HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 23 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 October 23, 2007
5
6 Committee Member Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Seth Fleetwood None
11 Dan McShane
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Barbara Brenner
16 L. Ward Nelson
17
18
19 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
20
21 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
22 REQUEST #TR2007 -02 (AB2007 -380A)
23
24 Barbara Cory, County Treasurer, stated a couple purchased this property. Their title
25 search identified that the County owns and had leased out the mineral rights. However, the
26 lease is expired. The County's general policy is to pass on oil, gas, and mineral rights to
27 property owners, which is why the committee voted to send this to the County Council,
28
29 Fleetwood asked if the company explored the mineral rights and found none.
30
31 Jim Perkins, Public Works Department, stated the company explored the area and
32 didn't find anything. That is the case in most of these instances. He talked to the president
33 of the company that held the lease, who said they have no further use for the lease. For all
34 intents and purposes, there is nothing there.
35
36 Weimer asked if Jordan Exploration looked mainly for gas. Councilmember McShane
37 was concerned that this is an area with hard rock quarry. Perkins stated he doesn't have
38 any knowledge of that.
39
40 Fleetwood stated this committee will forward this item to the full Council without a
41 recommendation. They can get more information from Mr. Goldthorp later if necessary.
42
43 The committee concurred with McShane absent.
44
45 (Clerk's Note: This item was discussed further at the end of the meeting.)
46
47 2. RESOLUTION TO SELL AN EASEMENT OF COUNTY -OWNED PROPERTY ALONG
48 BIRCH BAY DRIVE TO BAY HORIZONS DEVELOPMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
49 STORMWATER OUTFLOW (AB2007 -381A)
50
51 Weimer stated the committee would like answers about where the money goes,
52 future development along the shoreline, and how the value is met. The councilmembers
53 received a letter from Doug Robertson.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 1
1
2 Fleetwood asked what is meant by the question of how the value was met.
3
4 Weimer stated the applicant is looking for an easement on a strange property with
5 multiple ownerships. The people are agreeing to pay the County the full value.
6
7 Dan Gibson, Prosecutor's Office, stated that is correct. Mr. Robinson can answer the
8 questions. He prepared a letter to Councilmember McShane.
9
10 He's worked with Mr. Robertson on this matter for some time. They've put it in a
11 form in which it is appropriate for the County Council to consider. The questions about
12 property ownership does raise some issues, but they'll be dealt with by the prospective
13 purchaser if Council approves this.
14
15 Weimer stated there was also a question about testing what is coming out of the
16 outfall and how that would be paid.
17
18 Doug Robertson, Horizon Development Corporation Representative, stated he
19 provided a letter answering questions. All the construction of the outfall and erosion control
20 measures occurs in County right -of -way. The only thing in tract A is the use of the existing
21 water course. The question is the value of the easement to continue using a water course
22 that already exists. It's not something that can be valued well, especially because it has an
23 undivided interest. To avoid any concern that the County is not getting full value, they are
24 paying 100 percent of the assessed value for the County's share, which is about $6,000 due
25 for unpaid taxes. They are paying back to the County about four times that value, in
26 addition to shoreline enhancement.
27
28 Another question is making sure work on this tract is consistent with the rest of the
29 shoreline. A representative of the group that asked that question is present today. His
30 company will attend the next meeting of that group to get review and approval of their
31 project, so it's consistent with the community plan.
32
33 The Coast Trail may run along that road and right -of -way. They want to make sure
34 they can accommodate the trail and not create a barrier to that trail.
35
36 About testing, they talked about having the homeowner's association undertake the
37 testing. It's not feasible for all the homeowners to get together to do the testing. Instead,
38 the client will make a donation to undertake that testing right away.
39
40 Another concern was about what happens if Horizons goes away. It will be worked
41 into the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC &R's). The protection for the County will
42 be done in two ways. First, there will be a provision on the face of the easement that says
43 his company must test it and make sure it's there. If the County feels the maintenance and
44 repair is not being done, It gives notice to the homeowner's association to fix it. If it's not
45 fixed, the County has the right, but not the obligation, to go out and repair it and send the
46 bill for the repair. If they don't pay the bill, the County can foreclose a lien against the
47 common areas. The common areas are key to any development. There is a big hammer to
48 take care of the maintenance, or else they will lose the common areas.
49
50 Fleetwood asked how long that obligation runs. Robertson stated it runs as long as
51 the easement is held by the association. The easement runs in perpetuity or until the
52 County or succeeding municipal government comes in and wants it dedicated to the
53 jurisdiction. It is designed to be a municipal system. It meets all the standards for a
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 2
municipal system. If the area decides to incorporate, the local government will want it to be
part of the regional plan. They just give the homeowner's association a notice and it has to
be dedicated without further cost. The moment it's dedicated to the government, their
maintenance obligation stops.
Fleetwood asked how the outfall project adheres to the Birch Bay Comprehensive
Stormwater Plan goals. Robertson stated the plan has engineering particulars. The goal is
to develop a system to accommodate current and future growth. Also, a goal is to deal with
Rogers Slough. The original plan was to develop a method by which the slough has more
flushing capability, but that wasn't feasible. Now, the plan is to divert it away from Rogers
Slough. Birch Bay Village is built on a bog. It is subject to winter flooding events. If they
divert stormwater away from there, stormwater going through will reduce, which will reduce
the flooding. That is a principal goal of the subarea plan.
Fleetwood stated stormwater systems should ensure that pollutants don't get into
the bay. However, no stormwater plan can guarantee 100 percent capture. That is the
goal, however. He asked if the effluent will have zero pollutants. Robertson stated it has
met all the State Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements of the DOE stormwater
manual, the subarea plan, and the CH2MHill stormwater plan to reduce the pollutants as
much as is practical. They can't eliminate all the pollutants, but this project meets and
exceeds the requirements.
Weimer asked what they are testing for with the $750 one -time donation to test the
outfall.
(Unidentified) Winter stated stormwater is naturally not pollutant free. They have
sediment loads consistent with grassy hillside or forests. Both the Horizon projects have
gone above and beyond stormwater treatment minimum standards from the County and
State DOE. They voluntarily enhanced treatment with low- impact development measures
for onsite stormwater treatment close to the source and at the collection point. Horizon at
Semiahmoo has an additional treatment measure. The minimum requirement is one, sole
treatment component in the pond. In most cases, Horizons provides double treatment.
Weimer asked if the requirements in the DOE stormwater manual are testing what is
coming out of the development. Winter stated that is a gray area. He will take a closer
look at the required testing requirement.
Weimer stated Horizons is offering a one -time payment of $750 to do testing.
Robertson stated Mr. Larson has a program that tests different facilities. The
donation is to that group. Each test is $40, so the donation would pay for many tests. The
testing is not mandated or set forth in the DOE manual.
Gerald Larsen, Whatcom County Marine Resource Committee and Birch Bay
Stormwater Task Force, stated they test monthly for fecal coliform, temperature, and flow.
The current budget runs through June 2009. The original plan was to test ten sites. They
are now up to 20 sites. During the summer and fail, many sites don't have fall, so they can
do more tests during the rainy period of the year. He requested financial assistance for the
testing. He would be happy with that donation to the Marine Resource Committee through
Whatcom County.
Alan Freidlob, Holeman Avenue, Birch Bay, stated he is not comfortable with that
approach. The agreement doesn't allow the County or a designee to inspect this outfall.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 3
1 Amend the agreement to include inspection at any time. Testing is a form of inspection.
2 That testing is therefore the responsibility of Birch Bay Watershed and Aquatic Resource
3 Management District (BBWARM) or the County Public Works Department when necessary,
4 and the grantee has to act on findings. It's not just a $750 donation. To assure it be done
5 via enforcement, testing as inspection is a responsibility of BB WARM as a County designee.
6
7 Fleetwood asked if the proponent agrees to inspections. He asked if anyone asked
8 the proponent about doing inspection. Freidlob stated he doesn't know. There is no
9 description of an inspection process. The word "inspection" isn't used.
10
11 Gibson stated it is addressed more adequately in the letter from Mr. Robertson. One
12 component is a requirement for inspection. They're dealing with the negotiation of the sale
13 of the easement for the outflow area. The remainder is constructed in the County right -of-
14 way and subject to any County conditions. They are not dealing simply with the process for
15 granting the use of the right -of -way at this point. That will be addressed separately. The
16 County has the right to inspect within its right -of -way as a matter of course. Pages three
17 and four of the agreement are clear that the County can do maintenance that is necessary,
18 after notice to the homeowners' association. The redrafted portions of the agreement
19 covers Mr. Friedlob's concern. This is County property. The County has all the right in the
20 world to test the outfall.
21
22 Freidlob stated the agreement should also make explicit a standard of the DOE
23 requirements or another standard to which the County holds the outcomes, rather than
24 more ambiguous langage.
25
26 Fleetwood asked if that expresses something that is already implicit. Gibson stated
27 he already addressed the need to comply with DOE regulations. A requirement of the
28 operation with this is compliance with DOE regulations. He has no problem with that
29 language being in the agreement.
30
31 Freidlob stated consider including a timeframe on the reimbursement of County
32 expenses. Gibson stated any amounts not paid after 30 days will result in a lien on the
33 property.
34
35 Freidlob stated there is no language that says "provided that provisions for financing
36 ongoing maintenance are included in the deed restrictions or other contract agent."
37
38 Brenner asked if a homeowners' association would take liability if assignment of the
39 interest is transferred to a homeowners' association. Gibson stated it would. That liability
40 is backed up by that provision for a lien upon the common areas of the association.
41
42 Brenner asked if that is a lien on the individual properties. Gibson stated it is not.
43 It's a lien on the common areas. It would be a loss of the common areas if they were
44 foreclosed upon. The common areas would go to the County.
45
46 Brenner asked why the County would want the common areas. Robertson stated a
47 lien on the individual properties interferes with Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
48 financing. Instead, they put the lien on the common areas, which include the infrastructure,
49 the stormwater system, the private roads, and park areas, and other amenities. If the
50 homeowners' association doesn't pay the bill, they risk losing the common area that make
51 this a valuable area. Also, the CC &R's must be agreeable to the County. Mr. Gibson will
52 make sure there are stormwater enforcement provisions in the CC &R's. Therefore, it will be
53 in the easement and the CC &R's for each project. It would never get to the point where the
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 4
County would actually foreclose the common areas, because that is such a big hammer over
the individual associations that they'll pay up.
Brenner asked why the County would want those common areas. Robertson stated
that if the County foreclosed the common areas, it would be a breach of covenants. A
homeowner could sue the homeowners' association for breach of covenants. The question
is whether the individual homeowners, who have homes valued at $300,000 to $500,000,
and the commercial property owners, who have properties valued in the millions of dollars,
allow a failure of the project because they aren't paying $20,000 to $30,000 in one year to
maintain the riprap area. They are giving to the County a big hammer to make sure these
are paid. If it gets down the line, the County would end up with a bunch of common areas.
All the homeowners would have to come forward to fix it or lose their houses.
Gibson stated they depend on homeowners' association maintenance of stormwater
facilities. This is a significantly tighter arrangement than the County has had in the past.
Brenner asked if the County could civilly sue the homeowners for violating their
covenants. Gibson stated it constitutes a debt, which can be pursued in a number of ways.
One way to pursue debt collection is through a lien. A judgment from a lawsuit constitutes
a lien. They would get a lien on the common areas.
Robertson stated the County could ultimately take over the homeowner's association
and enforce that way. The fear of having the County take over their homeowners'
association will make the homeowners pay. Then, the County can assess a lien against the
individual property owners.
Gibson stated that at that point, a regional stormwater system would be a preferable
alternative. That's where this whole thing is designed to go. This is designed to eventually
fit into a regional stormwater solution.
Weimer asked how public access improvements. Mr. Robertson talks about how he
will work with the Shoreline Enhancement Restoration Project Committee to make sure
everything works fine. He asked if everyone is happy with that. He moved to recommend
approval to the full Council.
Fleetwood asked if Kathy Berg approves.
Weimer stated she does.
Motion carried unanimously,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BEING DRAFTED
TO ESTABLISH A NEW JOINT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR THE LAKE
WHATCOM RESERVOIR AND WATERSHED (AB2007 -397)
(Clerk's Note: McShane assumed the duties of the chair.)
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, submitted a memo regarding statutory
authority for financing mechanisms for lake - related projects (on file). Information will come
before the County Council in the next few weeks and months. The City and County staff
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 5
I both think certain things need to be done around the lake. As they consider making
2 changes to the interlocal agreement, wait for that information to come in. That information
3 will inform them about the scope of any possible changes. She spoke from the memo
4 regarding the consolidated water resources integration project (CWRIP), Lake Whatcom
5 Comprehensive Stormwater Plan (LWCSWP), and Lake Whatcom Management Plan (LWMP),
6
7 The counciimembers had concerns about financing options. She compiled a list of
8 financing options, included in her memo.
9
10 Fleetwood asked if they should be cautious or slow in making any kinds of decisions
11 about a new management structure during this phase, because that information will inform
12 them, so there is no need to make a decision now.
13
14 McShane stated they need to get their minds around what's currently occurring. A
15 lot is going on now. The question is where the County government wants to put their
16 efforts. He anticipates that this committee's recommendations will occur a few months from
17 now.
18
19 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
20
21 Brenner stated it sounds like they already have structures in place, within which this
22 all falls, and they don't need another new structure. Craven stated the stormwater plan and
23 the water resources integration project are County -only projects.
24
25 Brenner stated there are plans and structures in place that can easily integrate with
26 the City plans and City staff. County staff person Sue Blake used to be specifically assigned
27 to Lake Whatcom. The structure already exists. Craven stated her attachment includes a
28 section on governance structures.
29
30 Weimer stated they all have more to do than they have funding available for. He's
31 looking forward to reviewing the funding options.
32
33 Craven stated that in terms of timing, raising property taxes and assessing fees is
34 never politically easily. If the Council decides it wants to find additional funding for other
35 projects on the list, besides the lake projects, it makes sense to consider all the funding
36 needs at the same time.
37
38 Craven read from her memo regarding the Flood Control Zone District funding
39 mechanism.
40
41 Fleetwood asked when the levy is done. Craven stated it is done annually. This year
42 all the levy ordinances and resolutions are introduced at tonight's meeting.
43
44 Fleetwood stated it's usually done as a matter of course, without controversy.
45 Craven stated that for many years, with the exception of this change in how the flood fund
46 was funded, all the resolutions and ordinances have had a zero percent and zero dollar
47 increase. To change that, they must include the change in the public notice.
48
49 Fleetwood asked if the Council can put forward a resolution or ordinance to lift that
50 levy amount any time during the year, or if they are limited to changing it once per year,
51 Craven stated she doesn't know. She would be surprised if they can, since it sets the tax
52 for the following year.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 6
Weimer asked if the County has more flexibility for using the flood fund revenue
since it became a tax. Craven stated it does. The purpose must have a countywide benefit.
The fund can be used in the context of a cooperative watershed management action for just
about anything to do with water quality, water supply, and water resources and habitat
protection and management.
Weimer asked if this is already being collected from everyone in the county and its
municipal areas also. Craven stated it is. It is also collected within existing flood subzones.
The folks in the subzones pay the countywide assessment and also a fee for their area.
McShane stated this is what they are currently doing. This money currently goes
into the CWRIP, to a degree. Craven stated it is currently being used for stormwater
projects, water resource integration area (WRIA) funding, and some flood control work.
McShane stated an effort in the surface water work sessions is to prioritize those.
Now, the County Council is the Board of Supervisors. It is not a County governance. He
asked how the administration of this fund and who manages it is established. He asked if it
has to be the County administration. Craven stated she'd have to review the resolution. It
can be changed. The resolution amending the structure of the district has been changed a
couple of times since it was created. The Board of Supervisors can approve resolutions.
Under the statute, 15 percent of the voters in the last general election can file a petition to
require direct election of the supervisors of either the countywide zone or the subzones.
McShane asked if the County Council can choose to create an elected board of
supervisors. Craven stated that is correct.
Brenner stated the original flood fee wasn't legal, so it was changed to a tax. The
purpose of the tax, according to a vote of the public, was for flood prevention. Lake
Whatcom is less about flooding than other things.
McShane stated they must understand their role as Board of Supervisors and the
options. They don't have to be the Board of Supervisors.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated this has to be reviewed in the context of
State law, which is normally written around a three- member commissioner form of
government. It has to be looked at also in the context of the County Charter. In that case,
there is a joint role that exists. If the Board is separately - elected, it would probably take on
the responsibility for the tax and its expenditures as a separate government.
McShane asked if it is automatically not a separate entity if the Board is the County
Council. Desler stated it is part of the County government. It's not a separate government
entity.
Craven stated subzones are established essentially the same way, by Council action,
and can include areas beyond the watershed that either benefit from or contribute to lake
issues.
She read the memo regarding the drainage /stormwater utility option.
Fleetwood asked the fundamental difference between this and a flood control zone
district. Craven stated it is strictly a County thing. It's not set up as a separate board. It's
a County utility. The net effect is very similar.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 7
Weimer stated this is a fee -based system. There must be a benefit to an area.
Craven stated there also must be a cost.
She read the memo regarding drainage /stormwater /sanitary sewer utility, which is
similar to the stormwater utility. It seems more of a burden than it's worth. The County
has bonding authority elsewhere. It has more obligation, but allows them to include a
sanitary sewer utility. It's purposes are not as broad.
Brenner asked about the drainage /stormwater utility option. Craven stated it creates
a County utility. It does not allow a separately - elected Board of Supervisors. The utility
becomes a County function. They could use general fund revenues to pay for it.
Brenner asked if it would be a direct fee for service. Craven stated it would be a
separate fund, but they could use general fund revenues for a County function. It's not a
separate district with a separate assessment authority.
Brenner asked if it can be set up separately. Craven stated this is to be a
countywide utility, not a subarea utility.
Brenner asked if only the areas that have direct impacts and benefits would be
charged. Craven stated she would have to gather more information on whether they can
carve out a subarea using this option. There is an argument to be made that most of the
county residents benefit from Lake Whatcom in some way.
McShane stated the fee rates would reflect accordingly.
Craven discussed the Lake Management District, which looks great on paper, but is
expensive to set up. It's original purpose was to protect small recreational lakes, not to
protect large population areas. They have to issue a mailed public hearing notice regarding
the district's establishment and then issue mailed ballots to each property owner within the
proposed district. That is a substantial upfront cost and requires a referendum to pass
before it can be created. It's a structure to allow property owners to set up and organize
themselves to protect smaller lakes.
Fleetwood asked if there are any examples of where this system was used on the
scale of Lake Whatcom. Craven stated she hasn't found examples, but there may be an
example out there. Also, she has to review the governance structure.
Brenner asked if this could be set up for everyone who benefits from the water.
Craven stated the statute allows all or a portion of the lake and adjacent land to be
included. Arguably, it depends on how far "adjacent" goes.
Brenner stated there are some areas that aren't adjacent, but receive the water.
She asked if the water goes to any area that isn't adjacent to the lake.
McShane stated it sounds similar to the watershed improvement district.
Craven stated the County legislative authority retains authority over the lake
management district. It is not separate. The public hearing notice must identify the
amount of special assessments that may be proposed or rates and charges. Once the
district is established, that assessment fee or charge cannot be increased more than ten
percent without going through the hearing and election process again.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 8
She discussed the Conservation Real Estate Excise Tax (REST), Conservation Futures
Fund, and Shellfish Protection Districts from the memo.
Crawford stated the result he wants to achieve is that all the water users, as well as
all those who live in the watershed and those who have impacts and receive benefits, to
pay. The potential lake management district may take into account all the people who get
water as well as watershed residents. He asked if any of these funding mechanisms allow
them to simply add to water bills. Craven stated the County is not a water purveyor. They
could set up that sort of rate, and then have the utilities collect it. It would be a County
rate, not a water bill surcharge. They would simply use the water bill as a method of
coffection.
Crawford stated only Water District 10 and the City of Bellingham collect water rates.
He asked if they can charge a flat rate per water user. Craven stated the City currently has
a stormwater charge and a surcharge on the water bills for land acquisition. The
stormwater fee is used citywide. When renegotiating the interlocal agreement, creation of a
new significant assessment on city users may require a discussion with the City about
reducing other assessments. Otherwise, those city residents will be paying four
assessments for projects to fix the lake. In terms of budget, they may end up with the
same dollar amount. In terms of minimizing friction points, it may be worth talking to the
City about how money is raised for the lake within the context of the interlocal agreement.
Crawford stated he is engaged with the idea of requiring only water users to pay.
Those who don't use the water don't have to pay for protection and improvement of the
source where the water comes from. There must be a nexus between the cost of something
and the benefit. There is no clearer nexus than the one between using the water and
protecting the water. Craven stated that even if the lake weren't a drinking water source,
it's listed as an impaired body. When the total maximum daily load (TMDL) comes out,
there will be cleanup obligations independent of its status as a drinking water body.
Crawford stated look at the true cost of taking care of Lake Whatcom, and identify
the beneficiary. The drinking water is still the big issue surrounding Lake Whatcom. He
understands about the TMDL, but the community would have a different view if it weren't a
drinking water source. If they knew the real cost, and if they translate that cost to every
one of the 80,000 users, then the community can make decisions about what it will take to
protect this source and what it takes to find an alternative water source.
McShane stated it sounds like that would require an interlocal agreement between
the County flood control zone district and the City of Bellingham.
Crawford stated he is challenged to see that connection. Folks on Lummi Island,
Sandy Point, and similar areas are already challenged to understand. Lake Whatcom
benefits others in the county when they come into town from time to time and drink the
water, but the County is paying for that water, so there is a financial connection.
McShane stated they can make the same argument about the current flood district.
Crawford stated that the flood district money should be used for flood projects. The
flood district was formed in 1991 in response to flooding in Sumas. The people in the
County need flood control for storm flood events.
McShane asked if there is countywide benefit to doing that, so everyone in the
County should be willing.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 9
Crawford stated they should be willing, because they voted for it. If they can get
everyone in the county to vote for a Lake Whatcom utility, then go for it. He hasn't heard
that as an option.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Craven stated a flood subzone can be created by action of the County without a
referendum. The assessment would be a rate or charge to those benefiting and causing the
problem. It doesn't have to be a property tax assessment. It can be calculated by the
amount of impervious area, for example.
Crawford asked if they can set it up so those who don't use the water don't have to
pay. He asked if people don't have to pay anymore if they are disconnected from the
system. Craven stated that raises the issue of digging wells in the city.
Crawford asked about vacant land. Craven stated they could get to the same place
by dealing with it as an impervious area charge.
Brenner stated the public voted for the flood fee, not the tax. There should be a
nexus between the assessed value and benefit. If they set up a lake management district,
it could be what the flood fee was supposed to be. When public infrastructure is flooded,
they all benefit. The same could be said about Lake Whatcom, which also provides
recreational opportunities. However, recreational ability has become limited. They can't
give it the same value as they would if someone couldn't get to work because of flooding. If
necessary, restructure some of the things they've already done. People can understand
direct and indirect fees for services and benefits. Taxes on assessed value doesn't have a
relationship to benefits.
Weimer stated the subzones have fees for benefits. If they want to create a subzone
around Lake Whatcom, it could tie specifically to the benefits to people around Lake
Whatcom.
Brenner stated putting that in the flood fee structure would make it extremely
difficult for those small subzones to get their fair share. Lake Whatcom is very needy.
Weimer stated they can set up the fee to be separate, like they did for Lake Samish.
Brenner stated she doesn't like to set it up as a flood fee. It's not about flooding.
McShane stated they must take time to consider all the options. Talk about where
the committee should head next. They have a countywide flood control zone district. He
asked if they can create two separate, independent districts. He asked if a petition can
create a separate district. Craven stated the statute for establishing a countywide zone
district prohibits the geographic coverage of that district from including any then - existing
subzones. When the current countywide zone was created, a previously - existing subzone
went into hiatus so the countywide zone could be established. She doesn't know if there
can be two separate districts that aren't subzones. She can look into it.
Nelson stated it's too late to do that. They already have a countywide flood control
zone district. They would have to dissolve the entire countywide flood control district. They
can't have an overlay and they can't bisect it. Dissolving the original district would require
the County to try and establish a new one.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, page 10
1
2 Craven stated she would speak on the existing interlocal agreement and Interlocal
3 Cooperation Act in terms of the existing structure and the Council's options. A copy of the
4 1998 agreement is attached to the memo. It's very open. It simply says they will meet
5 jointly, act cooperatively but not jointly, and everyone is responsible for their own
6 employees. If there is not unanimous agreement among the parties to dissolve the
7 interlocal agreement, there is an elaborate termination clause. That may or may not
8 become an issue, if this interlocal agreement is dissolved, not amended.
9
10 The Act itself requires basic things, such as specifying anything that the County is
11 legally allowed to do. They can set up duration, what they are going to do, how they are
12 going to fund it, and whether or not they are setting up a separate body to govern an
13 activity. If an interlocal agreement sets up a separate governing body, there are specifics
14 about how that happens. If an interlocal agreement such as this one doesn't set up a
15 separate governing body, everyone in the agreement is responsible for their own people.
16 The legislature adopted a special section of the Act in 2003. It allows watershed
17 management partnerships as a separate legal partnership under the Interlocal Act. It
18 creates a new, separate legal entity of a partnership between local governments or a local
19 government and State agency. The Act has been used in Okanogan County on their water
20 resource inventory area (WRIA) joint board. The kinds of work included in the Lake
21 Whatcom Management Program are the kinds of things that can be implemented under this
22 kind of partnership.
23
24 Governor Locke vetoed one section of the bill that had to do with how these
25 partnerships could finance themselves and issue bonds subject to referenda. That vetoed
26 section is still referred to in the statute. Therefore, it raises questions about financing
27 mechanisms. If the Council decides to pursue this option, they will have to research how
28 exactly that works and the financial limitations an such a partnership. The original bill said
29 they can use ten percent of water - related revenues over and above current County
30 programs, but that ten percent limit doesn't apply to amounts approved by referendum.
31 However, that amount approved by referendum is no longer in the bill. It's not clear
32 whether the ten percent limit continues to apply. However, the partnership idea fits many
33 aspects of the circumstances.
34
35 Weimer stated he would like to know which of these ideas have been discussed with
36 the City in the past. Bring that up during the upcoming Joint Lake Management Committee
37 meeting, or just get information on the past discussions. Don't spend Joint Lake
38 Management Committee meeting time discussing joint cooperative ideas if the City has
39 already said no.
40
41 Fleetwood stated reconsider this after looking at the draft Lake Whatcom
42 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. That will include opinions related to this
43 subject of structure and funding. Craven stated it will, related to stormwater requirements
44 financing. It will look similar to the CH2MHill work on the Birch Bay Stormwater Plan. They
45 went through a similar analysis, including pros and cons. It is specific to the stormwater
46 needs in the watershed.
47
48 Nelson stated everyone is uniform in their desire to protect Lake Whatcom. The
49 difficulty is finding the mechanism to do that. They don't have an idea of the problems that
50 specifically need to be worked on. A good point is having stormwater identification plans in
51 place. They need to have a plan that meets the criteria that is important for this Council
52 and the City Council. Discuss the important criteria. They've never really done that. For
53 example, he heard that the City, which already has stormwater plans in place, is reluctant
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 11
I to give up revenue it generates for other resources. They can only take those monies with
2 public support. The City would have to agree with the County on the criteria. The County
3 will have to identify how it will meet their desires. The only way to be successful is to talk
4 about their desires, which is to find a mechanism to support and fund management of water
5 quality issues in Lake Whatcom, primarily in the urban growth areas.
6
7 McShane stated that during the next committee meeting, after getting input from
8 other upcoming meetings, go through the interlocal agreement to see what the County
9 Council is comfortable with.
10
11 Fleetwood stated start to ask questions about how to define what is fair and
12 equitable. They need to get at that.
13
14 Craven stated she met with the City Attorney and City's Acting Chief Administrative
15 Officer last week. The City Attorney's Office is doing research. The City indicated that they
16 will continue to work on a draft pursuant to the two councils' actions to authorize the Mayor
17 and Executive to go forward with the drafting of a new interlocal agreement, which would go
18 to the councils. In terms of timing, they expect pieces of the draft in December, but no
19 sooner than that.
20
21 Jack Weiss, Bellingham, stated the flood control fee was never put to the voters.
22 The Council approved it. He never voted on it.
23
24 McShane stated the interlocal agreement should address the benefit to those who
25 pay the fee. It's worth looking at. There is some disagreement about that fund, whether
26 the money is fairly distributed, and how it benefits the community.
27
28 Craven stated they can get to the same place without disassembling the existing
29 agreement.
30
31 McShane stated he agrees. He doesn't want to do that.
32
33 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION,
34 REQUEST #TR2007 -02 (AB2007 -380A)
35
36 (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting.)
37
38 Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department, stated there was a
39 question about minerals on this problem. She contacted the County geologist, who said
40 there are no historical prospects or known mineralization concerns.
41
42 McShane asked if the geologist talked about the quality of the bedrock for use as
43 aggregate. Ryan stated he said there was no mineralization for coal and sand, but did not
44 address aggregate.
45
46 McShane stated there is high quality rock in that area. His main concern is that the
47 rock can be hard. The current pit, on the southwest side of Sumas Mountain, is being used
48 for crushed rock aggregate. It is high quality material. There isn't much high quality
49 bedrock in this county. This unit is potentially high quality. He knew there wouldn't be coal
50 or natural gas.
51
52 Fleetwood stated there is reason to believe the previous lease holder analyzed the
53 land for any value.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 12
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
Weimer stated the previous lease holder looked for coal bed methane. They found
that area was not worth anything for gas and oil. They weren't looking for bedrock.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Mjni,6 Transcripti
AT P5451 o;vHATC,,
.0 elk
o.C�
E
Da BroU ,eoun$Clerk
00 IS%
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
W COM COUNTY, ASHINGTON
1
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2007, Page 13