HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session September 18 2007Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
September 18, 2007
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. in the Whatcom
County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham,
Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION AB2007 -025
1. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROJECT (CWIRP)
UPDATE
Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, handed out information (on File) and
introduced the new Public Works Assistant Director.
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, explained his background.
Cooper stated the phases of the project have been updated to reflect actual
workshop dates. She will provide to the councilmembers binders with backup
documentation later in the project.
They've had three workshops so far. They talked about what a successful project
would look like. Many staff said that the public should understand the process that
departments use to develop work plans and budgets and both the Council and
administration should support the process. Another question was identifying potential fatal
flaws, which include lack of money or staff, political pressure from other political interests,
and a lack of public support.
Early on, they tried to define actual projects to prioritize. They need to prioritize the
projects in the plans, not the plans. Anything that takes time or money, including people,
include capital projects, ongoing programs, projects that come out of plans, and planning
projects to develop new plans.
They summarized the plans to understand the breadth and depth of all the plans. It
was eye - opening to the staff action team (STAT). They must continue this exchange of
information over time.
Another reason for the plan summaries was to start developing the project list and
prioritizing the projects.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/18/2007, Page 1
Common themes of the plans are public safety, economic viability, and education.
Many plans don't quantify benefits or costs. Conflicts identified include salmon and flood
management, which can also be identified as an overlap. They are starting to try and
integrate those more.
Another conflict is the variation of special scale, such as countywide versus small
areas.
The Comprehensive Plan vision of quality of life doesn't necessarily trickle down to all
the other plans. Therefore, they developed a shared vision at the latest workshop.
She referenced the water resource inventory area (WRIA) sub -basin map. The staff
action team (STAT) divided into four categories to discuss water supply and instream flow
related to water supply, habitat and instream flow related to habitat, flooding and
sedimentation, and water quality. Each group came up with the top ten basins for that
issue. The Coordinated Water Resource Integration Project (CWRIP) priority map is the
result of that effort. She explained the map. From this exercise, they learned that the
results were too coarse. They must better define to what level each sub -basin may go. It
wasn't useful to prioritize basins outside the context of a project.
Nelson asked if they are trying to find a mechanism to prioritize projects, and if this
effort was to try and do it by basin. He asked what is driving this group to do prioritization.
Cooper stated phase one is to develop a prioritization process to apply to projects and look
at the organizational structure. The focus is to come out with that prioritization process at
the end. Basins influence that prioritization, but it isn't the most important thing.
Nelson asked what created the problem. Cooper stated identifying the most
important basin isn't the best way to look at prioritization. The projects and problems may
need to be prioritized, not the basins.
Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this is a
tool for the administration and Council to prioritize which projects to move forward with.
Often brought to the Council and administration are requests for projects. They want to
know if one watershed basin is really more important than others. From this exercise, they
determined they are talking about the project and its benefits. There may be the same
project in two different basins. At that point, discuss which basin it would be better for.
Projects must compete against projects on an honest playing field. That's what this project
is.
Nelson stated he appreciates this effort. They get wrapped around the political
without looking at facts, assumptions, and cost - effectiveness of a project and how that
project integrates with other things. Don't focus on specific projects without considering
integration with other activities. He asked the facts and assumptions they used to develop
criteria. Cooper stated the next workshop is to set the criteria.
Brenner stated the Sumas River basin is the one that they're having a problem with
regarding asbestos. That will be a huge issue. Cooper stated it is. They identified it for
flooding.
Middleton stated they are going from basin level to sub - basins to do relative valuing
to establish criteria and assign a numerical ranking for a few hundred projects.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/18/2007, Page 2
1 Cooper stated the next thing they did to create a shared vision, which will guide
2 them into developing the criteria, was an exercise to come up with fictional future news
3 stories about the success of the projects if they were done. They also tried to identify
4 common themes. She read the list of important things they want to result from the project
5 from the Shared Vision Resulting from Affinity Exercise handout. This information will help
6 develop the criteria at the next meeting.
7
8 Brenner stated the quality of life goal should also include a goal of life, specifically.
9
10 Nelson stated this was a good exercise. In outlining things to think about when
11 looking at facts and assumptions, they must have support for any criteria they establish.
12 This will provide tools to identify considerations when trying to find all the facts and
13 assumptions to support the criteria that they think are the highest and heaviest to support.
14 Middleton stated that's correct.
15
16 Crawford stated some of these issues bring up red flags. He asked how this exercise
17 drives where they are heading. Cooper stated it gets everyone to agree with what's
18 important to go into this process and what's important to come out of the process.
19
20 Crawford stated the use of motorized vehicles on Lake Whatcom is not a
21 transportation issue. Cooper stated some things are grouped very loosely. It wasn't exact
22 by any means.
23
24 Nelson stated this is not the criteria. This is the discussion to make sure they didn't
25 leave out anything. Nothing is proposed yet.
26
27 Cooper stated a Birch Bay example was presented to the team.
28
29 Middleton referenced the handout of two pages from the Birch Bay Stormwater
30 Management Plan (on file). It describes what the Birch Bay group put together for
31 establishing criteria for stormwater projects in the Birch Bay watershed. Through the
32 collaborative process through public meetings and workshops, they went through a process
33 to establish criteria that works for Birch Bay. He read the criteria from the handout. There
34 was debate about how the relative ranking came about. The public decided on the relative
35 ranking values at the public meeting.
36
37 Nelson asked the facts and assumptions used to select these criteria. He asked if
38 there were costs and time. Middleton stated there weren't, for this process.
39
40 Nelson stated that in the Council process, he prefers to not leave out any criteria
41 without having a weight factor so they can explain that to the public why or why not they
42 used that criteria. Middleton stated this process for Birch Bay is very limited. The math is
43 easy. However, for the entire integration project, they are going to have to put together all
44 the projects countywide and rank them. That math won't be so easy. Everyone in the
45 public has to understand how they're ranked. It can't be mysterious. Now, they are going
46 through the criteria to make it as open as possible. For Birch Bay, there is a relative weight
47 and a criteria that are used for ranking. There are only three main categories and nine
48 actual criteria. However, they may end up with 20 criteria for this entire project. On top of
49 all that, there is the cost and time factor that they need to figure out. They may have to
50 present the projects in different ways.
51
52 Nelson stated they could look individually at the preliminary rating and a separate
53 decision making process on how to achieve each project, which is outside the County
Surface Water Work Session, 9/18/2007, Page 3
1 structure. When asking for County funding, the County can see how the project fared on its
2 own, outside the County structure, before it moves forward. The County will have a chance
3 to see how an entity measures and evaluates its own projects. Middleton stated different
4 projects and programs have their own funding sources. Projects with funding will be rated
5 differently. They want to establish a filtering process and prioritization process for the
6 Council.
7
8 Cooper stated that will also provide people an opportunity to find outside funding.
9
10 Brenner stated that's related to the concept of a countywide water district. There
11 should be a general, overriding fund instead of the way they are doing this. Middleton
12 stated phase one is getting the criteria. Phase two is funding. Phase three is establishing
13 oversight body and process.
14
15 Brenner stated it seems the first thing is to establish the system of funding, and then
16 do all the specifics. Cooper stated they need the list of projects to justify the need for the
17 funding to the public. That's why they are getting the priorities first, and identifying which
18 projects the County should maybe not be involved in.
19
20 Caskey- Schreiber stated it will be more effective if they do it watershed -by-
21 watershed. The public will have more ownership and motivation to get their own funding.
22 The County will have to figure out its own priority for areas that can't get it together. If
23 they assess one fee overall, and try to figure out which district gets attention, it will be a
24 nightmare. These watershed areas are happening. It's the most surefire way to have hope
25 to implement WRIA. This process will make things easier for the Council to try and
26 prioritize everything.
27
28 Brenner stated she agrees with Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber. Make it like the
29 flood district. Set up something countywide, and then let the specific areas develop sub -
30 zone areas.
31
32 Caskey - Schreiber stated the people in the City of Bellingham vehemently oppose the
33 flood fee because they feel it doesn't affect them whatsoever. People will be much more
34 tolerant of an assessment if they see results in their neighborhood. One blanket fee can't
35 meet the needs of everyone and their neighborhoods.
36
37 Brenner stated the people voted for the flood fee.
38
39 Fleetwood asked the distinction between people and environment in the rating
40 criteria. Water quality and environment affects the people. Middleton stated many of these
41 things overlap. When establishing this ranking, they discussed making that distinction in
42 detail. They are having the same conversations now in terms of public drinking water and
43 health and safety. Drinking water is part of health and safety, as is people not getting
44 washed over a road or lost in a flash flood. There is an environmental aspect and a health
45 and safety aspect of water quality.
46
47 Fleetwood stated everything affects health and safety. Everything else comes under
48 it. Define what they mean by health and safety. Middleton stated that is one of the things
49 they are doing. They've learned that these lines must be well - defined.
50
51 Nelson stated Councilmembers Caskey - Schreiber and Brenner are both right. The
52 second phase of funding is critical because they must evaluate this based upon the systems,
53 the types of things they can do, and what the public can support. They can't get wrapped
Surface Water Work Session, 9/18/2007, Page 4
1 around these examples. Staff is trying to find out if they are going in the right direction to
2 get answers.
3
4 Weimer stated they are, to some degree, make decisions that are not quite where
5 the group has gotten to yet. Once they get the list, it will inform them of the funding
6 mechanisms that will work for the items on that list.
7
8 Middleton stated he's gone through similar processes in his 20 years with the
9 County. He thinks it will actually work this time. Staff is tired of reacting and putting out
10 crises as they come up. This is supposed to be proactive. If they have 400 projects, and
11 they all had to stand on their own merits and go after the general fund, they can only work
12 on the highest priorities first before working on the lower priority items. It may take many
13 years to get through them all. An independent group should be motivated to find their own
14 funding so the County can contribute sooner. When the watershed groups get together to
15 find their own funding, the projects will get done sooner. Outside funding would be a
16 significant criteria.
17
18 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated that as they work through this, they
19 intend to work through sample projects to see if the outcomes make sense. The criteria will
20 be tested. The weighting and the relative weight will determine how the priorities come
21 out. Both the weighting and the multipliers are important to double check. Staff plans to
22 do that with a group of proposed future projects.
23
24 An additional complication in doing this prioritization is that, while stormwater and
25 river and flood and water related projects are entirely within this integration project, other
26 projects, such as those attached to long -range planning, will not be attached to this system.
27
28 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
29
30 They must also address how to deal with their priorities with respect to the rest of
31 the long -range planning's list. They have to work together so the priorities make sense with
32 respect to both work programs.
33
34 Brenner stated her only concern is that they will end up with many small
35 implementation systems if they do it group -by- group. She's more worried about the
36 structure of the system. She would rather have the system be consistent.
37
38 Caskey - Schreiber stated that will be positive. They will be autonomous from the
39 County Council. The County will be supportive when it can, but it will be their projects.
40 Cooper stated it depends on how they're formed. It depends on what the local area is more
41 comfortable with.
42
43 Weimer stated the Council must give the group more time before worrying about
44 some of these things.
45
46 Middleton stated staff will present phase one at the January 2008 surface water work
47 session. That's when the criteria will be established and final.
48
49 Cooper stated that when looking at more than one watershed, they must normalize
50 the playing field. They came up with a sub -basin resource value concept. Each watershed
51 has its own inherent value related to different areas. Those areas are safe and adequate
52 drinking water, biological function, recreation, culture, economic, and social. They are
53 looking at the different aspects of basins. The team established definitions about high,
Surface Water Work Session, 9/ 18/ 2007, Page 5
1 medium, and low values, and then apply the values to the basins to make sure they are
2 working. This is not to prioritize the basins independently, but to inform the process.
3
4 Nelson stated the criteria should be equal on all areas that the Council looks at. All
5 the criteria should be applied across all the basins. The facts and assumptions should also
6 be applied to each area. Then they can decide a course of action that makes sense. When
7 the Council or anyone has to make final decisions, they will then be uniform decisions.
8
9 Middleton stated a result can be something similar to the six -year transportation
10 improvement program. Whatever commission is formed will present the Council with the
11 top 100 projects for the next two years, or something to that effect. Then the Council can
12 review and approve that recommendation. Rather than having all the debate in front of the
13 Council at that time, it will take place over a period of time through a set of criteria.
14
15 Cooper stated the criteria are based on facts and assumptions. The flavors of the
16 sub- basins are based also on their inherent values.
17
18 McShane stated consider the fact that the process of how criteria are selected and
19 scored is by stepping back and looking at the funding source. The funding comes from
20 County funds. Consider the broad public and environmental benefit of any of these
21 projects, even if the projects are in a small area.
22
23 Also, regarding the ranking system, consider how the Council will go through that
24 selection process. The Council tends to want to move things around regardless of scores.
25 When this is done by staff or whoever, consider how the councilmembers will apply their
26 own criteria. Cooper stated that's why they apply all the basins in one category.
27
28 McShane stated look at opportunities to prevent some group from putting a lot of
29 political pressure to cause Councilmembers to want to champion something in particular.
30 Middleton stated they thought about trying to get that political push from people now,
31 rather than before the Council in the future.
32
33 Cooper stated this process may need to include an appeal process. They need to
34 come up with a way to adjust criteria if things change. They must have a structure to make
35 the recommendations.
36
37 Brenner stated she likes how they developed the priority watersheds shown on the
38 map. They are prioritized by the many different categories into which they fit. That's
39 helpful to her. Something that is important in many categories might be something the
40 County puts more focus on. Cooper stated they took all the categories and ranked each
41 basin on how important and valuable they are.
42
43 Nelson stated what comes out of the process is a uniform and equitable process for
44 all parties, and is an evaluation process for the elected officials. The criteria will be agreed
45 upon in the community and help solve problems in various areas. The Council will still be
46 making a political decision, but based on better information.
47
48 Fleetwood asked an example of a changed circumstance for which the process must
49 be adapted. Cooper stated they must just be aware that values may change in the future.
50 When new projects come along, they must be able to have a defined system for including
51 them into the priorities. Be aware of those fatal flaws. There is a lot of enthusiasm from
52 the team as a way to solve day -to -day problems. Before the next workshops, they must all
53 develop the list of projects and categorize a long -term range of costs.
Surface Water Work Session, 9/18/2007, Page 6
Fleetwood asked where in the process do they address the question of who is
responsible for a project. He asked if that will be addressed in one of a the project phases.
At some point, they have to discuss who will be responsible for a project. Middleton stated
they started that discussion on core functions of the County government. There is very little
the County is legally required to do. The County has taken on a lot of public expectations
over time. During phase two, they will get into defining actual responsibility for funding
projects.
Cooper stated that will factor into the sub - districts that are developed. The flood
sub -zones are still under the County umbrella. A diking district can operate independently.
Andrea Hood, Whatcom Conservation District, stated they are doing a good thing to
add objectivity to ranking projects. However, things can be done now while this project is
going on, including funding the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District, farm plans, and
work on septic systems. The Conservation District submitted the interlocal agreement nine
months ago, and they still don't have a contract. If they don't have that money to count as
a match, they can't leverage funds. The Conservation District hasn't been awarded some
funding because of lack of commitment from the County. An interlocal agreement will show
commitment. She asked what they need to do to get that contract going. The Council
approved the contract, but it hasn't been signed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
L L=��
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
`0+iM11f►' FVaQproved these minutes on October 23 2007.
�NT Y `��.
'•'•C0" wo'. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Al` E?� C� C'G�,�:% WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
0
'r
Da�►� ro ��t� u ctpderk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 9/18/2007, Page 7