HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources November 20 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
November 20, 2007
Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 4:00 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Carl Weimer
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BEING DRAFTED
TO ESTABLISH A NEW JOINT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR THE LAKE
WHATCOM RESERVOIR AND WATERSHED AND POTENTIAL FINANCING
MECHANISMS (AB2007 -397)
Tom Hadd, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Commissioner, stated that in
reviewing the authority and responsibility of the water district, he's found a statute that
allows funding stormwater improvements from assessments to benefiting property or
properties contributing to the problem. All would share in the costs of facilities. All taxable
property is the vehicle for the revenue. The benefited property concept for stormwater is
the predominant financing vehicle.
Weimer stated they are struggling with financing options. The countywide flood zone
district is taxed, but the subzones have a fee. The other funding options don't operate as a
tax on value, but with fees.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated that once a lake management district
is established, it has the authority to establish fees and charges. There is a cost share
agreement that is reauthorized every year between the flood subzones and the countywide
flood zone district.
Weimer stated there are countywide benefits to certain things, such as the Nooksack
Bridge. If they fund problems in specific areas, fund them by fees in the specific area.
Craven stated that is the current proposal.
McShane stated the countywide integration project for prioritization will be an
important exercise. They must consider the equity to people who pay into the funding
mechanism. Look at the 2008 work plan. It will inform the committee about how they may
want to change the interlocal agreement in the future.
Fleetwood stated he would also like to discuss the overall concept of a joint merger
to create a bigger benefit. He hasn't heard a cogent argument for why this proposal to add
resources together from the City and County would produce a bigger benefit.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 1
I McShane stated figure out into what the County government will put its resources.
2 Prioritize the County's portion of the 2008 work plan. That will inform what that joint team
3 will do. The Council must be committed to whatever the County works on. They must
4 know what the County will do, what the City will do, and what will be done jointly. They
5 don't know what this effort will entail. They need to know that. Figure out their individual
6 roles.
7
8 Fleetwood asked if the theory that's driving this is that a merger results in more
9 benefit.
10
11 McShane stated it isn't. Many things drive this. There is a resolution to look at
12 funding options. They need to figure out what they're going to fund before they identify the
13 options.
14
15 Weimer stated the Council made a commitment at the Joint Lake Management
16 meeting to review the 2008 work plan and give some direction by January.
17
18 Craven stated the Executive's Office has a process in mind for developing a new
19 interlocal agreement.
20
21 Nelson stated he wants to hear what that process is before agreeing to it. He
22 hesitates about creating more layers of bureaucracy at the sacrifice of doing work on the
23 ground.- Many tasks in the 2008 plan are ongoing and in relation to a previous system. If
24 they are going to change the system, they will also have to look at attaching the ongoing
25 tasks to a new system. See what types of proposals come forward and thoroughly debate
26 and vet them.
27
28- McShane stated it will take three to five months for the County Council to work on
29 this.
30
31 Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the City and County Councils have
32 charged the City and County administrations with drafting an interlocal agreement to
33 restructure how they assign their respective staff resources in the ongoing development and
34 protection of the Lake Whatcom watershed. He submitted a handout (on frle) of a draft plan
35 for that process.
36
37 They will prepare a questionnaire for stakeholders to ask what is and isn't working in
38 the watershed, what are the future water management challenges, and to inventory
39 services and agencies that impact the lake. They will meet with administrative staff to see
40 how a joint department would work. They will present the information from the survey to
41 the City Council and County Council in January. The councilmembers can respond to the
42 questionnaires. This is the administration's plan of action at this point. Now, they are
43 involved in week two of the plan.
44
45 Nelson stated the proposal seems to be thought out. - This doesn't match with the
46 committee chair's timeline. They must have an administrative group to look at the results
47 of the questionnaire to make good decisions. Things are already being done. This timeline
48 would go into February.
49
50 McShane stated he doesn't have an established timeline. It'll take however long it
51 takes.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 2
Nelson stated he's concerned about whether this is under the current system or
some kind of hybrid system.
McShane stated that going through the 2008 work plan, which already involves a lot
of staff time, will provide him a good sense of where they are and what they should be
doing. He assumes the City Council does something similar. There will be projects that the
City and County should work on individually and other projects they should work on
together.
Nelson stated go through the 2008 work plan, but not in terms of an administrative
process. Look at tasks and prioritize them. If they look at tasks with a system in mind,
they will identify the tasks that easily fit within that system.
Craven stated the 2008 work plan, except the last area, has all tasks that have
previously been identified as priorities by the councils. They are all continuations and
improvements upon the tasks in the five -year plan. Items in the document entitled "Issues
for Policy Discussion" are issues and ideas of the staff and community. Staff would like
direction from the Council on these items.
Weimer stated go through the policy discussions and the work plan program areas
together.
McShane stated the first program area is land preservation.
Nelson stated the third bullet of program area I in the policy document doesn't seem
to connect with the section about enhancing the County transfer of development rights
(TDR) program, which needs assigned City and County staff. He asked about the
connectivity, and whether that item is an idea separate from the TDR program to acquire all
remaining lots or to enhance the TDR program.
Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they could be
two separate things. The staff was working from Council comments that land preservation
is the overall goal. The TDR program is something they have now that they can look into.
The City has its watershed acquisition program. The County can also look into such a
program for land preservation. It is a topic of discussion in the staff team meeting.
Nelson asked if the staff team feels that purchasing the remaining lots would be
easier to accomplish than enhancing the TDR program. Craver stated they don't know right
now. Staff would like Council direction to research that question. Given the direction, the
staff team would determine how long it would take to do that research.
Clare Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, stated the staff team can prepare briefing
papers on some subjects, but not all of them. They can do a couple of papers at a time,
and it would take a couple of weeks to complete each set of briefing papers. Identify on
which questions they would like a briefing paper, and then sequence those papers. Certain
topics may take longer than a few weeks. They've already done certain analyses, and
would be available tomorrow.
Weimer stated there is little budget information on the 2008 plan. The cost of
something will affect his priority. That information would be helpful.
McShane referenced the policy document, program area one, bullet two. The County
Council has currently instructed staff to look at zoning changes in the Bellingham urban
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 3
1 growth area (UGA), Discuss that this afternoon at the Joint City /County meeting. The
2 Council asked Ms. Craven to look at that already, within the City UGA. That work has
3 begun. They will hopefully reach agreement with the City on that item. He asked if staff
4 was thinking of other zoning changes or development regulation changes. Craver stated it's
5 directed more toward the development regulations. They don't have much detail. Other
6 than the proposed Lake Whatcom urban zone, the City and County UGA recommendations
7 are the same.
8
9 Nelson stated he would like to look at consistent development standards for urban
10 and rural areas, for staffing purposes. Craver stated one task in program area 12 is to
11 convene an enforcement team for watershed regulations. Consistent standards would tie in
12 with that task. That is the time to identify inconsistent regulations. The staff team would
13 discuss expanding that task. That concern would be taken care of through that task.
14
15 Nelson stated a question is whether they are trying to take land away from people or
16 help people protect their land. Look at what it takes to protect land. Park acquisition may
17 or may not be a key factor. The administration can work on that concept. One option
18 proposed was making a watershed zone, which could have a meaning that is different from
19 elsewhere.
20
21 McShane referenced work plan item 1.5. That process will be done through the
22 Parks Department. The question is the type of park that will be developed. It should
23 protect water quality, habitat, and open space.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
26
27 McShane continued to state that he is interested in the City Council deciding what it
28 is willing to support for this conversion. This conversion is a significant hit to County
29 finances. In the future, he would like to know if the City is willing to manage these lands.
30 That can be worked on jointly.
31
32 Weimer referenced work plan item 1.6. They are having a problem with clustering
33 development in forest lands around the lake. The set- asides are only preserved until the
34 land can be rezoned. Consider conservation easements on clustering, also. It wouldn't be
35 County or City land. Clustering is only a benefit if the land is really preserved.
36
37 Nelson stated he would support that because a major concern with cluster
38 subdivisions is impervious surfaces. One concentrated area of impervious flow from a
39 cluster is worse than if it's spread out. Also, there wasn't a plan for what to do with these
40 reserve tracts in terms of forestry protection, which is the objective for forest lands, which
41 is predominantly what they're talking about.
42
43 Weimer stated they could require a permanent easement in exchange for the ability
44 to cluster. Also, add a task to program area 11 called governance. They can talk about
45 what will happen with the water district and Sudden Valley's request to be a part of the
46 governance.
47
48 Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Member, stated the City Council has the same
49 questions as the County Council about what a joint process will look like. They all have the
50 same questions. However, they can go through the work plan items together, once they
51 have a joint structure. She agrees that the codes need to be more consistent. Having a
52 new structure would facilitate that consistency. Other things on which they can work
53 together include the land preservation options, acquisition priorities, the TDR program,
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 4
enforcement, management of preserved land, oversight with other districts, and public
education and information. A new structure is a way to create a tighter relationship and
realize economy from shared resources.
Weimer asked the difference between this proposal and the inter- jurisdictional
coordinating team (ICT).
Crawford stated come up with additional questions for the administration's survey.
One idea is to include the different boating regulations between the County and City.
Another idea is the difference in the clearing regulations between the City and County.
Jim Neher, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Manager, stated a new joint
department can't do more than what they're doing right now. The staff now has an
excellent working relationship. They keep asking for additional resources and people to do
the job. That's never been granted. Development standards have never been enforced well
because they have always been understaffed. There has always been an idea that the
water district is forcing development. It's not. It's complying with County zoning. Creating
another government overlay is a waste of taxpayer money. The water district was not
asked to participate in this new interlocal agreement. If they are going to be a partner,
include the Sudden Valley folks. All four entities need to sit down together and decide what
they're doing in the future.
Nelson stated the administration has an outline for a process. Everyone has
questions. The process talks about possible challenges and solutions, which is why he
agrees with the process. He needs to understand the problems outlined in the 2008 work
plan, which requires more staffing. Forming a new organization isn't necessarily going to
answer that staffing problem. The Council must confirm the priorities, and work through
any disconnect with the City's priorities.
McShane referenced task 1.7 and stated there is evidence of problems in basin one
contributing to water quality problems throughout the lake. He asked for the rationale for
focusing efforts on basin one. Fogelsong stated there may be more opportunity to purchase
land in basins two and three. They've purchased significant blocks in basin one. Most
purchases are in basins two and three. They've heard people talk about that as a solution
to not having enough money to buy all the property available throughout the watershed.
The intakes are in basin two and three. There is an assumption that the movement
upstream is minimal. The briefing paper would recommend a flow model and a solid
understanding of the contribution of basin one pollution to basin two. It's based on the
assumption that a substantial amount of water won't move back upstream. If that's the
case, they should purchase properties around the intakes.
McShane stated look at that assumption. Fogelsong stated they know there is some
movement. They don't know how much it is and how important it is.
Fleetwood stated task 2.1 should be a high priority.
Nelson asked if these ongoing tasks are staffed adequately and have a process in
place.
McShane read the first policy discussion issue under program area two. He asked if
they want to go down that path. The current County Code tries to direct them that way.
There is a high preference for infiltrating water onsite. He asked if there is an option out.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 5
1 Weimer stated the County Code already says that water shouldn't leave sites. That
2 relates to items such as task 2.7 regarding source reduction. They have the code, but there
3 is no enforcement or public education.
4
5 McShane stated enforcement is important. He read from Whatcom County Code
6 (WCC) 20.80.636. It doesn't say that stormwater will go into the ground. If it goes into the
7 ground, they will save a lot of money. Fogelsong stated the City implemented a pilot
8 project this year to include private property retrofits of stormwater infiltration and
9 treatment under the stormwater program. The stormwater program paid for that, and they
10 needed volunteers to participate. They didn't get many volunteers. If they require
11 treatment from all lots in the watershed, it's no longer a volunteer program. It's a matter of
12 time and money. They are trying to treat new and existing lots the same. The program
13 may do better next year.
14
15 Nelson stated stormwater infiltration into the ground may not be a benefit or the
16 best option. Even more phosphorus is picked up that way. They will have to evaluate the
17 natural form of free phosphorus. The best option may be retention and detention. Better
18 control peak flows and creek erosion. Fogelsong stated he agreed that infiltration may not
19 be best. Source control and stewardship will be a major control factor.
20
21 Nelson referenced task 2.5 and asked if staffing levels makes it difficult to do
22 education and enforcement. He asked how additional staff would reduce the flow of water
23 off -site. Fogelsong stated task 2.5 is ongoing. Both jurisdictions have recently successfully
24 increased inspection capacity.
25
26 McShane stated create tighter criteria for when infiltration should occur and when
27 one can opt out. Infiltration is more cost - effective for the developer. It's preferable
28 environmentally and for the developer 95 percent of the time. Pursue that through the
29 development regulations.
30
31 He referenced the policy document, program area two, second bullet point and
32 stated having a pilot project like the City's will be very informative. However, it depends on
33 the funding mechanism they use. Fogelsong stated they've talked about the incentive
34 program. A factor is determining the benefit. The percentage of the bill that should be
35. reduced may be minimal in terms of the whole system. It would cost the community more
36 to provide that incentive than the money saved by the property owner, especially if property
37 owners aren't investing in any improvements themselves. It is part of the City's stormwater
38 system to pay for the investment of improvements on private property because it's a public
39 good.
40
41 Nelson stated Sudden Valley is an example of a community that has planned and
42 implemented water retention at their own cost. That can be done in an urbanized area if
43 the community doesn't want to pay higher rates and is willing to reduce its input. Small
44 areas can reduce their input. Consider that as an option in rural areas also. Use positive
45 tools rather than negative tools.
46
47 McShane referenced task 2.8. Fogelsong stated he asked the State Department of
48 Ecology (Ecology) about a Lake Whatcom district with its own National Pollutant Discharge
49 Elimination System (NPDES) permit, separate from the City's and County's. Ecology is
50 considering it. If feasible, staff will research whether there is benefit of scale.
51
52 McShane stated Ecology's Stormwater Manual is not well - designed for phosphorus
53 reduction in a lake setting.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 6
Nelson stated the NPDES may or may not be a benefit for what they're trying to
achieve as a goal under the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study. He asked if that's
correct.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated they're two separate things at
this point.
Nelson asked which will have more benefit for Lake Whatcom. Christensen stated
they will overlap. Work on the NPDES may provide credits to the TMDL.
Nelson stated that if they overlap, he would rather overlap on what will benefit the
lake. He's not sure if that answers the goals of the NPDES. Whatever they do will be better
than just adopting the State's standards.
McShane stated the NPDES permit has specific requirements of the County.
Christensen stated that's correct. That's different from something like Ecology's stormwater
manual. There is work required beyond the NPDES and the TMDL.
McShane asked why the County hasn't adopted the manual yet. Christensen stated
it is a huge task for the County. There are many requirements that don't fit this area. they
use it as guidance. Not many other jurisdictions want to adopt it. King County came up
with its own manual.
Nelson stated there are good reasons for doing that. Christensen stated they would
have to look very carefully at adopting the manual.
(Clerk's (Vote: End of tape one, side B. Tape two was previously used, and the
recording at the very beginning of side A and after the end of this meeting is of another
meeting.)
Nelson asked the area of the county that will fall under the NPDES. Christensen
stated it is everything in the UGA and everything that has a density of 1,000 people per
square mile. Also, Ferndale voluntarily went to NPDES phase two.
Weimer stated Councilmember Brenner asked him to let the committee know that
retrofits are important. All the things on the list are good things, but there isn't any money.
He's not sure what they're being asked to do. He asked if there is enough money in the
2008 budget to do the entire work plan. Fogelsong stated there is, except where additional
staff is required. The ICT can bring together staff from different departments to discuss a
variety of cross- department issues.
Weimer asked if the level in 2.9 that is already funded is a good level, or if they need
to increase that level. He asked if all the tasks on the list will be included in the
consolidated water resource integration program (CWRIP). He asked if they will get 2.1
through 2.9 in a prioritized list. Fogelsong stated that if they do, the Council will add to the
top or bottom of the list and decide which other items they want to do. Then, County staff
will let the Council know about available resources and additional resources required. Those
will be added to the top of the list, and something will likely drop off the bottom of the list.
Weimer stated that anything on the bottom of the list that isn't funded won't happen
in 2008 because of the budget cycle. Fogelsong stated he would provide information on
available and needed resources.
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the programmatic and planning
efforts and construction activities are in the analysis. Ongoing internal consultations of staff
isn't reflected in the analysis. Those are ongoing things.
Nelson stated the costs of new projects haven't been identified. They need
information on cost ranges for the tasks.
Fleetwood stated they already have prioritized lists. What they need is money.
That's what they should be talking about. They can easily figure out the top five priorities
for money. In 2008, he hopes they do that.
McShane stated they need to identify priorities before setting up appropriate funding.
He doesn't know what the priorities are right now.
Fleetwood stated they have a draft plan from the comprehensive stormwater
management project that identified a series of potential prioritized projects. All they have
to do is approve them. They must implement those priorities. They know they need to
continue stormwater retrofitting and acquisition programs. Groups have worked for years
on identifying the target areas in the watershed. They would need to argue why the list
needs to be changed, which they can do if they want. Begin putting money and resources
into the high priority areas.
McShane stated stormwater retrofits are only one part of what they're doing. The
priorities in that document makes sense. Many other activities exist outside of that. The
question is how they fund them equitably. The equity issue is not minor. Other projects
around the county will demand money from the countywide flood zone. They must identify
the most appropriate funding mechanism. First, they must identify the projects they want
to put forward, pick the appropriate funding mechanism, and then set a budget amount.
They can work toward a budget for reassessing the amount they set for the countywide
flood zone district or establish a separate district. The big money will be in the stormwater
retrofit projects. They are the biggest problem in the watershed, but don't miss
preservation opportunities.
Crawford stated the CH2MHil1 list was good. The top eight projects needing
immediate attention will cost $3 million. Make those a priority. Retrofits are a high priority.
Now, there isn't a source for that $3 million. Implement those projects as soon as possible.
Address the Hillsdale drainage and Park Place drain. They're both notoriously bad. Get
them fixed as soon as possible.
McShane stated the question is how many of those fixes they have to do, whether it
can be done jointly with the City, and what projects will fall off the list to do those projects.
Don't forget the stormwater report from CH2MHill. They've already done a fair bit of the
work in bullet item 2.4. The City is awaiting funding also for a stormwater project. The City
is facing the same challenges. What the County does in Hillsdale has an impact on the
City's Silver Beach area.
Weimer stated they can produce that $3 million by changing the flood control levy
this evening. There are 450 projects on the list. They can easily spend $3 million. They
have projects valued at $19 million for the next 20 years.
Nelson stated they have many ways of raising money, and this is not a good one.
The efforts of the councils have been guided toward programs that make sense and finding
Natural Resources Committee, 11/20/2007, Page 8
1 funding for them. The retrofits don't fix everything. Other things have to be done. If they
2 raise $3 million, and then waste it, they will lose the public's support. It's disingenuous to
3 the public to get the money before the priorities are in place.
4
5 Weimer stated the priorities will be in place before they get the money.
6
7 Nelson stated the most revenue they can get from any district is $500,000, which
8 won't go very far. They need the support from the entire county, not just the Lake
9 Whatcom or Bellingham -residents. Integrate all the priorities. Staff has done a great job
10 identifying the projects and finding a system that makes sense. They need to evaluate their
11 tools.
12
13 McShane stated the Council has done a good job avoiding harm to the lake. It hasn't
14 done a good job of fixing existing problems. Make sure any funding is equitable. He is
15 concerned about controlling spending.
16
17 Fleetwood stated he is enthused about the water integration project and
18 comprehensive stormwater management plan. One component is the funding aspect. A
19 primary component of the .comprehensive stormwater management plan is a fair and
20 equitable means of raising money. The consultant came up with a recommendation for how
21 funding should be, which was presumably analyzed in detail. He looks forward to
22 addressing that issue.
23
24
25 OTHER BUSINESS
W
27 There was no other business.
28
29
30 ADJOURN
31
32 The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
33
34
31 �J
36 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
37 ���Hti�ni�►►►p►i
38 et
ez
4o AT p���yfHAr,
41 . CJ COUNTY
42
43 •
44 • F
45 Da Bra � /�� nc' lerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHAT OM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
G—.
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 11/2012007, Page 9