prioritization embedded in it. Brenner stated it may, but that's not what the Health Department plans. Weimer stated the added staff the Council provided is to just meet State requirements. The district has asked for someone to be on the ground and make sure the systems in the district are working. The Health Department made it clear that the County Council hasn't provided funding for that type of effort. path. McShane stated that how assessment levels are determined is a step farther down the (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) McShane continued to state that even with a dedicated funding source, the district will have to do prioritization, with less support from the general fund. Now, they are anticipating future discussions. Brenner suggested language, "...further resolved that the County Council as the Health Board will prioritize the Drayton Harbor watershed for onsite septic operation and maintenance evaluations." The added county staff will work countywide. The State ordinance was supposed to be about high priority risk areas, specifically marine recovery areas. The Health Department is changing that focus. The County Council doesn't want the focus changed, and can make that decision. Emphasize that the resources the Council added are for OSS requirements and farm plans. Natural Resources Committee, 5/8/2007, Page 4 1 Fleetwood stated that conversation needs to happen, but it doesn't belong in this 2 resolution. 3 4 McShane stated he understands Ms. Brenner's concern. However, this Council can't 5 speak for the Health Board through this process. This committee is outside the Health 6 Board. 7 8 Brenner stated she agrees with Councilmembers McShane and Fleetwood. However 9 there is no incentive for the administration to give them anything. The Council won't get 10 the information it wants because there is no incentive. 11 12 McShane stated it's up to the Council to begin the exploration, with assistance from 13 the administration. 14 15 Fleetwood stated he had understood that the amended language would request the 16 administration to work on it, not the Council. 17 18 McShane stated this could be one program that the policy analyst begins to work on. 19 20 Weimer stated he doesn't care who works on it. He and Mr. Menzies can work on it. 21 They have plenty of information and examples from around the state. 22 23 Fleetwood stated he would support the resolution with the amendment. 24 25 Motion carried unanimously. 26 27 28 OTHER BUSINESS 29 30 McShane stated he tried to write policies regarding the policy analyst position. He 31 will submit that information to the councilmembers. 32 33 34 ADJOURN 35 36 The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. 37 38 39 40 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 41 ��11N«11ul1N1�+I� .•* O' V // 43 ATTE,,t, (••..•I ��i�� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 44 �•�A��Q'.• �., WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON 45 .' 46 ? 47 _ 48 49 Dacia Brows avi . p iI perk Dan McShane, Committee Chair •. S H V ,. ••sees• • ``. Natural Resources Committee, 5/8/2007, Page 5