Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session April 18 2006Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session April 18, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION ( AB2006 -025) 1. RIVER AND FLOOD Flood Control Maintenance Proaram and Proiect Priorities Paula Cooper, Flood Division Manager, stated prioritization of the flood control maintenance program is done annually. For each detailed task, she estimated a percentage of a fulltime equivalent (FTE) employee required to keep the project moving. FTE's for all tasks totaled 16, which is frightening. This year, ongoing programs total three FTE's. Pages 16 and 17 of the packet is her estimate of a reasonable work plan for the next six months, given the available FTE's. It totals about 4.2 FTE. Now, there are seven FTE's on staff. They are losing an engineer in June. On page 18 are the projects they would pick up the following six months. They haven't been able to give time to the hydraulic model and create a project list. After six months, they will dedicate an effort to the modeling work to get it done. Nelson asked how much could be done with consultants, if they have to. Cooper stated much is already being done by consultants. Nelson asked if staff is taking that work and putting together a strategy. Cooper stated staff is coordinating with the consultant to understand the systems. Page 19 has a list of projects that are parked for later. Staff will review that list in six months to see if it need adjustments. Brenner asked if they assume South Fork sites one and three will be done in the next six months. Cooper stated staff will give their best effort to do that. Brenner referenced the Marietta voluntary flood plain property acquisition. The County is going around the issue, which she doesn't like. Voluntary property acquisition happens when the County is contacted by residents. It won't take any FTE, because that Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 1 happens rarely. Cooper stated the FTE percentages are not exact science. An FTE of .1 is the smallest increment she could use for her estimate. Brenner stated title it as "Marietta," which would include all the Marietta work, not just the buy out. The residents are putting together a steering committee. Nelson stated a major issue in Marietta is whether the residents will form a flood subzone or diking district. That is the only labor intensive activity with Marietta. Cooper stated one project in Marietta was to develop a capital project. The Committee felt it would be an appropriate project for the time being. Brenner stated she's been out there several times. There are quite a few residents working on it. One person is a professor. She's impressed with the diversity of people working with the residents. Cooper stated staff met with them recently. They do understand the challenges of coming up with long -term solutions out there. She's working on a supplemental budget request for the Council in May. Nelson stated he's had meetings with residents in Acme. The residents, still have concerns about site one. He asked the plan for that area. Cooper stated staff has done a preliminary cost estimate for putting the rip rap back in place. At this point, she has handed the project over to the Water Resources Division. They are working through permit and conservation easement issues. It will be done this year or next year. Chris Hatch, Acme /Van Zandt Flood Sub -Zone Committee member, stated he's not comforted by that statement. This is a repair project. He talked to Dr. Roll earlier in the week about permitting. Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated staff is working on permitting right now. They have to work through a number of issues. They must work with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers. There are issues with existing easements that will influence how the project is designed. Those aren't simple things. Staff must discuss mitigation with each agency. Until they get a green light from the permitting agencies, he can't say when it will be done. Staff is devoted to the issue. Hatch stated that recently, a private landowner did a repair project near the end of Strand Road. The County could use that as a good template to establish what the permit requirements will be for mitigation. Roll stated that site could serve as a model, but there are easements on that property that places boundaries on how work is done in terms of conservation and salmon recovery issues. The easement is held by the Whatcom Land Trust. Hatch asked how different, if any, that easement is from the conservation easement placed on the East Acme property that site three would potentially effect. Roll stated there isn't much difference. Hatch stated both are County- owned. The Whatcom Land Trust holds a conservation easement on both properties. He asked how different is the Olsen property easement from the East Acme property. They are teeing up a project for site three that affects East Acme. He asked why there would be a problem in one instance if there isn't a problem in the other instance, if the areas are that similar. Roll stated he's not implying there are problems. He's working through both problems to address easement issues. He can't comment on the subtle differences between the two easements. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 2 Caskey - Schreiber stated there are more difficult issues when the County is involved than when an individual is involved. Brenner stated it shouldn't be more difficult because the County has an agreement with the Land Trust. Sites one and three should be dealt with at the same time. Roll stated he can't comment on that. They are two very distinct projects. Brenner stated she's talking about the easements. Roll stated staff is working through that now. Nelson stated staff mentioned there is a road access to both sites that can be used. He asked if the County loses road access if site one doesn't go the same time as site three. Roll stated staff is concerned about that issue. There is also an issue of crossing Hutchison Creek at site one. Brenner asked if it would be advantageous for the County to put the projects together, or not do the projects at all. There is more concern from certain parties to get one project done more than the other project. If they want a level playing field, the projects should go together. Roll stated the first project included a request to the Board of Supervisors for 100 percent flood funding for site three. That enabled the County staff to start based on the Boards direction. Regarding the repair and maintenance program, staff will have to come to the Council for doing site one and other projects. He can only do what resources allow. There are no contractual arrangements for the work. There are subtleties and differences. Brenner stated she's talking about getting through the easement approval process. Roll stated staff is working through that now. They are dealing with issues ahead of time. When they get someone on board for design, it will move quickly. Hatch stated he encourages the Council to support the concept that staff moves aggressively on the site one issues, especially given that the community has worked on this issue. The recommendations from the Flood Sub -Zone Advisory Committee and Countywide Flood District Advisory Committee are that sites one and three and the Lummi project go forward together. Nelson asked if the Flood Sub -Zone Advisory Committee's concern is that the County goes ahead with site three, and that if site one is set aside, then the community's needs aren't met in terms of the operations and maintenance that the sub -zone has undergone. Hatch stated that's correct. Nelson asked if the Flood Sub -Zone Advisory Committee is asking the Council to ask the administration to prioritize these together to alleviate those fears. Hatch stated that is the recommendation of the Flood Sub -Zone Advisory Committee and the Countywide Flood District Advisory Committee. Nelson asked if they would still have to go through the process to get a funding request to the Council. Roll stated the Council will see the supplemental on the May 23rd. Cooper stated she used all the budget authority she had on the Bertrand Creek project. Surface Water Work Session, 4/16/2006, Page 3 Hatch asked if it would be reasonable for the district to expect that the supplemental include a project for site one. Roll stated it will. All of those projects are on the list and will need budget authority. Hatch asked if staff will have answers to their questions by then. Roll stated he hope to have permitting worked out then. Nelson asked if site three will be done this summer. Cooper stated that's what they hope for. Nelson stated it would be nice to know the funding estimate for site one. Roll stated the estimate is about $150,000. Hatch stated that is the estimate, but if they access site one site from the west, they will save about $75,000, which is half the anticipated budget. That is relevant to the district, which has a cost - share. That connectivity is prudent. Finish with the work in that locale. Roll stated that is correct. There are advantages to doing the sites together. They can move forward concurrently if they get permits and funding. Art Anderson, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee member, referenced item 15, the Bertrand Creek Levee Setback project. The total amount is about $1.4 million. Partners will be involved with that project. When they alluded to Bertrand Creek destroying the budget, it's more fair to talk about the partners. Cooper stated staff intends to do supplemental budgets as the work plan congeals. The memo summarized the partnership and funding sources. Roll stated there will also be modifications to move money from the Bertrand Water Improvement District (WID) to support this agreement. That will all come forward when the projects come forward. Nelson stated he appreciates the cooperation and advocacy of the sub -zones and all committees. Anderson stated he invites councilmembers to the Deming Diking District to see an actual clay bank slide in motion. It's at the end of the Marietta Road. One of the structures on the bank is now in the debris pile. It continuously erodes away. Brenner stated she recently read that testing on sediment showed there wasn't that much sediment going into the river. Cooper stated that study was based on the data at the time, which wasn't a full channel survey. It looked at how much sediment stops in the system. Most sediment moves through. The tribes are interested in a collaborative project. 2. LAKE MANAGEMETN DISTRICT #f. (LAKE SAMISH) Assessment Role PreQaration (Lake Samish Watershed) Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, discussed the history of the district. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 4 Brenner asked if the district included residential development, or was just about water rights. Roll stated it was about water rights. The State Department of Ecology agreed to issue water rights to people if there was an augmentation program to allow water to move downstream. Brenner stated that was separate from the fact that people who have a residence don't have to have a water right. Roll stated that if residents withdraw surface water, they have to have a water right. Wells are exempt, however they behave like water rights in some instances. They are not required to apply for a permit. Roll continued to discuss the history of the district. The County has been spending about $5,000 to $8,000 annually to augment stream flows, which comes out of the Lake Management District fund. Now, there is only enough money left in the fund from the original assessment to last through this year. Also, a diversion construction will need to be replaced at some time in the future. Today, think about how to deal with this issue in the long -term. District formation happened so long ago that they had to re -think the appropriate assessment boundaries. He indicated the location on a map. He suggests that they expand the boundaries to mimic the watershed with an assessment similar to the one done in 1992, which will be far less. Brenner asked why the boundary was where it was before, instead of around the entire watershed. Roll stated he could only find information that it addressed a system that was available. At that time, it was easier. He doesn't know the details. Herb Barker, Lake Management District Board member, stated the area was assessed that way because it was a water rights issue. Very few people actually had certificated water rights. Those being affected by the water rights issue paid the assessment. Roll stated that at the time, people looked at water rights and groundwater as separate issues. Today, they know groundwater impacts surface water. One reason for expanding the area is to deal with anyone who withdraws and who has a potential impact on the resource. There is a quantity of use based on what is in each parcel. Caskey- Schreiber asked if any parcels are served by sewer and water from the City of Bellingham. Roll stated there are not any. Brenner stated the Skagit Public Utility District (PUD) offered to serve the area with water, but not sewer. Terry Klimpel, Lake Management District Manager, stated there were three attempts to create a water system around the lake. The district was formed to provide water and sewer. As soon as sewer went in, the lake cleared up. In the mid- 1990's, the district was petitioned for a water system. The petition was defeated. The district board felt there was interest for a water system, so it attempted a resolution, which was defeated. In the interim, the board met with the Skagit PUD, which recently said it cannot guarantee water for this system because of the instream flow settings for the Skagit River. Brenner stated it was offered at one time by the Skagit PUD, and the district residents turned it down. Klimpel stated that's correct. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 5 Roll stated an advisory group to the County Council and County staff both agreed there is a need to revisit the assessment because the district is running out of money. They support expanding the district boundaries. Also, the assessment would be structured similar to what was done in the early 1990's, which was a fairly small annual assessment. One estimate is about 446 parcels, for $17 per year. Also, have an assessment on lake frontage for $.21 per linear foot of lake frontage. The total revenue would be $15,000 per yea r. not. Caskey - Schreiber asked if residents pay anything now per year. Roll stated they do Crawford asked if residents are paying for their water now. Roll stated they are not. Crawford asked if the district is in favor of this. Barker stated it is a different group of people. Nelson stated some of the people are already paying for water. Roll stated they are just paying for sewer. Nelson asked the legal authority of the Lake Management District. Roll stated the authority is broad. One issue is how to set up an area that would deal with stormwater. The proposal is to move from a lake management district to a flood sub -zone district. The assessment would be the same, but the duties would change. People within the boundary could remain un- assessed, depending on their benefit. The proposal creates a framework if the community desires to add another authority to the district in the future. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Nelson asked about fish habitat and water resource protection. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated the purpose of a flood control zone district is broad. Many things can be done on the topic of water quantity. The purpose of the district can't be land use, or any non -water quantity activities. The purpose of the flood sub -zone is the same. It has to start with the notion of water quantity. A flood district can't do a comprehensive water management study that includes land use, but it can do a focused stormwater management plan. When activity begins to be about water supply, those activities move away from the district's purpose. A flood district can get into a lot of activities, as long as the side issues don't become dominant. Brenner asked if they should set up a stormwater management district. Monsen stated a flood sub -zone can perform those activities they've talked about. Brenner stated lake front property may have more direct effect on the lake than wells. Monsen stated they are talking about the management of the lake level, which is the purpose of a flood district. A benefit of a flood district is management of water rights. The district isn't managing the water right, just creates a condition in which a right can happen. Caskey - Schreiber stated wells can affect the quantity of the lake. It makes sense for the district boundary to encompass the entire watershed. The levy rate is very reasonable and modest. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 6 1 Monsen stated this begins the discussion of defining what the assessments must 2 accomplish. Those accomplishments will dictate what kind of assessment is levied and how 3 the assessment changes from property to property. 4 5 Roll stated people are looking at the collective influence of both well withdrawals and 6 surface water withdrawals. 7 8 Weimer asked how many of the 400 or so parcels are hooked into the sewer. Barker 9 stated there aren't any. 10 11 Klimpel stated that just a few systems on the upper slopes are hooked into the 12 sewer. 13 14 Brenner stated they would include the entire watershed, but most parcels that will be 15 assessed are right around the lake. Roll stated that is correct. 16 17 Monsen stated they recommend that the district be a sub -zone, then begin to create 18 an assessment calculation directly related to management of lake level, stormwater 19 management, and other items. Add up the different activities and services provided to 20 determine the total assessment. 21 22 Brenner stated they are talking about quantity and flooding. She asked about 23 quality. Roll stated that's next. 24 25 There is a two -step process. This is just an update. The first step will be an 26 ordinance coming forward to establish the sub -zone. Then the second step is a second 27 ordinance to do the assessment. 28 29 Crawford stated he's not opposed to the proposal. It's a good idea. 30 31 Nelson asked if the community has talked about this. Barker stated it has. 32 33 Klimpel stated it hasn't been published to the community. 34 35 Caskey- Schreiber stated she senses the community will support it, given the 36 alternatives. 37 38 Crawford stated people will support it if they know what they are getting and if they 39 know the cost. 40 41 Brenner stated it will increase the boundary, but the revenue will be the same. Roll 42 stated that is correct. He cautions against thinking larger at this point. There may be other 43 things to think about, such as stormwater, which affect the entire watershed. 44 45 Samish Water and Sewer District Stormwater Request 46 47 Roll stated there was a planning effort in water resource inventory areas (WRIA's) 3 48 and 4, as there was in WRIA 1. WRIA's 3 and 4 were the Samish watershed. There were 49 issues similar to WRIA 1, such as instream flows and quantity. That process fell apart and 50 couldn't conclude in a recommended plan. As a result, everyone decided to let the State 51 Department of Ecology (DOE) do its rulemaking for instream flows. The instream flow 52 activities have been hung up by lawsuits in the Skagit River where rulemaking has been Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 7 1 completed. Rulemaking is not moving forward in the Samish watershed because they want 2 to complete the issues regarding the Skagit River main stem. 3 4 A lot of work was done in the Lake Samish watershed to characterize what is there. 5 Now, they are at a point of deciding where to go next with the Lake Samish watershed. 6 7 Klimpel stated his Board authorized him to appear at this meeting. He handed out 8 background information on where they are (on file). 9 10 The District has been the focal point of the lake residents since its inception. He 11 discussed the history of the District. The questions come to the District. The District has 12 done its best to direct people in the right direction. The Board is concerned about water 13 quality of the lake. The Board formed an advisory committee of citizens to recommend 14 options for the District. The District's authority allows creating a utility for stormwater 15 management. This has been done before in a district in Eastern Washington. 16 17 The District put out a request for proposals (RFP) and selected an engineer to 18 perform the stormwater management plan. They put together a project scope of work and 19 applied for a grant. They haven't been placed in the funding list yet. They have also gone 20 through the local rating procedure. Skagit County recommended them as second for 21 funding for WRIA 3. The District is involved in the steering committee for the WRIA 3 22 planning process. The biggest concern is lake water quality. They put together a scope of 23 work to address the concerns. They are in the process now of finding money to move 24 forward with the project. They have the scope and engineer already. The District already 25 spent money on an agreement with Western Washington University (WWU) to do the 26 monitoring plan to develop a baseline. The biggest concern so far is runoff. That's where 27 the nutrients come from that add to the alga blooms in the lake. 28 29 Nelson stated the cost for this two -year project is $125,000. They have already put 30 some money into that process. He asked the actual amount needed. Klimpel stated the 31 amount needed is $93,750. The first application for funding was for more money than that 32 for a bigger project. 33 34 Crawford asked about the funding cutoff point. Klimpel stated other agencies rate 35 the projects with a point system. Other projects had more points, and it depended on the 36 available funding. 37 38 Crawford asked what staff recommends. Roll stated he doesn't have a 39 recommendation. He can talk about what's needed in the community. It's important to be 40 clear about the activities they intend to do. The community needs to understand and 41 support those activities. There is a need to gather input from the community to validate 42 what they want. He hasn't had any formal discussion on a recommendation with the 43 Executive yet. 44 45 Crawford asked what fund it would come from. Monsen stated that if the purpose of 46 the planning is to put together an assessment structure for a new flood zone, than the 47 Countywide Flood District can pay for it. However, this proposal goes beyond that scope. 48 Flood fund funding depends on how much beyond the sub -zone authority that the proposal 49 goes. 50 51 Brenner stated the County can agree to pay for a portion, and the district would pay 52 a portion. She's interested in exploring that option, especially if the watershed is set up as Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 8 a flood sub -zone. It's not going to get cheaper to do this. At some point, there will be a lot of costs involved in water quality. Monsen stated a lot of the work should occur as part of creating an assessment structure, which could be created in a number of different ways. Nelson stated collaborate with the district on this process. The County may ask the district to do work in the community to expand the scope and ideas. Nelson asked if this project has applied for the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team (WA -CERT) process ranking. Roll stated they have not. The watershed is in a different County. Crawford stated the background has been done nicely. He would like the County staff to have a discussion on how to break it down into programs that are available and programs that are not available for flood funds. Fleetwood asked for the hopeful deadline from the County. Klimpel stated there isn't a deadline. Fleetwood asked if the staff anticipates having a recommendation for the Council. Roll stated staff will have a recommendation next month. Keep in mind that there is a process to deal with the core work through the sub -zone. Until that is done, they can't do the scope. Monsen stated the recommendation staff is forming is to create a sub -zone. The only doubt on the table is the scope of work. They know the scope will be at least lake - level. Caskey - Schreiber stated she prefers to create an assessment system first, with the idea of this proposal being the scope of work. Decide how much they are willing to pay before committing County dollars. This is the first of a series of requests the Council will get, which will include requests for Lake Whatcom and the Nooksack River. Weimer stated he is in favor of the proposal generally. The citizens want to work on these water issues, so keep them moving forward. A sub -zone can't deal with many of the issues they want to deal with. Consider a sub -zone, with another management district on top of it. It seems like they keep reinventing the same plans over and over. They know algae is the problem in Lake Samish. He asked if they want to just deal with the fertilizer in the yards instead of spending $100,000 to get an answer they already know, that the problem is the fertilizer in the yards. Barker stated there is also a freeway issue. It's a big issue. Brenner stated she would like to know exactly how far the flood sub -one can go, and what other options there are to deal with water quality. She's not comfortable funding 100 percent of this. That will set a precedent when other areas come forward to request funding. The County can't afford that. Instead, set up a ratio that would be the same with everyone. Set up that ratio first. Weimer stated the district has already chipped in money. Monsen stated the amount of funding the County provides depends a great deal on the scale of the district. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 9 Caskey- Schreiber stated get local support for the projects. Nelson stated the Flood tax can be applied to the broadest scope of activities. Stormwater, for example, is just infrastructure and maintenance. Don't try to identify one particular tool. Identify the area, and use all the tools available. If they set up a system, it will help citizens in these locales deal with water resource issues. It will take more than one tool to do the job. Weimer stated he understands that the sub -zones are the broadest, but he keeps hearing that sub -zones have to deal with water quantity and that water quality issues may take a back seat. In some areas, the predominant issue may be quality, not quantity. Monsen stated the biggest issue may be a quality problem, but they can deal with the quality problem because it is directly associated with management of the quantity. There is a direct relationship between quantity and quality, which is why they can deal with the quality. It's much different than dealing with water quality in Lake Whatcom or stormwater coming out of a pipe. Barker stated funding may come from a combination of sources. They have $30,000 budgeted now. They will do lake monitoring because it is the right thing to do for the citizens. They don't have a mandate to do stormwater without creating a district, but they've done monitoring because pipes are in the lake and they need a baseline in case something happens. They would like to work better as a water quality and water quantity issue. They are trying to get money together to have an actual plan to work from. The area is like the other side of Whatcom County. It drains toward Skagit County. That's why the citizens are trying to do their own thing. Caskey- Schreiber stated Lake Samish is a good case study for similar issues in Lake Whatcom. It's good for the County to go through this with a smaller lake. (Clerk's Note: The council took a five- minute break at 11 :30 a.m.) OTHER BUSINESS Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, spoke regarding the Lummi Island dock. An issue has come up that has nothing to do with expenditures they've talked about so far regarding the Lummi Island ferry. The bolts that hold the hinge in place in the pier ramp are failing. The department will do an emergency repair. Now, there is a weight restriction until they figure out how stable it is. Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing an assessment of Swift Creek now. It is to be done by the end of June. What comes out of the assessment will influence whether the County can complete its work. 3. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Surface Project Development Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, submitted a draft scope of work (on file). He discussed the history. The plan addressed issues that needed to be addressed. From then to today, many activities in the plan have been completed. Many things happened in 2005. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 10 The list in the draft scope of work needs to be a part of the exercise to deal with all of the interests and efforts in a coordinated way. It's new for Whatcom County to approach this scope of work as it is. There is no shortage of groups that want to implement their particular plans. Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to implement all these plans. He hopes to have a process to guide community interface with the County and describe the services the County will provide. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Find the common themes and gaps in consistencies. Identify specific actions and projects. He read through phases I, II, and III in the draft scope of work. Consultants and the County Council will drive the first two phases. The third phase will involve the community to refine the criteria and projects. Brenner asked why they wouldn't set this up by watershed. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated political boundaries dominate the management scene. Since water resource inventory area (WRIA) and salmon recovery legislation, focus has switched to watershed boundaries. This translates watershed boundaries into political boundaries. Brenner asked if this scope assumes interlocal agreements with municipalities will be done. Roll stated they do that now, such as with the Bertrand work, cities, and water and sewer districts. As they create more defined areas, consider how to share the programs. Caskey- Schreiber asked if one consultant can complete phase I, and a different consultant could complete phase II. The consultant who developed the parks model would work well for phase II. Fleetwood stated Dr. Roll seems well - positioned, more than anyone else, to consider the commonalities among all the different programs, and define the themes. A consultant would spend a significant amount of time simply learning what Dr. Roll already knows. Roll stated he knows all the items have an influence. He has to defer to other staff about the details. There is a lack of resources to devote to this phase. When polled, everyone seems to agree that a consultant for phase I is a good idea. After phase I, the Council may need to tweak phase II. They don't want to get mired down in issues that could halt progress. Therefore, there will be a "parking lot" for certain issues to sit. Before something comes out of the parking lot, they have to be able to describe what needs to be done on that item. There may need to be some professional facilitation to bring packages together and to facilitate a hard policy discussion. Fleetwood asked the working relationship with the consultant. Roll stated there has to be a limited amount of discussion with staff for the first phase. Caskey - Schreiber asked if Dr. Roll doesn't want to take phase I on himself. Monsen stated there is value to bringing in short-term, high -level resources to get this done. Also, the County receives the benefit of a second party being more objective. Brenner stated this overwhelms her. She is in favor of a consultant presenting multiple choices, similar to the results provided by the Parks consultant. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 11 Nelson stated it is overwhelming. Therefore, the Council needs to understand this more comprehensive approach. This hasn't been done in any other county that he knows of. It's a novel approach. He's committed to trying to change the direction of problem solving in the County. Be flexible in how they approach problem solving for the entire County in terms of water. All this has to loop around again after they get done with phase III, for land use. If the Council gets through this process, it can evaluate and work with the public better when it comes to land use. He asked if phase III would tie in the relationship to land use. Roll stated that would begin from the start of the phases. During phase III, management areas will have their own prescriptions. Weimer stated he is in favor of the draft scope. It's important to get an outside person to put these things together. A similar process is happening in Birch Bay. An outside person would not get tied up in the politics of the system. His one concern is that, as they move forward through phase I, they will find common themes. Recognize those themes right away, and make sure the next budget includes those items. Roll stated phase II would include the easy items to implement. They will jump around into different areas that are in different levels of development. Monsen stated this is something Whatcom County should be proud of. There are many highly sophisticated communities, but no one has done this before. Fleetwood asked about the timeline. Roll stated the first phase can be done in three to four months, once the consultant is on board. However, he doesn't have money or a contract. Phase II will take six to twelve months. There is no estimate for phase III, which depends on how well they do in phase I and how they handle the items in the "parking lot." Fleetwood asked if this is a comprehensive implementation plan. They aren't making policy. They are implementing policy. A comprehensive implementation plan is essentially complete after phase I and II. Phase III is the process to continuously monitor that implementation policy. Monsen stated phase II is where they develop a financing plan and, therefore, the pace of implementation. John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated he applauds the idea. It makes sense. Each item has been considered in some depth already, but they all come together. It's nice to see they are all connected. It may sound overwhelming, but take it by the elements. Much of the work has been started already or is accomplished. Having an outside consultant is logical. This is a good way to get their arms around a timeline and know how much it will cost. Weimer stated this is what the people, who have been putting together all these plans over the years, have been waiting for. For years, this is what people have been asking for. Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with the scope of work. She is eager to see the consultant's and public's recommendations for implementation. It will help the Council make decisions in the long run. She commended Councilmembers Weimer, Nelson, and Fleetwood for taking time to work on this scope of work. Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 12 Brenner asked if the City has figured out funding for the comprehensive water resources. Watts stated he hasn't read it yet. The City's situation is different. It is a purveyor of water, operates sewage treatment, and has a stormwater utility. Their methods are funded by a funding mechanism and enterprise funds. Nelson stated one question is timing. Dr. Roll is optimistic about the timing of phase II. He thinks it will be the most difficult phase, and it will take longer than six to twelve months. Once they get through it, phase III will be a natural continuation. Within one year or so, they will get something done and start working on this. This scope provides the process and involves the public. Weimer stated that in reality, this makes good sense. He would like to staff's opinion on the scope. There was concern about the political boundaries versus the watershed boundaries. This doesn't move away from watershed -based management. It gets people involved. Caskey - Schreiber stated the Council will hear from staff in the future about a proposal for a request for proposals (RFP). ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Trans&iption TOGO W ± an?roved these minutes on May 23 2006. C Qu, AT T�HAC �����i WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Q. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON r- S Daha B I, eunc�C erk aurie Caskey -Sc reiber, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 4/18/2006, Page 13