HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 25 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
September 25, 2007
Committee Member Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Carl Weimer Dan McShane
Also Present:
Sam Crawford
Barbara Brenner
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEE
STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE A DEDICATED SOURCE OF FUNDING TO
IMPLEMENT THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT
RECOVERY PLAN (AB2007 -362)
Weimer stated he introduced an ordinance at the last meeting to start the funding
implementation process. He proposed a $40 flat fee to get the funding going initially.
However, there are legal problems with a flat fee. Also, the Treasurer's Office needs the tax
roll by October 1. They don't have time to develop that roll. Therefore, they have a year to
move forward on this item. The question is whether the committee wants to continue to
move forward and engage the administration as a priority item.
The other thing they discussed is whether there is an interim method to jump -start
Shellfish Protection District funding. The County hasn't used a significant amount of banked
flood fee. A question is how they access that banked amount. Over $6 million is in that
flood fee bank. A question is whether they want to use some of those funds. That is money
they could have collected, but didn't.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated that in the context of her assignment
on the comprehensive water resources integration project, she looked into various available
funding mechanisms for many water projects. This came up at the last meeting.
The flood fee is no longer. It is now a Flood zone levy. She described the difference.
It was adopted by vote, and took affect in 2004.
The banked levy capacity for any County fund is the amount between the amount
collected and the highest amount that can lawfully be collected. That amount is determined
by what is statutorily authorized. In the case of the flood zone levy, it can go up to $.50
per $1,000 of assessed valuation, per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). In addition
to those levy amounts, an additional one percent is allowed annually if adopted. According
to the Assessor, the banked levy capacity is not money that has been banked. That is a
misnomer. It is really the capacity of money that can be levied. The County is able to
increase the levy rate to that highest lawful amount by resolution if the resolution complies
with the initiative that requires the County to disclose the increase in levy rate and dollar
amount.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2007, Page I
1
2 Crawford asked the actual flood levy rate collected. Craven stated the amount
3 collected this year was about $.15 per $1,000 of assessed value.
4
5 Weimer stated the levy amount collected per $1,000 of assessed value changes
6 based on the budget and number of parcels.
7
8 Fleetwood asked if the Assessor comes in after the Council approves the budget.
9 Craven stated he does. It goes in the order of budget, then levy, then collection.
10
11 Weimer stated that because of how the budget is set, the County brings in less
12 money. The Council always says there isn't enough money in certain funds, such as the
13 Conservation Futures fund. However, they aren't collected what they've approved.
14
15 Fleetwood asked which fund related to Drayton Harbor.
16
17 Weimer stated he was looking at the flood fund. It can be used for stormwater
18 purposes. The staff can probably determine which stormwater purposes for which the
19 County can use flood funds.
20
21 Fleetwood stated Geoff Menzies stated that the Shellfish Protection District could
22 resolve its problems with a dedicated source of funds in the amount of $385,000 for six
23 years.
24
25 Weimer stated that is the most it asked for. They hoped to get actually $25D,000 to
26 $300,000 this year.
27
28 Fleetwood asked if the County has that banked capacity if it's budgeted for.
29
30 Weimer stated there is banked capacity for $6 million.
31
32 Fleetwood asked if they can generate that money if the Council includes Drayton
33 Harbor recovery in the budget, without raising taxes.
34
35 Weimer stated the Council must also pass a proper resolution.
36
37 Fleetwood asked if it would come from funds for which the County already has
38 authorization, but hasn't collected.
39
40 Crawford stated the funds come from the taxpayers. Be clear. It would raise taxes.
41 It would raise the flood tax. The Assessor could probably come up with the capacity
42 amount, raise it even more for a certain period of time, and then drop the amount back
43 down again.
44
45 In the past, the bulk of the fee was used for flood projects and the water resource
46 inventory area (WRIA) for about eight years. In that time, they spent $8 million on staff,
47 support, and other costs. Then the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District said WRIA is not a
48 legal use of the flood fee. They had the banked capacity in property tax. They raised the
49 property tax about four percent. Simuitaneously, they changed the flood fee to a flood tax
50 and dropped it about the same as the property tax increase. They did a shift of revenue
51 collection from property tax to flood tax.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 2
1 If they want to start playing with any tax that has an additional capacity to collect
2 more, be clear that it's a raise in taxes. He asked if there is a scheme to collect only in the
3 watershed, and not across the board. Craven stated she has not talked with anyone about
4 a watershed - specific levy.
5
6 Crawford stated it's not appropriate to use the flood tax for this purpose. He is in
7 favor of Birch Bay. He's not sure if this issue is worthy of that level of funding, but he's
8 willing to look at that type of mechanism opposed to overall property taxes.
9
10 Weimer stated he needs information from the Assessor related to whether or not
11 they are raising taxes. The County is allowed to raise taxes by one percent each year. The
12 County hasn't done that. To tap that piece of banked capacity, they would be raising the
13 levy. There is another banked capacity for which they've already approved, but not
14 budgeted. It is not a levy rate increase. It is just money already approved that the
15 administration didn't budget to use.
16
17 Crawford stated the administration didn't budget for the amount to keep the levy
18 amount the same. The administration's policy is to keep the levy amount the same, and
19 only add the value of new construction.
20
21 Weimer stated the committee needs the administration to explain this more clearly.
22
23 Craven stated she is continuing to figure out the property tax world with the help of
24 the Assessor. She's now asking more specific questions about the part of the banked
25 capacity that shows as a decrease in the levy rate and the part of the banked capacity that
26 is the decision not to take the one percent annual increase. She is investigating the process
27 for the Council to pursue these funding options and associated budgeting.
28
29 Brenner stated there are two points. One is the levy rate. The other is that they
30 haven't tapped into the amounts allowed. Those amounts just sit there until the County
31 uses them.
32
33 Crawford stated those amounts haven't been collected from the taxpayer yet.
34
35 Brenner stated consider two things before considering any funding option. Add up
36 the costs for and implement the new onsite septic (OSS) regulations. Targeting the septic
37 problem in Drayton Harbor should have a big impact on the problem. She would like a
38 presentation about how soon that will be done. That should be part of the equation.
39
40 Also, the Council budgeted a pile of money to contract with the Conservation District
41 to help people with their farm plans and inform the Council when things aren't working.
42 That contract hasn't been signed, and it should be. That's where many of the problems are
43 coming from. The two sources are hobby farms and OSS system problems. The County is
44 already funding solutions to those problems. If the Council is going to ask for any kind of
45 funding, it should be because those two solutions aren't good enough.
46
47 Weimer stated John Wolpers has been clear that they aren't going to do what the
48 district has asked, which is having someone in the district doing inspections and identifying
49 failing systems.
50
51 Brenner stated that if there isn't inspection and public education, there is no reason
52 for an OSS program at all. Most people will obey the law and do it right. That goes for
53 everyone in the county.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 3
1
2 Weimar stated Mr. Wolpers has said that the initial phase -in will be based on hiring
3 people to keep track of who has done the inspections and who hasn't and check the failing
4 systems. The district is looking for someone at the County to enforce the critical areas
5 ordinance around the small farms. The Conservation District will do the farm plans, but no
6 one in the Drayton Harbor watershed has been told that they need a small farm plan.
7
8 Brenner stated that's not a problem exclusive to the Drayton Harbor watershed. It
9 should be a County employee.
10
11 Weimer stated that's what they're asking for. George Boggs has said that one
12 County employee can stay busy in just the Drayton Harbor watershed doing education and
13 enforcement.
14
15 Fleetwood asked if the Council has already agreed that it wants funding for the
16 recovery plan. The Council will do what is necessary and sufficient to implement the
17 recovery plan. The recovery plan asked for these things.
18
19 Brenner stated they should overlap efforts,
20
21 Crawford stated this is a tax increase. They must talk about this in the context of
22 the budget. Last fall, this Council approved a budget that dips into the reserves by $2
23 million. Don't use the flood levy for this. If the Council wants to raise taxes, then raise the
24 general fund taxes. The flood levy should be dedicated solely to flood work. Also keep in
25 mind that the general fund has lots of banked capacity. If they are going to talk about
26 generating revenue beyond the mechanism of a special district, then it should be through
27 the general fund. Call it what it is. However, there are other budget problems to address.
28 If the majority of the Council wants, the Executive can just propose spending the $200,000
29 for this. Put this in the context of the overall budget picture. Don't look at a particular tax
30 increase for a relatively small item.
31
32 Weimer stated the Council approved the Drayton Harbor recovery plan. The number
33 one thing in that plan was to come up with a dedicated source of funding. This committee
34 said it would begin to look at ways to come up with a dedicated source. Implementing the
35 district is the best way, one way or another, just like Birch Bay and Lake Samish. They
36 must find out what they've already paid for this year before generating more money.
37
38 Brenner stated it takes more than one person to do things. With enforcement, the
39 Prosecutor's Office becomes involved. Someone needs to talk to the Prosecutor's Office to
40 see if it will be capable of becoming involved, if it's as bad as some people think.
41
42 Weimer stated he'd like to just notify people in the watershed that there's a law on
43 the books. They need a person to do that.
44
45 Brenner stated they don't need additional staff to do that. She will write the letter,
46 and the Assessor has the list of addresses. The Council will budget for the postage.
47
48 Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, stated they have funding to pay a
49 person to work for the Health Department in the Drayton Harbor area to identify failing
50 septic systems. That funding will be for six to 12 months. He will pay the staff person to do
51 nothing but identify failed system, and let someone else do enforcement.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 4
1 Brenner asked how much something like that would cost. Abart stated he doesn't
2 remember. That happened a couple of months ago.
3
4 Brenner asked why it's better to have a special Drayton Harbor person or have a
5 County staff person prioritize Drayton Harbor first. She asked if they are going to have one
6 staff person in each watershed area, or one staff person prioritize these areas. They have
7 over four years to get this done. Fund it as a general job, with the Drayton Harbor
8 watershed being the first priority, rather than funding different people for different areas.
9 The Health Department has already said that Drayton Harbor is the first priority. They are
10 going to want to move staff around as things get better in each area. She asked what the
11 extra staff do that the Council budgeted.
12
13 Scarlet Tang, Public Works Department, described the position duties. To focus on
14 the Drayton Harbor watershed, they need a fifth staff person. The four who have been
15 hired are already booked up, and can't focus on the Drayton Harbor watershed, which is
16 when they started talking about creating a new, temporary extra help position for the
17 Health Department.
18
19 Brenner stated it sounds like there are two people doing coordination. She's not
20 sure their duties are efficient. Tang stated setting up the actual 0 &M inspector program is a
21 big task. It involves training inspectors, the third -party specialists who are looking at the
22 systems.
23
24 For the conservation program on agricultural lands (CPAL), part of the delay in
25 getting the contract signed has been due to changing staff at the Planning Department. The
26 CPAL memorandum of agreement with the Conservation District was for education. The
27 Planning Department was to do compliance and enforcement.
28
29 Weimer stated the memorandum of agreement has slipped between the cracks
30 because of staffing, but is now on the top burner. It only kicks off the Conservation District
31 education efforts. The Conservation District hesitates to use the word 'law' or `enforcement'
32 when dealing with the agricultural community. Their literature doesn't mention that this is
33 required.
34
35 Brenner asked if the County is paying for that mailer.
36
37 Weimer stated the County isn't because there isn't a memorandum of agreement.
38 The Conservation District used other money.
39
40 Brenner stated the Conservation District will reimburse itself when it gets the
41 County's money. The County should have some say in what goes out. There should be at
42 least a footnote that it's required by law.
43
44 Weimer stated that was discussed when creating the memorandum of agreement.
45
46 Brenner stated most people want to comply with the law, so the law should be
47 clearly stated. Those who won't obey the law will disobey no matter what. This is a great
48 opportunity to let people know what the law is.
49
50 Weimer stated they still need greater clarity about the banked capacity issue. The
51 Council should start getting a handle on the funding options and amounts available.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 5
Brenner stated a letter should let people know what the law requires. Send the
letter to anyone that the Conservation District is sending a letter to.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Craven stated there are also significant unmet needs in the Planning Department
long -range planning work plan. In the context of the water resources project, she is
starting to look into that. The lack of funding and need for additional funding will become
an issue for the Council.
Fleetwood stated the Council will clarify Ms. Craven's work on this issue at the
Committee of the Whole meeting.
Weimer stated Drayton Harbor is on the cusp of turning the corner. Recent data
shows that there is the possibility of opening more of the harbor for shellfish, but they still
suffer rain events with very high fecal coliform numbers. Initial data shows its probably
from farm animals. With an influx of effort in Drayton Harbor over the next couple of years,
they could open up the shellfish beds.
Brenner stated she agreed, but they don't need to hire someone now for the district.
Instead, have someone dedicated to the County through a County resource. It's important
to do this countywide rather by region.
Weimer stated they need to investigate the flood money and see if they want to try
and implement something this year. It seems they've cobbled together enough money for
Drayton Harbor to take care of the majority of the problem. The district is concerned that it
won't be able to cobble funds together in the future, and progress will slide.
Brenner stated they could prioritize Drayton Harbor until it's turned the corner. That
would be a duty of the departments as they work on stuff. The administration has said that
its number one priority is Drayton Harbor until it's done.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Jill Nixon 44t149iNri)p��cription
ATsQ •ok W H A rC'•.�
J i
•
Dar Brftlk' d4W ncil� lerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
W HATC M co NTY AS GTON
th Fleetw d, Committee Member
Natural Resources Committee, 9/25/2007, Page 6